Russia was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 13, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 1, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed July 16, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 24, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 7, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 22, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 18, 2010 Good article reassessment Kept September 29, 2010 Peer review Reviewed October 10, 2010 Good article reassessment Delisted January 30, 2022 Good article nominee Listed April 30, 2022 Good article reassessment Kept February 7, 2023 Good article reassessment Delisted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 12, 2004, June 12, 2005, and June 12, 2006.
Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Russia: Human geography Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the human geography of Russia task force. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Europe Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Asia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Remove "under an authoritarian dictatorship" from the table. Russia is not a dictatorship and has a semi-presidential system. Higger1 (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The claims in the article about being a dictatorship are backed up with sources. A change like this needs both reliable sources and consensus. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see in the sources where it supports stating as fact that Russia is a dictatorship. Could someone provide quotes? What I saw in the sources might support something like "has been described as an authoritarian dictatorship in practice". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This source [1] says "considered authoritarian" and "formally democratic". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 sources in the article ..plus Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Moxy🍁 21:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a serious issue. Wikipedia is chosing to provide false data with objectives that seen different than just being an information source.

While you can define Russia as "under an authoritarian government", stating that is a "under an autoritharian dictatorship" is simply contrafactual. And it would be an important nuance between both statements.

A Dictatorship has institutions and laws securing the dictatorial government in place and providing legitimacy for the dictatorship. This does not happens in Russia because there´s no such dictatorship. The fact that de government employs some authoritarian measures does not turn it into a dictorship.

None of the sources quoted can "back up" the said statement. They are all societal studies with rather subjective about vague concepts such as "freedom" and none of them provide a single legal description on how Russia would objetively be a dictatorship. 2800:810:471:234B:C8A8:7E8B:5192:AC59 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A Dictatorship has institutions and laws securing the dictatorial government in place and providing legitimacy for the dictatorship."

Says who? You? What's your source for this definition of a dictatorship? Britannica: "Dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations." That's Russia alright. 219.90.189.144 (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is mistaken in some of the concepts about Russia: "Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian dictatorship" Russia is a democracy, and it is misleading the general population knowledge about its system... 2603:8001:E700:3B39:2CF2:B234:801F:18EC (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and Santa Clause lives there all cozy with Put ... :) Vsmith (talk) 12:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just call it Federal semi-presidential republic.

  Calling it a dictatorship is a western propaganda. Undashing (talk) 02:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  read me. Moxy🍁 16:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, try running for president and speaking against the war or against Putin, you will experience the non-dictatorship firsthand and then you can cite that as a source in your argument here. Until then, it's a dictatorship. 219.90.189.144 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't use your anecdotal hypothetical as a source. Russia is a democracy and anyone can run for President if they fulfill the requirements, just because the President is popular and easily wins every election and has stayed in power for a long time doesn't mean it's a dictatorship (Before Angela Merkel resigned as Chancellor of Germany she had been in power longer than Putin). Third party western friendly opinion polls even show that Putin is very popular. Any argument you use to argue for it being labeled a "dictatorship" can be used for a western country as well. Grifspdax (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There are tons of cases about people going to jail for speaking up against the war. It is literally a dictatorship where Putin does whatever he wants. Last elections were fabricated, putin is not loved in Russia and he scores 90%+ on every election. Sure, there are western countries with dictatorship, but I doubt that this is USA or Britain or France... 178.223.30.222 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chipmunkdavis Since you reverted the removal of this under WP:NOTFORUM, are you still finding this discussion productive? Because all I see is "Russia is a dictatorship" and "no it is not", no policies are being cited, nor even anything from the WP:MOS. TylerBurden (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alas, WP:NOTFORUM is not judged on potential productivity. CMD (talk) 15:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it is judged on improving the article based on reliable sources and guidelines, not general discussion. Are you saying what is taking place here is not general discussion? TylerBurden (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to IMF October stats, Russia is the fourth-largest economy by PPP, not the sixth - that needs to updated in the lead and the infobox. The latter also needs update in the GDP (PPP) per capita rankings. Russia is 43th, not 60th. 45.118.63.51 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done by another editor. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The population estimate includes both with Crimea and without Crimea. It makes no sense to have this here. Either all of the Russian claimed and occupied territory should be included or none of it. Yes, it was included in the 2021 census. But one, the 2024 estimate isn't the census data, it's just an estimate. Two, the census data was considered unreliable by the Levada centre. https://rtvi.com/news/po-itogam-perepisi-v-moskve-stalo-na-million-menshe-russkih-socziologi-i-demografy-govoryat-chto-etim-dannym-nelzya-doveryat/ 219.90.189.144 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even more, why Crimea is even mentioned like it belongs to Russia? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This ambiguity needs to be corrected by someone who has extended godlike editing permissions for this page: The sentence: "Russia is a highly urbanised country including 16 population centres with over a million inhabitants." ...needs to have the word "each" inserted between "centres" and "with". Thanks! 00:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)~ philiptdotcom (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is actually ambiguous unless one is trying very hard to misread it. However, the sentence is poorly written regardless, so I rewrote it. Remsense ‥ 论 01:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since this should be a high-level overview of the country, I am not convinced that resolutions passed by parliaments of countries allied to Ukraine declaring Russia to be a state sponsor of terrorism is notable enough for inclusion here. Ideally, the invasion section should only briefly mention the key points about the war. Is this really one of the most important details about the war? The invasion was widely condemned, that much is clear, but also mentioning such resolutions that serve mainly symbolic purposes seems undue IMO. I also see no good reason to single out the Baltic states.

A notable exception would be something like the U.S. State Sponsors of Terrorism list, which although is a geopolitical tool, would impose maximum sanctions and so be far more notable than these resolutions. That is why it is no surprise that only a handful of countries have been included in that list. Does anyone even refer to these parliamentary resolutions when giving an overview of the conflict? As a result, I would suggest to remove this completely. If Russia was included in the U.S. designation, then I think this would be notable enough to mention. Mellk (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The good reason to "single out" Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia is that they have actually declared Russia a terrorist state. Not a sponsor of terrorism. A country being declared a terrorist state by multiple other independent countries is pretty unprecedented. And if the US adds Russia to its list then we'll add it here too, until then I'm not sure why we're talking about hypotheticals. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia may not have the geopolitical pull of the US, but apparently enough for it to be noted by WP:RS that this is the stance taken by them. TylerBurden (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Just because a news outlet reports something, does not mean it belongs here. These are all parliamentary statements/resolutions that were adopted. You also did not address the other points. Even the Reuters article says: "The move is largely symbolic, as the European Union does not have a legal framework in place to back it up". Mellk (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is being declared a terrorist state by three countries not enduring information? WP:NOTNEWS addresses trivial updates that do not have lasting value, Russia being declared a terrorist state is not trivial and will be relevant in the future as well. You're talking as if this is a normal thing that happens. If you want to add something about it being symbolic, then knock yourself out. TylerBurden (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just stated, these are parliamentary statements. These are not official designations or anything that have any consequences. These parliaments have also adopted plenty of resolutions about the war. If you believe that these parliamentary statements are one of the most important points about the war that they should be mentioned in the article about the country, we can remove the recent addition you made to address the problem with undue weight. Otherwise, we can remove the mention about the statements/resolutions so that the article can focus on more important details about the war. Mellk (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be specific, you're saying if the content is to stay we are to remove the fact that Russia has been accused of numerous war crimes in the invasion? TylerBurden (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I do not see any good reason to mention the parliaments of the Baltic states specifically adopting such resolutions/statements when the preceding sentence already says that a number of parliaments have already adopted such resolutions. There is no difference. Mellk (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To you there is no difference between being a sponsor of terrorism and a terrorist, you've made that clear, yet if they're the same thing then I wonder why the wording in these resolutions is not the same, but evidently there is no point going back and forth when there is such a fundamental disagreement on the basics, perhaps it's better to let other editors weigh in.

You gonna answer that question or? TylerBurden (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no difference because they are simply statements of condemnation with no consequences. As the Politico article says: "The Estonian parliament is only the third national one to condemn the Kremlin in such strong terms, following its two Baltic neighbors Lithuania and Latvia". Yet you take this as some kind of official designation. The problem here is that the condemnation of the invasion is already mentioned, hence the problem with undue weight.

I have also not changed my position. I did not say I think the content should stay there. I have just said that I do not think the mention of the Baltic states should be there in any case. Mellk (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think your response speaks for itself, like I said let someone else weigh in, because it seems at this point you're just trying to put words into my mouth. Russia acts like a terrorist state, gets declared a terrorist state by multiple countries, this is covered by WP:RS, this is added to the article. It's that simple, there is no "official designation" whatever that means in this scenario.

So it seems you want to avoid the question, I think it's pretty important both for this discussion and insight into your wider conduct on this site, you said "If you believe that these parliamentary statements are one of the most important points about the war that they should be mentioned in the article about the country, we can remove the recent addition you made to address the problem with undue weight". The only content I have recently added was in this diff, about the very much established and notable fact that Russia has been accused of committing numerous war crimes. Obviously I'm not sure about the sincerity in your "proposal", but sure seems to me like you're implying choosing between the two.

I have no idea how removing content that is clearly WP:DUE to keep content you strongly argue is not would be a sensible solution in any way shape or form. But I would love to see you try to make the same arguments about Russian war crimes in Ukraine, are you going to call those WP:UNDUE too? TylerBurden (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a waste of time because you cannot interpret the sources correctly. There are far more important developments in the war (that are not even mentioned) and the section needs to be a reasonable size, but you believe that parliamentary statements are among the most important details. Mellk (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not like you were adding any of those, just removing content that makes Russia look bad, not shocking. TylerBurden (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasons for removing this particular part. But, yes, your aspersions are not shocking. Tell me more about your concerns about conduct. Mellk (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather use this venue for the article, you still have not answered the question about your "recent addition" proposal, ignoring things don't make them go away. Should I take your silence as you backtracking then? TylerBurden (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was sarcasm. But as you have already said, let somebody else weigh in. I have no interest in discussing this further with you. Mellk (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mellk here; these declarations are entirely symbolic and have little real meaning; additionally, something being WP:DUE or enduring information is not determined by how important a user thinks something is, but how much weight it is given by reliable sources; and thus far evidence that these resolutions (and as Mellk said, just government statements, not events of the war itself) are due in the top-level article has not been given. Having around a third to a half of the text on the invasion about solely reactions to it and the following events is far too much, and the content in question here (from [2]) should definitely go unless other concise overviews of the invasion include the resolutions (which so far I have not seen). Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also going to suggest mentioning the ICC arrest warrants and Ukrainian incursion into the Kursk region instead, since I think these are very significant for obvious reasons. But I figured it would be a good idea to have a discussion about the content that currently exists before adding more. Mellk (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're not removing Russian war crimes, which no one other than you have made even the implication of doing, I would agree with this. TylerBurden (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is this sentence: "Russia, as one of the world's only three countries bordering three oceans...", but the hyperlink under "bordering three oceans" leads to a chart that states there are only two countries which definitely border three oceans (Russia and Canada) and up to four more that might border three depending on how you divide the oceans.

I propose removing "three". 100.2.216.242 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Canada, US and Russia all border 3 oceans" YBSOne (talk) 12:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or just "Russia borders three oceans." Why does it matter if Canada, US, or anyone else also border three oceans, it's irrelevant to this page. Also, the next sentence mentions Russia's many links to many seas, but doesn't actually list any seas at all. 100.2.216.242 (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So does Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But only based on their interpretation of Southers Ocean's limits. YBSOne (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked our article on the Southern Ocean. It seems weird to say that an ocean has a boundary in the middle of, well, the ocean. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is the second Military Spending in the world Before The USA Is 84billanDollars Ad.Shawn (talk) 17:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for this? - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ad.Shawn (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russia Military Spending is 84.Billion Ad.Shawn (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 17:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the situation between China and Taiwan where China claims Taiwan but does not control Taiwan, Russia controls Crimea. Therefore, Crimea is claimed by Ukraine, controlled by Russia. The Russian official map shows Crimea as part of Russia.

[3]https://mid.ru/en/maps/

204.197.177.6 (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China also claims all of Fujian; France claims Champagne. It is perfectly explicable what the article means with this verbiage; a concerted attempt to switch it in this manner would be utterly tendentious. Remsense ‥ 论 17:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claim means nothing. Any country can claim any part of the world at any time. It doesn't mean the said country has the means to take it and defend it.

204.197.177.6 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little silly: any country can claim something, but this only happens in very specific situations. China doesn't claim Champagne. Remsense ‥ 论 17:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpf claims Greenland. In the modern age, power comes from the barrel of gun, so to speak. 204.197.177.6 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we don't color Greenland as green on United States. Remsense ‥ 论 17:19, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is Crimea is claimed by Ukraine. It is not claimed by Russia considering Russia controls it. 204.197.177.6 (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is claimed by Russia, which is at odds with the view of the international community, such as it is. That is obviously why the distinction is being made, and it is clear from the prose what is meant here—especially given the detailed footnote. The other option would be using three shades of green for claimed but uncontrolled, controlled, and internationally recognized, which is disastrous for visualizing information. Remsense ‥ 论 17:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the correct wording should be occupied territories. For example, on the wikipedia Israel map, Golan is referred to as occupied territory despite Trumpf recognized it as Israeli territory in 2019.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

204.197.177.6 (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that would not be correct, because Russia does not presently occupy the entirety of the Donbas (or Kursk Oblast, for that matter). Remsense ‥ 论 17:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, in the case of Crimea, Russia controls the entire Crimea. So I think the correct term should be occupied territory, to be consistent with the wikipedia Israel map.

204.197.177.6 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be correct in this context, for all of the reasons I have already stated. Apologies. Remsense ‥ 论 17:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]