Talk:Russia

Authoritarian

A recent RfC for China overwhelmingly opposed the inclusion of "Authoritarian" in the infobox. The main argument was that "authoritatian" isn't a government system. I believe the same should apply to Russia (and other articles with similar infoboxes). Any thoughts? '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What are government types?

Quick find: "Totalitarianism is a form of government in which the state holds total control over society and seeks to regulate every aspect of public and private life (Gregor, 2012; Gregor, 2008; Siegel, 1998; Guilhot, 2005)." 10 Real-Life Totalitarianism Examples (2024) (helpfulprofessor.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:43, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

But the word is "authoritarian" not "totalitarian". My initial reaction is that "totalitarianism" is a government system whereas "authoritarian" is more of descriptive style of whatever the system is. Maybe that's too pedantic. Don't know. DeCausa (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no rule that we should be constrained by the template field name. The goal is to represent what reliable sources say the best we can. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No, we should follow the template documentation. DeCausa (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The doc is also not a solid stone and is a subject of an agreement and change. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

If the template doesn't conform to the common use of terms, then the template is wrong. GMG^talk 11:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an issue for the template talk page. Not here. DeCausa (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The template doc can or can't be a fit for all the pages. It's not a rule and and it's imperfection should not hinder us from improving this page - WP:NOTBURO. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the template. I've never seen anyone else say there is a problem. Sounds like an artificial way of shoe-horning a particular point of view. DeCausa (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I...honestly don't really care, other than to say that the template documentation is a technical guide, and not a rationale for deciding a content dispute. GMG^talk 15:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Just to add to my earlier comment. I took a look at the China RfC. Pincrete while supporting the China change distinguished it from the Russia infobox as follows: Russia actually has "under an authoritarian dictatorship", not simply the adjective 'authoritarian'. Dictatorship is a system of government, not simply a disapproving adjective like 'authoritarian'. That seems a valid point. DeCausa (talk) 08:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The infobox currently calls Russia an "authoritarian dictatorship", but that specific wording is only backed by the first source. The others call Russia authoritarian, but don't use that specific term. Unless more rouses back "authoritarian dictatorship", I'd say we should just go with "authoritarian government". Cortador (talk) 13:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

In Russia, political opposition and dissent is heavily suppressed, and power is heavily concentrated in the executive branch, so "authoritarian dictatorship" is correct. If Russia operated under a more collective leadership system like Vietnam, then "authoritarian government" would be more appropriate.

China and Vietnam do not use either label because their de jure political systems do not have presidential/PM elections, but there is an argument to apply the former label for China because it had previously been under collective leadership, but is now essentially one-man rule. 2603:8001:8F40:5C:FC9F:6846:B32E:BBCC (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Democracy Index by the Economist Intelligence Unit, 2022. Green countries are democratic, yellow are hybrid regimes, and red are authoritarian governments.

As seen over at RfC for China it was filled with people that lack basic knowledge of the sources. Even claming there were no sources at all dispite it being the example used in most publications. Somtimes RFCs lead us down a road that is less informative for our readers espesiacly when they are closed fast and by someone that was involved in the debate. The debate that is taking place for Russia is "Authoritarianism to totalitarianism?" .Moxy🍁 10:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge or opinion about the use of 'authoritarian' iro Russia. but just point out that 'authoritarian' and 'dictatorship' are nearly tautologous (benign dictatorship being largely theoretical and democratic dictatorship being a contradiction in terms). Dictatorship is a form of govt, but authoritarian is an adjective describing a character rather than a form, that can be applied to most forms of govt, including the nominally democratic, monarchist etc. Last night I happened to watch a PBS documentary in which Woodrow Wilson's administration was described as 'authoritarian' towards the end of WWI.Pincrete (talk) 10:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

But what we should be doing is regurgitating the sources...... and with those sources leading our readers to more informative academic opinion. If there's are sources out there that say this is a rainbow democracy we should also use those....... however this is simply not the case. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Moxy🍁 22:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with CanonNi, at RfC for China, the overwhelming majority opposed the inclusion of these words in the information field. As mentioned by Remsense, it is a higher-level characterization of the political culture, it could be detailed in the article's body, but it's not data for the infobox. As Cortador wrote, that specific wording is only backed by the first source, unless there is broad scientific agreement from multiple sources, we should not use this. Overall, this is far too simplistic to put in an infobox, it violates WP:NPOV, such characteristics could be further in the text, but do not belong in the infobox. I will also tag some people from the discussion that has already taken place-Simonm223, Ships&Space, Jetsettokaiba, Alexanderkowal, HenryMP02. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Some basic reading for you Moxy🍁 11:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't see that specific wording there even once, anyway, we're talking about the infobox.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Officially, Russia is a republic, similarish to the United States. It's only in practice that it's an authoritarian dictatorship. While WP:NPOV does mean that there needs to be a mention of multiple sides (without falling afoul of WP:UNDUE), it also means refraining from making potentially slanderous claims without a significant body of evidence to justify its inclusion. Not only is "authoritarian" not only an imprecise label, it's also a negative one; it doesn't belong in the infobox, and the text should use more precise terms/expand significantly on the concept. "Dictatorship" is a similarly loaded term. I'd suggest labeling it as a "semi-presidential republic" and add a note explaining the de facto situation. Ships & Space_(Edits) 15:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly the Russian position.... "We are not an authoritarian regime....we are a democracy with an elected president" Echols, William (2023-03-22). "Russia's False Arguments Against Being Called Authoritarian". Voice of America.Moxy🍁 18:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It seems the concept of WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, which is an established guideline, has gone out of the window here for some editors, in the "government and politics" section the article reads: "Under the administrations of Vladimir Putin, Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, and has become an authoritarian state under a dictatorship, with Putin's policies being referred to as Putinism."

The infobox thus effectively sums up this part of the article as it should. TylerBurden (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

High income economy

There needs to be a mention in the third para of the lead about Russia being classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank. Since it is also mentioned in the economy section. 45.118.63.52 (talk) 10:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk: Hello. Can you do the change? 45.118.63.56 (talk) 08:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Mellk (talk) 08:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk: Thank you. But shouldn't the sentence about the economy come first in the last para? It was recently transferred to the last bit of the para without any discussion. You can see FA class articles such as India or Germany for example. There are no country articles on Wikipedia, as far as I know, mention organization memberships on the first sentence of a para. 45.118.63.56 (talk) 09:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. But this was previously reverted so if someone else feels that this should be re-arranged, I will let them do that instead. Mellk (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Mellk: The revert was done without any discussion and altered the long-standing lead which has not been changed for over 4-5 years. Can you do the re-arrangement? Because nobody else will. And besides, it looks a little weird to mention the economy at the last sentence. 45.118.63.56 (talk) 09:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@JDiala: can you make this change? 45.118.63.49 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@45.118.63.49: The ordering for this isn't a huge deal from my perspective, so I'll respectfully decline. JDiala (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"Very low"

Tagging involved editors TylerBurden, Ybsone, Jirka.h23. The dispute at hand in the recent sequence of reverts is the sentence "Russia ranks very low in measurements of democracy, human rights and freedom of the press". I object to the inclusion of the word "very".

The adverb "very" is not used by any cited source in reference to Russia's ranking. It is used in reference to the situation, (where sources describe the human rights situation as "very serious"), as pointed out by Ybsone, but not in reference to the ranking. I asked for a source using this terminology in reference to the ranking but it was not provided by those reverting.

The main article says "Freedom House gave Russia a global freedom score of 20 out of 100, Reporters Without Borders’ Press Freedom Index ranked Russia 150 of 180 countries, and the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index gave Russia a score of 3.31 and a rank of 124 of 167 countries." These numbers suggest Russia is ranked lowly, but not "very" lowly. Normally, something at the ~20-25th percentile is considered "low" but not "very low." I would associate a "very low" ranking with those countries at the absolute bottom of the list, say the bottom 5 (including Syria and North Korea, say). Although this is a subjective judgement, as a rule we should be partial towards avoiding dramatic language unless clearly necessary, to keep the tone encyclopedic and neutral. JDiala (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Normally, something at the ~20-25th percentile " well they are not at 20-25, they rank at 17-20-26%. It is very low. Source mentioned the lowest bottom end of the scale "Russia, with its score dropping in five of the seven different indicators, remains at the lowest end of the range". Lets change it from 'very low' to 'lowest end of the scale' shall we, as per RS? Please stop soapboxing at every corner possible. But hey, I'm sure when they hit rock bottom You'll say they are in the top 100%... YBSOne (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea let's see what others think. Moxy🍁 21:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

"Very low" for democracy, human rights and freedom of the press is an accurate summary of the rankings IMO. The lead should summarize what is said in the body, we do not need to give specific ranking details there. Mellk (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Also for Democracy Index, it is currently at 2.24. It is fair to say that this is a "very low" score. Mellk (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The unification of Russian lands

"the Grand Duchy of Moscow led the unification of Russian lands", "becoming the leading force in the "gathering of the Russian lands"" - those are not in source. What the source provided says is the grand princes of Muscovy began gathering Russian lands to increase the population and wealth under their rule. And it's only part of the picture, as Kyivan lands were split. Modern sources should be used and this should be rewritten. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that more recent, academic sources are needed, but the provided source does indeed say what the article says; if you had read further in the source, you would see that it says "The most successful practitioner of this process was Ivan III (the Great; r. 1462-1505), who conquered Novgorod in 1478 and Tver' in 1485. Muscovy gained full sovereignty over the ethnically Russian lands in 1480 when Mongol overlordship ended officially, and by the beginning of the sixteenth century virtually all those lands were united." — which clearly supports both "the Grand Duchy of Moscow led the unification of Russian lands" and "becoming the leading force in the "gathering of the Russian lands". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 08:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Abbreviation РФ

Is there a good way to indicate in Footnote C (lead sentence), or maybe somewhere else, that the abbreviation for Russia in the Russian language is РФ? JDiala (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Great power status

On mentioning the "great power" status of Russia in the lead, currently we have in the article body that Russia established itself as a great power during the 18th century, and then later mentioning its historical status as a great power citing a source from 2008.

Upon a quick Google search I found several sources putting into question Russia's status as a "great power", particularly after its invasion of Ukraine.

Here they are: Janko Šćepanović, Phillips P. O’Brien and Taras Kuzio.

Therefore I have to disagree with this edit summary that Russia being a great power is not remotely contested, all these sources above are scholars.

I will not revert the edit maintaining in Wikipedia's voice that Russia is a great power, but it seems some kind of update is needed here. TylerBurden (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is an Atlanticist think tank a reliable source? Obviously a propaganda wing of a Russian adversary will claim Russia isn't really powerful. The Foreign Affairs piece is WP:FRINGE as it seems to deny the concept of a "great power" entirely. JDiala (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

But this isn't about adding fringe views about denying the concept of great powers, it's about questioning Russia's status a great power, specifically: "This stunning revelation of Russian weakness calls into question not just Moscow’s status as a great power but also the very concept of a great power." The former part of the reference is relevant for this article, the latter is not.

Taras Kuzio is a political science professor, not a propagandist, if you have some kind of references of your own to support those claims, please do provide them.

I notice you didn't even mention the first reference, so I take it you didn't find anything wrong with it?

Here's another source. TylerBurden (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, even professors can be dubious sources in certain contexts if they're engaged in brazen paid advocacy on behalf of regimes. You don't need sources to assess the reliability of a source; WP:RS applies only for content. Your other source, the one linked in your most recent comment, isn't that convincing because there's only one sentence where he clearly writes that Russia isn't a great power but that's just linking to the Foreign Affairs paper which we've already discussed; he also clearly attributes those views to the Foreign Affairs paper (it's not stated in his own voice). As for sources for my position, there are several cited in the second paragraph of the article on Great Powers.

Your first source by Šćepanović is, I must concede, a decent source. For that reason, I'll self-revert my recent edit. I think it's fair to say it's "generally" considered a great power; we should use weaker language like "generally." However, I would object to more extreme edits, like removing the great power claim entirely. JDiala (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

"propaganda wing" or "brazen paid advocacy" are Your personal opinions or proved facts? Because this is 'not a forum' You know? YBSOne (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

These are think-tanks. That's literally brazen paid advocacy, by definition of "think tank". JDiala (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

• There are many sources saying it is no longer a great power, but rather a Pariah state, e.g. [1]. But the actual issue is even bigger. There is nothing about contemporary Russia (the subject of this page) being great power in the body of the text, hence nothing should appear in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

A pariah state and a great power aren't mutually exclusive (obviously). Relatively recent sources also call Russia a great power (1, 2, 3), but even they didn't it wouldn't matter since article isn't only about contemporary Russia (there's an entire section on history). An alternative would be saying it has "historically been a great power" as done in the article body. JDiala (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The Hill is made up of opinion contributors, possiby not a RS, and the latter says plainly "Responsibility for the destruction of Syria falls squarely on Putin’s shoulders." YBSOne (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Which section of this page describes modern-day Russia as a "great power"? This page has bigger problems though. It dedicates a lot of space to several countries which are not modern-day Russia, including Imperial Russia, USSR, and laughably, even Kievan Rus. My very best wishes (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia about countries aren't restricted to the modern nation-states. They discuss ancient history too. The point is that the reader gets a rich understanding of the history, traditions and culture, not just modern politics. JDiala (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

This: "Russia is generally considered a great power and is a regional power." implies current Russia, not ancient Russia (there is no ancient Russia). The only source You provided says "great power, but..." YBSOne (talk) 08:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, a country that is the successor of a former superpower (the USSR, if you didn't know) is not a great power. It rather belongs to the lower strata of the middle powers, akin to Kenya and such.

Again, how could a country that owns half of the world's total nuclear weapons be a "great" power? And, its not as if "Russia" was considered to be among the European great powers for centuries before even the establishment of the Soviet Union (as Imperial Russia). Somehow its still a part of the UN Security Council. I think its a bit more laughable that Italy is still considered a "great" power. Its all about Eurocentrism really. Swoonfed (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Try and focus on what people are actually saying instead of contributing with useless snark. TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

My point still stands that Russia owns over half of the world's nukes. I saw an argument above that a "great" power cannot be a pariah state. The only part of the world where Russia is apparently considered a "pariah" state is the tiny sub-continent of Europe and some parts of North America. China and India (as well as most of Asia and Africa) somehow are leaning towards Russia's foreign policy, even its war with Ukraine. So, I guess that's the vast majority of the world. And the fact that Russia is a part of the UN Security Council by itself grants it "great" power status. But that can be ignored now, considering its not fitting to the agenda.

Another hilarious argument made above is that we should not include the historical versions of Russia in this article. That is amazing. So when we talk about the United Kingdom, we should only talk about the current state of the kingdom and exclude its history as a genocidal empire which spanned a quarter of the world's total land area and population?

But Eurocentrism is a reconcurring issue in this discussion. Not shocking considering almost all participants in this discussion are from the Western world. But you can, I guess, just use a source from some Western media that is probably comparing Russia to Liberia and get done with it. Swoonfed (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Right, so you're not here to actually discuss the article in good faith, you're here to whine about Westerners and viewpoints you don't personally agree with. See WP:NOTFORUM before you dig yourself into a hole. TylerBurden (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Russia as a great power: from 1815 to the present day Part II (Cambridge University Press) - 03 October 2022. An excerpt from this journal: "Russia was one of the great powers for much of the 18th, all of the 19th and almost all of the 20th centuries. Its victorious armies entered Berlin in the 18th century, Paris in the 19th century and Berlin again in the 20th century. Modelski (Reference Modelski1996: 336) has pointed to the role of war as a selection mechanism in international politics. This is illustrated by the Russian victories over Napoleon and Hitler and its resulting recognition as a great power. Russia is generally considered to have re-emerged as a great power in the 21st century, although this is controversial."

The current sentence in the article about Russia being a "great" power with a "generally" added to it can remain in the article, I think. Unless its removed because of personal opinions. Swoonfed (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024

Why its wrote in article that their history have started from Kyivan Rus' from adoption of christianity in 988, when they dont have Kyiv in their borders as of now? Why they have part of ukrainian history in history of maskovia? 89.209.129.71 (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Because Kievan Rus' held territory much farther beyond the borders of its capital, and included much of European Russia today. It was also the first prominent east slavic state of the territory of Russia and Ukraine, and to the Kieven Rus' people, there was no distinction between "Russian" or "Ukrainian", only the people who lived in Kieven Rus', (the various East Slavic tribes) and thus it is a part of the history of every country which Kievan Rus' held territory in (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus) even though Kyiv is not a part of Russia today. Just because Rome is not a part of France does not mean that France under Roman rule is not a core part of French history. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Generally, if someone refers to the subject as 'maskovia', then this can be disregarded as a troll. Mellk (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@89.209.129.71: Quite hilarious how the state of Rus' had most of its territories situated within the borders of modern-day "Russia". Its not as if the Rus' first arrived to Novgorod (a city located within northern Russia) first, and then expanded their territory southwards to Kiev. But no, only "Ukraine" is Rus'! Not those Tatar-Mongol-Finno-Ugric "Mascovites". Swoonfed (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Already implied

Regarding these edits [2]

• The fact that Russia has started the war is important enough and should be mentioned explicitly.
• Casualties are important enough to be mentioned among the first outcomes of the war. As confirmed by Contemporary Russia - Google Books .

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The casualties were already mentioned later in the paragraph, you were duplicating content. Check again. Mellk (talk) 10:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I see. Should be mentioned among the first. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the casualties are not from the initial invasion period (in the first few weeks), therefore it does not make sense to mention it before sanctions are mentioned. It makes more sense to mention it when referring to the demographic crisis and the overall impact of the war. Mellk (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the casualties are not from the initial invasion period
Casualties are important enough to be mentioned among the first outcomes of the war. As confirmed by Contemporary Russia - Google Books ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think when it is already referred to as the largest conventional war in Europe since WWII, casualties are a given. Mellk (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

We should preferably refer to the sources, not to wiki editor's thoughts. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You are referring to an introduction section in a book, we are dealing with the history section. By that logic, we should not mention sanctions and other events as among the first outcomes of the war as it is not "confirmed" by the book. Mellk (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 August 2024

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)

 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)

Type

It Was A Federal Republic And A Post-Soviet State. КириллТелегин990 (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2024

Change the part of the first sentence, specifically where it says "Russia, or the Russian Federation" to "Russia, officially the Russian Federation", since that would clarify that that is Russia's official name, which it is. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Both names are equal. See the invisible note in the wikitext: "Both names are equally official - see: Talk:Russia/Archive 12#Equality of the names." Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

The figures indicated that the share of ethnic Russians in Russia is 71% are deliberately misleading and present anti-scientific information. The real share of ethnic Russians in Russia is at least 80.85%

Ask any academic demographer or ethnographer, and he will tell you that the proportion of ethnic groups in the population should be indicated at least among those indicating ethnic origin. These are the features of many censuses. Study this issue.

And you can see other similar Wikipedia articles, for example, on Bulgaria. Where the share of Bulgarians in the population is indicated from their share among those who indicated ethnicity. 95.26.198.63 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Just need the sources pls. Moxy🍁 19:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Source - 2021 Russian Census

Are you editing an article in the field of demography without even understanding it?

And you can't even look at Wikipedia articles on other countries where there is a high proportion of "those who did not indicate ethnicity" - how do they indicate the proportion of ethnic groups?

You don't need to have knowledge of demography to see the obvious bias. Logic and comparative analysis are enough. The example with Bulgaria is indicative. 95.26.198.63 (talk) 09:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Example with Bulgaria.

2021 Census in Bulgaria. Those who identified themselves as Bulgarians are 5.1 million out of a total population of 6.5 million. This is 78.5% of the total population. But everywhere the share of Bulgarians is indicated - 84.7%

And this is correct from the point of view of the scientific approach.

If you have different criteria for different countries and Wikipedia articles, then you are hypocritically or ignorantly biased. 95.26.198.63 (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Requested Move

Russia is officially known as the Russian Federation. 2600:1700:6180:6290:B252:32CB:66B7:AE8D (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• opposed. As per WP:Common name..... as outlined in the many talks in the archives about this.Moxy🍁 20:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Moxy. BD2412 T 00:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as it's not the common name. Killuminator (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose YBSOne (talk) 08:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy oppose per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I assumed "Russia" and "Russian Federation" where 2 different things but they aren't so its probably best to keep as is though both names are in common use I think the standard name of the country is more common, Britannica uses the short name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - COMMONNAME. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)