Image talk:RussianLanguageMap.png
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 This is an image talk page on Wikipedia for an image located on Wikimedia Commons. The original image is located at commons:Image:RussianLanguageMap.png |
Contents |
[edit] Pockets
This is a great map, but I think it might be appropriate--if possible--to indicate the actual spots where the "pockets" of Russian-speaking communities are. I think it's a bit misleading to have the entirety of the United States and Canada colored when the areas of Russian speakers are more localized. Even limiting it to the particular states/provinces would be better. AEuSoes1 21:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. However this should happen with every country that has the pockets. A general area would do fine; even whole states wouldn't speak Russian. The pockets would be more on a county level. And nobody wants to look up each county. BirdValiant 05:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I admit that that would be best, but if we limit it to the counties it might be a little too small. States are probably best, even if the whole state doesn't have pockets throughout. It's just that the US and Canada are so big, you know? Besides, the map doesn't say "a country that has pockets of Russian-speaking communities." it says area. So you could just have blobs of area.AEuSoes1 21:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Abkhazia
Georgia should have a blue spot for Abkhazia. --Grocer 19:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- Done. -- Clevelander 02:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm not sure...
...that this map is completely correct. For instance, I don't think that Russian is spoken frequently in countries such as Croatia and it sure is not in Slovenia ;) 193.95.198.104 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please Correct
In Crimea(Ukraine) Official language is Ukrainian. Russian is not Official language in any administrative divisions of Ukraine. A lot of ethnic Russian diasporas live in Ukraine and Autonomous Republic of Crimea, but Ukraine have only one Official language.
The previous maps should have been kept. Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia for shure have no significant Russian language influence. They (during the Cold War period, while Yugoslavia was united) never joined the Warsaw Pact. Josip Broz Tito (Leader of Yugoslavia) kept a Neutral Policy, which implied that he would not join the Warsaw Pact or NATO. So, Russian influence, especially the Russian language did not get to the former Yugoslav countires as it did to Poland, Slovakia, Czech Republic, etc. (Warsaw Pact). The only country that the Russian language could be prevalent in is Serbia, since they had/have great connections with Russia for centuries (even in the Bosnian War against Bosnia). They even use the cyrilic alphabet making their languages even closer. Bosnia, Croatia, Slovenia, and even Montenegro should not be marked under blue since the Russian language is not prevalent there.--Kseferovic 10:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I reverted the changes I made. I knew of Tito wanting to maintain a certain distance from the Kremlin, so I had them green at first. I changed it however, when for some reason, I ended up thinking that Russian was taught at Yugoslavian schools. I later found this to be incorrect. -- Clevelander 23:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- One can state that Russian is not an official language in the Ukraine, but the fact is that there are more of its citizens that do not speak passable Ukrainian than those who do not speak passable Russian, especially to the east of the Dniepr. Having countries like Belarus and the Ukraine shaded the same as places like Estonia is probably going to mislead people about the relative usefulness of Russian in those respective places. I also can't really understand why we have diaspora pockets on the same map. They are extremely localised, and also to be found within the main population melting pots of the world. I only see sense in keeping Israel, as the Russian speaking population there is 30% of a whole country, which makes it arguably more russophone than parts of the Baltic states. At the same time you end up with Poland, where you could probably get by in Russian - I know I did for a while 15 years ago - looking less shaded than places like whole states of America, where you will not get by on Russian unless you happen to be in the right street of the right part of the right town.
--Uncle Davey (Talk) 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed new version
Any comments? Is this an acceptable new version? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Meh, I like the map the way it is now. We can't really highlight whole countries like Brazil or France without specifying where exactly the Russian-speaking areas are. It implies that Russian is more widespread than it really is (a mistake I made on my earliest maps). I think that we should just highlight the countries where the language is spoken the most. That way we keep it simple yet precise. With the current map, we can actually state that we know where the Russian speakers exactly are - in those areas. -- Clevelander 23:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Except that there is something like 100000 Russophones living in Brazil. And in America, the number is in the millions (including Russian Jews and immigrants from other parts of the USSR)- these significant populations are entirely overlooked in the current version, not to mention the large populations in Western Europe. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
If you made a map like this for geographical distribution of Chinese entire globe would be red, my point is-highlighting a country of 170 million, for instance, for 100 K Russians is very misleading, you should stick to dots where there are large populations, instead. and please be accurate-this is a sensitive topic, it is very likely that an immigrant from another former USSR republic is not Russian, but an individual whose nationality rhymes with the name of the country e.g. a person from Tajikistan is very likely to be a Tajik and speak Tajik language, this is an infamous example of biased view on geography. okyea
