Talk:Russia/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Culture 2 unlikely/unsubstantiated claims of Putin popularity, effects 3 Change of government 4 Temperatures 5 Written from the other side of the Atlantic, I presume... 6 Uh? 7 Armed Forces section needs pictures 8 Lenin section needs to be added 9 Russian Civil War needs to be mentioned 10 Kosovo Independence? 11 Border with Abkhazia and South Ossetia? 12 Incorrect links in "Notes" section 13 Peer review 14 Added 'References' section 15 Number of War Dead in World War Two 16 Dubious 17 Behavior 18 Topography 19 Recent facts 20 POV 21 It was the largest theatre of war in history 22 Suggested changes to WWII section 23 Religion in Russia 24 Baikonur 25 Russian financial crisis 26 Photos in article

[edit] Culture

Deleted. And everybody shut up please and dont talk about what you dont know. I was in russia, nice country. 68.237.16.185 (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] unlikely/unsubstantiated claims of Putin popularity, effects

There seems to be some pro Putin bias in the section detailing the history of the Russian Federation. i would doubt the validity of sources that claim he has the highest approval rating in Europe. And if the source is valid, i believe it should be noted that the results of the poll are almost guaranteed to not reflect the true feelings of the populace.76.15.42.237 (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC) tim

It is so indeed, I believe, and maybe we could notice that all main channels from there people getting news (1st channel, RTR, NTV) are in the government's hands. And not all people can access internet to obtain NPOV news. --Euoa 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported claims about Putin's popularity: the New York Times article cited in note 64 (also, the link is incorrectly to 46) at no point provides even a poll result (reliable or not). Instead, the referenced article is about the lack of protest by regional officials to Putin taking direct control of regional government, replacing elected offices with appointed ones. The article attributed this not to any alleged popularity of the dictatorial president, but to fear of reprisals:

"Any governor understands that if he is against Putin, he will be under criminal investigation," Vladimir A. Ryzhkov, a liberal member of Parliament, said in a telephone interview. He cited cases involving the governors of Kursk, Yaroslavl and Atlai, who all faced investigations that, coincidentally or not, began after they challenged Kremlin policies. "The main thing is fear," he said. "They are afraid of everything."

(benjamin melançon)

Putin does in fact enjoy an immense popularity for bringing the country from what had been under Yeltsin, to what it is now. Don't get me wrong, I personally can't stand him, but he is popular in Russia. AllenHansen (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Putin is destroyer of Russia and Russians. If all in Russia be as now, we (Russians) die. Unfortunately, most of Russians believe him. Our government only is earning money themselves, while many Russians are poor. They try to suggest detestation to USA, Europe and our allies of past. They are saying that tou doing the same. It is all sadly. Sorry, for my english=) Russian man Shtrich (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change of government

Didn't Putin just disolve his own goverment, if so wiki should reflect it —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoldierOfColbert (talk • contribs) 07:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temperatures

Please change the temperatures in the geography section. One claims that 51 degrees Celsius is 112 Degrees F. 51 degrees is 123.8, I believe. The hottest day ever recorded in Phoenix, my hometown, was 50/122. While it's possible, I don't believe that I've ever heard that there were temperatures higher than 50/122 in Russia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.101.1.126 (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

You are correct, the 50+ temperature was the record in the USSR, not Russia. It was recorded in Uzbekistan. 75.37.183.64 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

==

[edit] Written from the other side of the Atlantic, I presume...

In the 4/5 line, in the fifth paragraph under the Stalin-header, the following sentence can be read: "The United States helped the Western European countries establish democracies, (...)"

There are several indications that this article has perhaps been simplified a bit too much...? At least I am quite sure neither (now formerly occupied) France and Norway, and at least not UNoccupied Great Britain needed US-American expertise to establish themselves as democracies. Though for winning the war, I'll give US-American support all the credits it deserves :-) Kurtber 20:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uh?

Is there any particular reason that the archive links here take me to the archive for the United States? Vandalism? California seceded and joined the Russian Federation? 74.112.200.188 21:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks. --Illythr 22:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armed Forces section needs pictures

I just added the Armed Forces section to the article - can anyone insert 2 appropriate pictures to the section, something like the Topol M ICBM and one of Russian troops in action.--Ilya1166 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lenin section needs to be added

If there's a Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev section, there needs to be a Lenin section as he was one of the most important figures in Russia's history.--Ilya1166 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Civil War needs to be mentioned

The Russian Civil War needs to be mentioned as it was a very important part of Russia's history.--Ilya1166 15:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kosovo Independence?

Should something be added regarding Russia's position on Kosovo's independence?

Not in this article, it doesn't fit anywhere and then you'd have to put Russia's position on everything, and Russia's position is already covered in the Kosovo article.--Ilya1166 01:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Border with Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

Mentioning that Russia borders those two entities amounts to equaling them to independent states, doesn't it? 193.251.32.222 15:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there are way too many editors willing to mention them even as countries. Look at the history of the article. So I decided to add and unrecognized political entities. Colchicum 15:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This nice image should be included.

Russia is dreaming, but it has to face the truth. - FQUSOL

They ain't gonna get it

Looks like Georgians are here... Well, Georgia's problem is that people in Abkhazia and S.Ossetia do not want to have anything common with Georgia. No need for Russia to dream or not to dream of anything. Alexander0807 00:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just one Georgian. Just checked in. There is something else behind these conlicts, I'm sure it is not Russia. Russian and Goergians will defenetly become friends again.

[edit] Incorrect links in "Notes" section

Some links in "Notes" section are icorrectly ended with comma (e.g. 30,52) 195.234.109.95 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Sergey195.234.109.95 23:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.--Ilya1166 04:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! Glad someone is working to keep these articles clean, informative, and accurate! Danthur (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

I have put this article up for peer review, please leave any comments/suggestions. Thanks. [1]--Ilya1166 12:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added 'References' section

I added a 'References' section[2] with the references taken directly from the History of Russia article,[3] as a means of providing sources for the history section in this article.[4] I don't know whether the history section in this article has the same information as the information in the History of Russia article. Comments as to whether this is alright and whether the history information in the History of Russia article matches up with the info in this article?--Ilya1166 12:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of War Dead in World War Two

The article states "Soviet military deaths were about 10.6 million (out of which 3.6 million Soviets died in German captivity), and civilian deaths were about 14 to 17 million" but later states "During the war, the Soviet Union lost more than 27 million citizens (including 18 million civilians)"

I have seen so many figures and all are estimates/guesses that I doubt a true figure can be given. Still the article should be consistence both inside itself and with other Wikipedia articles.

e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Casualties.2C_civilian_impact.2C_and_atrocities and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties has it about 23.6 million.

Further it talks about "about half of all World War II casualties" but this appears to ignore axis and those killed in the east (e.g. Chinese).

Anyone like to comment? .--jniech

Those tables and charts are based off data taken from this page which is quite inaccurate [5], which puts the number of total WWII casualties at 72 million. It is well established that total World War II casualties were in the region of 50-60 million. It even said in my secondary school history textbook that 'about half of WWII casualties were Soviet. "Official Soviet reports at the time stated that 20 million soldiers and civilians perished in the war, but it was later revealed, during Gorbachev’s time in office in the 1980s, that a more realistic figure for Soviet losses was between 27 million and 28 million" (Encarta). Sources - [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12].--Ilya1166 13:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Will read them in more detail tonight.

Question 1: Should something not be done about the other Wikipedia articles then?

Question 2: After a quick read of them, I do not find a breakdown of the figures between civilian and military. The following makes the article look silly “civilian deaths were about 14 to 17 million” and “including 18 million civilians”. Can I suggest one or both be removed; leaving statements like “lost more than 27 million citizens”? What do you think?

Question 3: Why have you removed the information on the Soviet involvement prior to the German invasion? It’s involvement as I pointed out started in August 1939 with the signing of the pact with Germany. Please explain. .--jniech

Q1: Realise that it takes too much effort to change every article.

Q2: Because so many people died, the number of both military and civilian casualties are estimates and there are conflicting sources which list different number of casualties. One thing that contemporary sources agree on it that the total figure is 27 million, the revised figure given by the Russian president himself and the figure given by recognised sources such as the BBC, Time Magazine, Encarta, etc.

Q3: The information you included was biased and factually inaccurate. Firstly, the USSR was never an ally of Germany- see the World War II page and the Axis powers of World War II. Secondly, you wrote that the USSR 'occupied' the baltics, a controversial issue since 'occupation' is a relatively new term alleged by the Baltics since becoming independent, and which Russia rejects [13][14].--Ilya1166 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Q1. But is not the article listing the war dead for all countries a key one?

Q2. How about changing “about 14 to 17 million” to “about 14 to 18 million” and “including 18 million civilians” to “including upto18 million civilians”. It just looks better.

Q3. Based on what you said, the following should be acceptable: The Soviet Union's involvement in World War II started with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This agreement resulted in the Soviet Union joining Germany in the invasion of Poland. The Soviet Union then attacked Finland, stationed troops in the Baltic states and occupied Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. It was not until the attack by Germany against the Soviet Union, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, in June 22, 1941 that they became part of the alliance against German. .--jniech

Q1: Yes it is but it is outside of my scope of interest at the moment.

Q2: Done

Q3: Firstly your info is dubious again and there is no need to write about the prelude to World War II, this is the 'super' article for many articles and thus it shouldn't go into extensive details, all of that is covered in the Eastern Front (World War II) article.--Ilya1166 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The invasion of Poland and the Winter War are not the prelude to WWII, they are parts of WWII. Even if we shouldn't go into extensive details, we have to reword the paragraph. Colchicum 15:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How about: The Soviet Union's involvement in World War II started with the attack on Poland on 17th September 1939. This was followed by various actions including the Winter War. The war on the Eastern front, the Great Patriotic War as it is known in Russia, started with Germany attacking on June 22, 1941..--jniech

The article is fine as it is, the events preceeding the war against Germany are frankly not that important in Russian history.--Ilya1166 15:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to try to attach military operation or the Red Army in Poland in 1939 to the USSR's involvement in World War II. This involvement was - by definition of World War II - against Germany and its allies, not against anything else. In 1939 the Soviet Union was by no means at war with Germany or any of its allies. This way we could go all the way back till 1921 when Red Army also entered Poland after being engaged by Polish troops.

It is no secret, however, that some people in Poland would now like to present history differently. Perhaps hoping for some form of "compensation" in addition to what they already got in 1945. Alexander0807 00:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

Nevertheless saying that the Soviet Union's involvement in World War II started with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 22, 1941, is blatantly wrong. The Soviet Union was involved in the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) and the Winter War, which are commonly considered parts of WWII. Please rephrase. Colchicum 14:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and the Operation August Storm as the end of the war should also be mentioned. Colchicum 14:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

World War II was a war between the Axis and Allies. The World War II article says, "This global conflict split a majority of the world's nations into two opposing camps: the Allies and the Axis". The USSR was neither before the German invasion in 1941. Neither the Axis nor the Allies declared war on the USSR before the invasion in 1941. The USSR became involved in World War II only in 1941 when it joined the Allies upon being invaded by Germany. Therefore it is reasonable to say, "'The Soviet Union's involvement in World War II, known in the Soviet Union and Russia as the Great Patriotic War, started with the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 22, 1941."--Ilya1166 16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOR Colchicum 16:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but if WWII is a battle between the Axis and the Allies, then why shouldn't we count their entry as early as the beginning of September or mid August, as the Red army under General Zhukov was engaged with the Japanese Sixth army in Manchuria? While the winter war seems to be a particullarly bloody bit of learning and territorial consolidation to protect St. Petersburg, and the invasion of Poland seemed fueled by a desire to protect the territorial concessions presented by Ribentrop, Im still not sure what to do with your defenition. Thats not even thinking of the proxy war in spain. Im almost more tempted to say that the invasion of 1941 was the point of no return. That and it seems to be convention. ."--savageco

WWII Started with nazi's and soviet invasion on Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellowdunky (talk • contribs) 13:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Behavior

Deleting fact tags is wrong. Cite sources, please. Colchicum 15:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topography

Topography section is a mess. Climate section doesn't belong there. "The climates of both European and Asian Russia are continental except for the tundra and the extreme southeast" ???? Isn't tundra continental??? The Black and Baltic Sea coasts are no more continental than the glorious extreme southeast (which is not especially outstanding in this respect, I don't understand why it was singled out). Colchicum 16:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I see, somebody owns the article and pushes his views here. Whether Gorbachev was reform-minded and what was his motivation is a very controversial question, such an epithet has no place in this article if the latter is to be improved, this: the Yeltsin government conspired with insiders to loot countless billions in cash and assets from the State certainly needs strong, really strong references, much stronger than the little-known websites you add instead of fact-tags. Ok, I don't care much about that country. Go on playing with yourself. Bye. Colchicum 16:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent facts

I would like to stress the followings in the article: in 1990, the Soviet Union’s population was about 270 million. That of the present-day Russia is about 145 million and President Putin has said it may fall to 123 million by 2015, when Iran will have as many people. Russians are today outnumbered by Chinese 9 to 1. East of the Aral Sea, the ratio is closer to 50 to 1.--Tones benefit 19:22, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm, how exactly do you propose to expand this section? --Illythr 01:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The decline of Russian population should be accompanied by the recent given facts: that's a real fact that Russia east of Aral Sea is outnumbered by Chinese to a factor closed to 50.--Tones benefit 12:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The demographics crisis is well explained in this article. There's no point saying that Russia's population is outnumbered by China's by 9:1, people can see that for themselves when looking at population statistics. Also the population of the USSR in 1991 was around 293 million so I doubt it was 270 million in 1990. --Ilya1166 14:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The trend is very important to be stressed out. China is a big power, today much bigger than Russia.--Tones benefit 14:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Population does not equate to power, China has always had the world's largest population.--Ilya1166 14:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

..and Russia the world's largest area.--Tones benefit 14:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What's your point??! Are you hinting that China sould get part of Russian land? 'cause it outnumbers Russia 9 to 1'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.128.70 (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Current version claims that "After Lenin's death in 1924, a brief power struggle ensued, during which a top communist official, a Georgian named Joseph Stalin, gradually eroded the various checks and balances which had been designed into the Soviet political system". What "checks and balances" are you talking about? That was Red Terror or War Communism in 1917-1924, not a Western democracy.Biophys 21:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't the authoritarian state Stalin had turned it into, either. I understand, the "General Secretary" was a relatively weak political post in Lenin's times. --Illythr 01:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. That was not a dictatorship of one person like during Stalin's rule. That was dictatorship of a group of leading Bolsheviks called War Communism. But there was no any Separation of powers! "Balances" in the article are linked to "separation of powers". It is the essence of the system that Communist Party commanded all three branches of power - before, during and after Stalin.Biophys 03:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Lenin's powers were not "weak" at all. He was dictator by any means. He was a stronger leader than Stalin. Lenin criticized Stalin for his "liberalism" and "softness" with regard to the enemies (memories of Mikoyan, if I remember correctly).Biophys 03:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Biophys please take your anti-Soviet/anti-Russian sentiment elsewhere. The country was led by the Communist Party, not a single leader. Stalin turned the country into the dictatorship of a single leader. As Illythr stated, the position of general secretary was seen to be a minor one within the party. Stalin subsequently built it up to the most powerful position in the country. Please go learn some history.--Ilya1166 04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about Separation of powers. It was not Stalin who destroyed this separation, because there was nothing to destroy. Tsarist Russia had only independent judiciary but no really independent Duma. Even Soviet textbooks did not claim that Lenin introduced Separation of powers after revolution. Soviet textbooks explained about War Communism that has nothing in common with democracy. Only this WP article claims such nonsense.Biophys 04:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the link that takes the phrase "checks and balances" to separation of powers. War Communism was a policy instituted during the Russian Civil War so that the country could survive, why are you bringing that up.--Ilya1166 04:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It was the largest theatre of war in history

Sorry but another question, this time about whether it was the largest theatre of war. Would not the Pacific have been bigger? -- Jniech

This is what is written on the Eastern Front (World War II) page. I believe its because it had the most number of soldiers/deaths--203.173.51.168 04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on theatre states "In warfare, a theater or theatre is normally used to define a specific geographic area" Theater (warfare). It further states the WWII had at least three separate theaters: European, Pacific, and African. If that is the case (rather than dividing these further) then would the pacific not have a larger geographic area? --Jniech 10 July 2007

The extent of military operations in Pacific, the number of troops involved, and its influence on the result of Word War II cannot be compared to Eastern Front. I understand that gentlemen from the US would like to claim otherwise, but there are facts and there are numbers.Alexander0807 23:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes to WWII section

Original: The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops along a broad front

Suggestion: The fighting involved millions of German and Soviet troops and their allies along a broad front

Reason: The allies (e.g. Poles) on the side of the Soviet Union were pretty minor but the millions on the Germany side were not (over million killed/MIA, 2 million POW) (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_%28World_War_II%29#Casualties)

Original: The fate of the Third Reich was decided at Stalingrad and sealed at Kursk.

Suggestion: The fate of the Third Reich was effectively decided at Stalingrad and all but sealed at Kursk.

Reason: If D-Day had failed, the Germans would have been able to switch hundreds of thousands of troops to the Eastern front. Until the success of D-Day, the German still had a chance.

Original: The Red Army then stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad

Suggestion: The Red Army then stopped the Germans offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad

Reason: We do not say the socialist stopped the Nazi.

There is still no mention of the Soviet part in the defeat of Japan, add at end of paragraph

Suggestion: The Soviet Union made a major contribution to forcing the surrender of Japan by destroying their army in Manchuria. ((with link to Operation August Storm)) -- Jniech

All of the information you are challenging is written on the Eastern Front (World War II) page, so you should address your concerns there first.

"The Red Army then stopped the Nazi offensive at the Battle of Stalingrad" is fine, it doesn't say "Communists" stopped the Nazi offensive", Nazi is just another word for Nazi Germany.

By the time the allies drove into Germany the war in Europe was already decided. The main reason for the opening of the Second Front in June 1944 was to prevent the Russians from reaching the Atlantic. --203.173.51.168 05:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I am confused by your reply. The Eastern Front article is correct on these points and so why would I address my concerns there? On point one it supports the fact there were lots of German allied troops, point 2 is not in that article but only in this article, as to point 3 it states “German offensive” not “Nazi offensive” and point 4 it has a longer version of the actions in Manchuria. Hence it supports my position on 1, 3 & 4 and has nothing about point 2. - Jniech 10 July 2007

It wasn't just a German offensive, what about the Rumanians, Hungarians and Italians?

AllenHansen (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Religion in Russia

I don't think that at the section "Religion in Russia" the data about North Ossetia being an "predominant islamic" region is correct. According to my data, the Ossetians are, most of them Christians. So, please, make the cORRECTUINS...

Well we do not have such data. MAYBE THEY JUST STARTED CONVERTING

According to demographics, the osetians (the predominant ethic group in Osseita) are mostly orthodox christian, with a large muslim minority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ossetians#Religion , http://www.nupi.no/cgi-win/Russland/etnisk_b.exe?Osetian. --GerojiYuga 16:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I support the correction about predominant religion in Ossetia. It cannot be tagged as predominantly Islamic region.Alexander0807 23:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This was fixed a while ago...--Ilya1166 09:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baikonur

Can anyone please add the precise legal status of Baikonur in regards to its administration by Russia?

Can it be considered a part of Russian territory, an exclave? Or just rented by the Russian government?

Thanks. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's all in the Baikonur article, actually. It was officially rented by Russia from Kazakhstan in 1994. Perhaps this will help as a starting point to find what you need. I can also check if I have a copy of the actual rental agreement, if that helps you any.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I saw it on the Baikonur article, i just thought that it might be useful to include some info here - if it is technically a part of Russia, then Kaliningrad is not the only exclave. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I'm afraid that's not the case. Speaking of exclaves, Russia does have one in Europe (a very small one, several square meters at best), but I don't remember where I read about it and where it is located. Of course, it is more of a curiosity than a genuine exclave worth mentioning here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC

Are you, by any chance, talking about the Kaliningrad Oblast? Digwuren 17:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian financial crisis

The information about the 1999 crisis must be added back. Otherwise it is not clear what kind of recovery is discussed. Colchicum 10:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Financial crisis in Russia actually started on August 17, 1998.Alexander0807 23:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos in article

I have replaced some of the photos with newer or higher quality photos.

• Moscow State University photo was replaced by the photo used on Russian Wikipedia (which comes from Wikimedia Commons) which shows the building rather than park in front.
• Kazan Cathedral is obviously less important than Cathedral of Christ the Saviour as they both had the same history of destruction and as we are trying to include one of them Cathedral of Christ the Saviour is the one that logically comes as the one deserving the photo in article. Kazan Cathedral might have been the first church to be restored but Cathedral of Christ the Saviour is way more important as it was demolished by Stalin and rebuilt by Yeltsin.
• Nilov Monastery is just one of many while Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra is the most important Russian monastery and the spiritual centre of the Russian Orthodox Church founded in 1345 and on UNESCO heritage list.
• Wiener Staatsoper Schwanensee Szene Akt4.jpg shows the Swan Lake performance in Vienna. Unless we have the Swan Lake performance in Russia we will have to make it clear in the caption that photo was taken in Austria or use the thing that we already have - a photo of the greatest modern ballerina Maya Plisetskaya.
• Bolshoi Theatre photo used previously is of poor quality and does not show the whole building like the one on Russian Wikipedia (which comes from Wikimedia Commons)
• Oil well photo is from Texas and I have added it to the caption as one user insists on this photo being in the article but it is important that we do not delude readers.
• I have added the logo of Sochi 2014 Olympics as I think it is a nice addition to the article.
• Also I have added the painting of Leo Tolstoy by Ilya Repin which enhances the article in literature and in arts section.

User that keeps reverting is Ilya1166 wrote this on my talk page: "On a final note, please leave the Russian articles to the Russians and the Serbian articles to the Serbs". Unfortunately he does not understand the concept of Wikipedia. I will not get to any further analysis of that comment which reminds me of something that has got to do with national states.

Avala 13:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll break it down for you. Your photos are all different sizes, I don't know what resolution you are using to view wikipedia but this is how the article looks now:

http://img382.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image4ol8.jpg

http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image5in7.jpg

http://img382.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image6co3.jpg

The images are uniform, the article looks professional and clean in its original form compared to your mess:

http://img266.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image1gl0.jpg

http://img372.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image2cn3.jpg

http://img382.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image3of4.jpg

Your images are still far too large and look like a child has edited it, for an indication of what size images should be take a look at the United States or Australia articles, the images are compact and uniform and never spill over into other sections, unlike the enormous monstrosities you have put up. The problem with your images, portrait images don't fit well into those sections and now they look squashed and they are still not uniform with the other images, giving a very unprofessional look, the images before were fine, they looked good, they were great examples of Russian culture and religion and that's coming from a Russian.

Most of the images you put up are in portrait form which completely skews the article. The image of Leo Tolstoy you put up is HUGE, it is bigger than the text of the section, the same goes for the picture of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, the image is much larger than the actual text itself and spills way over into the culture section. After my comments you then tried to reduce these images but they then look VERY squashed and small. You even added a whole heap of unimportant ( eg. "Slavic mythology is popular. On the other hand, the prevalence of overt neopagans appears to be low.) and unsourced religious information to the religion section and spread out the section into many 1 sentence paragraphs instead of keeping it tight, so that your image could JUST fit even after you reduced it to a very small size. The images you removed also all come from Wikimedia Commons.

• The picture of Moscow State University shows the outline of the whole building, unlike your image which only gives a ground level view of the central tower
• It doesn't matter that the Swan Lake performance is given in Vienna because Russian composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky composed Swan Lake, and Swan Lake is widely recognised around the world. Swan Lake is much more important and much more well recognised than the ballerina you put.
• Kazan Cathedral was the first church restorated after the end of the Soviet Union so it is fitting that it be included. You don't know much about Russian history because Kazan Cathedral WAS ALSO destroyed by Stalin and rebuilt during Yeltsin's presidency. The year it was rebuilt, 1993, which was mentioned in the caption, is a great example to people how quickly after the end of Communism that religion came back. The image you replaced it with is in portrait form and encroaches far out of the 'Religion' section as you can see in the image.
• The Bolshoi Theatre image does show the whole outline of the building, and shows the only part of the theatre worth showing, the magnificent front. It's quality is fine because it is only a thumbnail. In the image you replaced it with is shows the carpark and the unimportant sides of the theatre and is just a poor image overall.
• No one is saying that the oil well is Russian, it is meant to be an image of a generic oil well to demonstrate that Russia is a large oil producer and exporter, you missed the point completely.
• The image of Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra shouldn't be in the culture section at all, this is not the 'Religion' section, where a picture of a church is already present. The Nilov Monastary is representative of the 'Architechture' section of culture and is a great representation of Neoclassical architechure as was noted in the caption. The image of Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra is renowned more for its spiritual center than its architecture, the image of Nilov Monastary specifically talks about the architectural significance of the monastary while your image talks about its spiritual significance.

Don't try to twist my words Avala, you snidely left the whole part of what I said: "On a final note, please leave the Russian articles to the Russians and the Serbian articles to the Serbs if you don't realise that you just can't go around unilaterally replacing a whole heap of things with your own version without first going to talk. Wikipedia is about not changing things unilaterally when people have a problem with your it, but coming to a concensus, you can't expect to come to this article and suddenly delete images and replace them with your own and repeatedly revert to your new version when people have a problem with your new edits.--Ilya1166 03:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)