This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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.
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
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
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
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
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
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]
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]
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]
Expansive Scope: At ~17,000 words, this article is a beast, covering Russia’s geography, history, politics, economy, culture, and more. It spans from Paleolithic settlements to Putin’s 2025 presidency, offering a deep dive into the world’s largest country.
Timely Updates: It’s current to late 2024—e.g., population estimates (146.1M including Crimea), GDP forecasts ($2.196T nominal, 2025), and Putin’s May 2024 military district meeting. This keeps it relevant amid Russia’s evolving global role.
Data Density: Packed with stats—11 time zones, 32 UNESCO sites, 193 ethnic groups, $109B military spend (2023)—it’s a goldmine for researchers. Visuals like ethnic maps and population density charts amplify this.
Historical Depth: The “History” section (4,000+ words) is a standout, tracing Kievan Rus’ to the Soviet collapse with granular detail—e.g., Ivan IV’s 1547 crowning, Stalin’s 1930s purges. It’s a mini-textbook.
Balanced Tone: Despite Russia’s divisive status, it maintains neutrality—labeling it an “authoritarian dictatorship” with citations (e.g., Freedom House) while noting economic resilience post-sanctions. It avoids sensationalism.
Weaknesses
Overwhelming Length: At 17,000 words, it’s a marathon read. Sections like “History” and “Culture” (17 subheadings!) drown readers in detail—e.g., every Soviet leader gets a chunk, diluting focus on modern Russia.
2025 Lag: Stops at October 2024 (e.g., IMF GDP estimates). Trump’s February 2025 NATO critiques and Russia’s retaliatory rhetoric (per X) are absent, risking obsolescence as tensions escalate.
Prose Fatigue: The encyclopedic style—“Russia has the world’s largest forest area”—lacks flair. It misses the visceral stakes of Putin’s reign or the Ukraine war’s human toll, flattening a dramatic narrative.
Perspective Gaps: Heavy on Russian state views (e.g., “special role” of Orthodoxy), it skimps on dissident voices or global critiques beyond sanctions. X posts from Navalny supporters could add grit.
Visual Underuse: Only 17 images for 17,000 words—e.g., no 2022 Ukraine invasion shots or modern Moscow skyline. It leans on static maps over dynamic visuals.
Structural Issues
Uneven Weight: “History” (4,000 words) overshadows “Economy” (1,200 words) and “Military” (600 words), though Russia’s current economic strain and Ukraine war loom larger today. “Demographics” buries the 2022 crisis in stats.
Repetition: The Ukraine invasion pops up in “History,” “Foreign Relations,” and “Military” with overlapping details (e.g., annexation dates). “Culture” redundantly lists writers across subheadings.
Subheading Bloat: “Culture” has 11 subsections (e.g., “Cuisine” vs. “Holidays”), fragmenting flow. “Geography” splits climate and biodiversity unnecessarily—why not a “Nature” section?
Citation Noise: Dense footnotes (e.g., 15 in “Human Rights”) disrupt reading, while some claims (e.g., “highest vodka consumption”) lack recent data—2014 feels stale by 2025.
Specific Content Gaps
2025 Developments: No mention of post-October 2024 events—e.g., X chatter on Russia’s tit-for-tat NATO moves or Ukraine war shifts (e.g., drone strikes, February 2025). A search could update this.
Social Media Lens: Lacks public sentiment—e.g., X posts on Wagner’s 2023 rebellion or Putin’s mobilization. These could humanize the stats-heavy “Invasion of Ukraine” section.
Tech/Cyber Role: “Science and Technology” touts Sputnik but skips Russia’s cyberwarfare prowess (e.g., 2022 Ukraine hacks). X buzz on this is loud—why not tap it?
Climate Impact: “Climate” notes wildfires but not Russia’s Arctic ambitions or permafrost methane risks, key by 2025 per recent studies. X could highlight debates.
Opportunities for Improvement
Trim Fat: Condense “History”—e.g., merge pre-1917 eras into one subsection. Summarize minor cultural bits (e.g., “Holidays” as a list) to focus on 21st-century Russia.
Live Updates: Add a “2025” stub under “History” or “Foreign Relations” with Trump’s NATO jabs and Russia’s response from X/news (e.g., February 15 Putin speech). I could fetch this if prompted.
Narrative Zip: Punch up prose—e.g., “Putin’s 2022 invasion shattered Europe’s post-WWII peace” vs. “Russia launched a full-scale invasion.” X quotes from Kyiv or Moscow could spark it.
Diverse Voices: Include opposition takes (e.g., Navalny’s 2021 critiques) or Western views on Russia’s Middle East role. X posts from activists or analysts could balance the state lens.
Visual Boost: Add a 2022 war photo, a cyber ops graphic, or a 2025 Putin rally shot. Wikipedia’s image pool or X uploads could supply these.
Threats to Quality
Edit Wars: “Extended-protected” status flags past battles—likely over Ukraine or Putin’s label. Trump’s 2025 rhetoric could spark fresh bias fights, testing neutrality.
This does not appear to be a serious proposal for improvement, especially since it's lacking any reliable source. It appears to be one of twelve AI-created "analyses" that the IP address posted. The first one posted initially said "the Wikipedia-style article" before changing the wording to "this article". Space4TCatHerder🖖20:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2025
Starting discussion since I have a feeling this content is going to continue to be removed.
@BootsED Made this edit on totalitarianism a few days ago which was then reverted by @Mellk, claiming it was undue and not accurate to the cited sources. Since Russia's totalitarian tendencies particularly post 2022 have not only been widely documented, but covered in WP:RS, I restored the content adding two additional sources, as well as changing the wording to Russia simply being described as becoming "increasingly totalitarian" rather than the previous wording which had it described as "totalitarian" here. This was then yet again reverted by Mellk, who now demands "exceptional sourcing" (the sentence is already supported by five references, more exist, but WP:OVERCITE should be taken into consideration), argues one sentence in the relevant section is undue, and falsely claims the references are still being misrepresented. The last part is bonkers, since the sources clearly do say that Russia has become more totalitarian.
Few states in history have been widely characterized as "totalitarian". The usual examples are Nazi Germany and the USSR under Stalin. So yes, saying a state is totalitarian or close to being totalitarian is an exceptional claim.
The government section should only serve as a brief overview. A few cherrypicked sources, some of which are opinion pieces/editorials, that say Putin's regime is heading towards totalitarianism does not belong there. See WP:ONUS.
Here is a high-quality source that details the evolution of authoritarianism in Russia: "the evolution of authoritarianism in Russia from 2011 to 2023 saw the regime bolstering its police and internal military forces, augmenting their power and authority to use force against protesters. Proactive strategies employed by the regime largely relied on the methods of political persecution and intimidation, while the number of political prisoners increased exponentially and the instances of contention continued to decline." (pp. 80–81)
There is no mention of "totalitarianism" in the source despite your claim that this is all "widely documented". Mellk (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are completely ignoring what is actually being added, which is one sentence in the relevant body section stating that Russia has "been described as increasingly totalitarian" in recent years. The way you are acting, it's like someone is changing the infobox to say that Russia is a "totalitarian state".
What makes your source a "high-quality source" and the others "a few cherrypicked sources"? You being ok with what yours says but not the others?
But since you're making accusations of cherrypicking, have some more sources, once again several academic ones like your "high-quality source":
[4] From Authoritarianism to Totalitarianism: How the War Has Changed Russia
[5] Russia slipping into 'totalitarianism': exiled writer Akunin
If you can't accept the reality that this is the opinion of a multitude of qualified people, then perhaps you're in over your head and should edit a topic you can actually be neutral on. TylerBurden (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not address the issue about editorials/opinion pieces as well as the argument of WP:DUE. For some reason, you are focused only on the quantity and not quality of sources. Like seriously, as much as I have respect for Boris Akunin, we should not be using his opinion to state that a country is totalitarian, or put equal weight on his interview to a book or journal article written by a political scientist.
If you can't accept the reality that this is the opinion of a multitude of qualified people, then perhaps you're in over your head and should edit a topic you can actually be neutral on. This is quite ironic coming from someone who has a recent logged warning for EE. Let us stick to arguments and not projection. Mellk (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant passages from The Routledge Companion to Autocratization (2024):
"During the period in which the regime in Moscow evolved from closed Communist authoritarianism to an inchoate democracy (under Yeltsin), and eventually to an increasingly repressive electoral authoritarianism (under Putin and Medvedev), the country witnessed 'the persistence of authoritarian enclaves during Russia's experimentation with electoral democracy in the 1990s as well as the survival of democratic enclaves despite Russia’s authoritarian resurgence in the Putin era'..." (p. 223)
"At the same time, in Russia the competition of oligarchs failed to prevent the development of a consolidated authoritarian regime – Vladimir Putin, originally backed by one oligarchic coalition, ultimately managed to establish full control over the economy..., although he became president as a result of the competition of two oligarchic coalitions" (p. 323)
"In contrast, Belarus and Russia evince a protracted and almost steady decline from starting levels resembling the more democratic countries in PSE. The autocratization episodes in Russia lasted longer than other episodes in the region (18 years, compared to a mean duration of seven years for all 19 episodes of significant and limited declines in PSE). Democratic decline continued in Russia between 2011 and 2020, though its scope was more limited. Declines in 2020–2022 reflect the restrictions and manipulations of the 2020 presidential election in Belarus and the 2021 legislative elections in Russia, followed by waves of repression in both countries." (p. 506)
"Russia’s war against Ukraine has led to further autocratization in Russia and has also entailed restrictions on media pluralism and bans of pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine... The outcome of this war for the future of both Russia and Ukraine was uncertain in February 2024, leaving a range of possible scenarios, including the collapse and territorial reconfiguration of the two states and the breakdown of their political regimes." (p. 512)
Again, there is no mention in the source of Russia becoming a totalitarian state. This is from multiple different chapters that were written by different political scientists. Are they just blind, since, according to you, this is all "well documented"? Mellk (talk) 20:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to address anything when you don't even seem to be on the same page when it comes to basic facts, like the content being added not stating that Russia is a "totalitarian state" as you keep implying, and the sources provided actually saying that Russia has become increasingly totalitarian. You can't have an actual discussion with someone who says the sky is green.
In terms of WP:DUE, I can understand the desire to push these perhaps inconvenient truths into less visible child articles, but in my opinion given the amount of high quality references (you still haven't explained how your reference is apparently the bible but everything else is cherrypicking) it more than warrants an update here given we're apparently stuck in 2012.
Speaking of cherrypicking, feel free to dismiss Boris Akunin, no one has said he's the end all be all, unlike you with your high quality source. I was logged for edit warring, which I took responsibility for, not for censoring mean information about countries I like.
Maybe you can address these basic points, or if you can't, and are just planning on continuing with your superiority complex about your high quality source, let someone else weigh in. TylerBurden (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is an overwhelming amount of academic sources discussing this..... We should not leave our readers in the dark. We should guide them to sources explaining the situation..... not let them search the internet for random junk. Moxy🍁21:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stated: saying a state is totalitarian or close to being totalitarian is an exceptional claim. But of course, you are continuing your usual pattern of casting aspersions, which makes any discussion with you impossible. This has nothing to do with censorship. Of course, you are resorting to aspersions like these because you cannot address my points properly, like why we shouldn't use editorials/opinion pieces (the ones you refer to as "high quality references") or favor them over others.
Think you should think of some compromising wording.... because if it goes to RFC I believe the tone would be much harsher. Moxy🍁21:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Moxy: We have already mentioned that there were mass repressions after 2022. If we really want a good summary of government, we need something that reflects the academic consensus. I would suggest we mention the evolution from flawed democracy under Yeltsin to electoral authoritarianism under Putin/Medvedev and the consolidated authoritarian regime during Putin's later years. As mentioned in The Routledge Companion to Autocratization, we can also include the further democratic decline and further autocratization in recent years (it also uses various indices to measure this).
We can note unprecedented restrictions on media and political participation in other sections, but opinions like the country is descending into totalitarianism are best mentioned in other articles, not in the brief summary of the government here. How many academic sources that cover the political system of Russia refer to it as being totalitarian or rapidly descending into totalitarianism? Relatively few. Mellk (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is.... as per a shitload of sources. Once the state starts imprisoning and killing its own citizen to suppress views you get to another level. Even the media reports how there's more imprisonment and death than in the Stalin era [1]. This is the type of thing that academics have been focusing on for the past few years. Moxy🍁21:59, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly a million people were executed during the Great Purge alone, not to mention millions more died in deportations and famines. About 14 million people in total were imprisoned in the Gulag. I think it is a real stretch to say that there is more death and imprisonment now than during the Stalin period.
There's more prisoners in the US than anywhere else in the world..... but we can't simply ignore what scholars are talking about..... we should confront the situation and explain it to our readers..... that is some academics are suggesting there is a lean towards totalitarianism.Lindstaedt, Natasha (2024). "Russia's Descent into Totalitarianism". Political Insight. 15 (2). SAGE Publications: 12–15. doi:10.1177/20419058241260782. ISSN2041-9058.. Moxy🍁22:26, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The number of prisoners is straightfoward, but the measurement of democracy is somewhat subjective. The Routledge Companion to Autocratization references the V-Dem Democracy Indices and Russia is ranked 147/179 for 2024. It is simply not the case that there are 30+ other countries in the world that have totalitarian or almost totalitarian regimes (among the likes of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Maoist China).
If we want to inform readers about the rate of autocratization, we can simply say that the democratic decline has accelerated. This is factual and widely supported by RS. If we start using terms like "totalitarianism" (that are contested) then this is less appropriate for the overview, and of course, there will be various views on the matter, but we cannot include all of this in a brief overview. For example, this article argues there was never a democratic transition in the first place, but this is not something for the overview. Mellk (talk) 22:45, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be great if you actually dedicated some time to checking the sources. #1 is a high quality source but it was published in 2019 and says that the totalitarian elements have decreased in recent years. #2 is not a good source and claims that Russia is already a totalitarian state. #3 is an editorial. #4 is an opinion piece. #5 is an interview of a writer. Mellk (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So this topic is covered in a wide range of sources.... from academic to news to opinion pieces and beyond. Going to be hard to rebuff thousands of sources. Moxy🍁23:37, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where are these thousands of sources? The only journal article that mentions it is heading towards totalitarianism now is the one you mentioned. All the journal articles I have tried to find only mention authoritarianism or increasing authoritarianism. Per WP:RSOPINION: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. Therefore, we cannot use such sources to state that it is becoming "increasingly totalitarian". It wouldn't be a good idea to mention in the overview of the US government that the country is heading towards fascism because some opinion pieces say so.[3]Mellk (talk) 23:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is simply something we will have to explain to our readers - as our purpose is to educate. We are not hear to suppress valid information.
We are not hear to suppress valid information. I am not sure what that is supposed to mean. We have WP:ONUS for a reason. Otherwise we can double or triple the article size to include "valid information" and not suppress it as long as it is cited.
I am also not sure where you see 13.5 million results. The number of raw results is worthless. Again, focus more on quality and not quantity. We only have one academic source that covers 2022 onwards that supports the claim that it is becoming "increasingly totalitarian". WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies. Mellk (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever your strategy, don't leave our readers without any information on subjects of notability. Consider what the best way to inform our readers is. It may be better to confront and explain problems of a fringe or alternative theory than to leave our readers to search the web for the information: a well sourced article or section within an article can lead our readers to more reliable information then a search engine can.Moxy🍁01:24, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another good source: ...trends toward reinforced structures of populist and totalitarian governance. ... Russia's rentier economy after the war, which could potentially bolster Russia's totalitarian...BootsED (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was completely unaware that they've killed so many dissidents outside of the country. As a Canadian who watches news everyday this never pops up. Moxy🍁01:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only see one brief mention of a totalitarian regime in Russia. Except this journal is about economics and the article was written by economists. WP:EXCEPTIONAL includes: Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people. It is fair to say that this goes against the prevailing view in political science. Mellk (talk) 08:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point we see with this source ...is the term is use across multiple academic fields. Any suggestions to inform our readers ....or is it simply a no? Thus far 3 longtiimers feel the topic has merit. Moxy🍁08:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue is that "totalitarianism" has a very specific meaning in political science. The term "totalitarian", like many other terms in politics, can get thrown around loosely (say for example contentious terms like far-right, far-left, dictator, etc.). There is the same discussion at list of totalitarian regimes about problems with the quality of sources and the inclusion criteria as a result. As I have already mentioned, this is an exceptional claim.
There is one article from Political Studies Association which "charts Russia’s plunge into authoritarianism under Putin" and another article from The Japanese Political Economy which briefly notes that it is a "totalitarian regime". Even with the relatively few sources that mention totalitarianism today (as opposed to the authoritarian nature of the regime), how would you summarize this disagreement between them?
Yes, authoritarianism/autocratization is a notable topic, which is why I think it is useful to mention this. But the differing viewpoints on the degree of autocratization should be mentioned in a more specific article about politics/Putin's ideology, rather than in the overview of government. We still mention significant autocratization (that is something widely covered) and in other sections the restrictions on civil liberties and political freedoms etc. Mellk (talk) 08:42, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to List of totalitarian regimes: “Authoritarianism primarily differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under governmental control.” So as the Russian Orthodox church is now controlled (presumably by giving them money) by Putin now no significant institutions remain independent. So Russia would seem to fit that definition of totalitarianism. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
r From academics to media and within the country...
"Natasha Lindstaedt is a Professor of Government at the University of Essex. Lindstaedt, Natasha (2024). "Russia's Descent into Totalitarianism". Political Insight. 15 (2): 12–15. doi:10.1177/20419058241260782. ISSN2041-9058. experts are noting that the regime is becoming increasingly totalitarian - a departure from being merely a competitive authoritarian regime."
Domańska is a senior fellow at the Warsaw-based Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW). She specializes in Russian domestic politics."Putin's neo-totalitarian project: the current political situation in Russia". OSW Centre for Eastern Studies. 2023-02-17. Retrieved 2025-03-06. After two decades of discouraging Russians from engaging in state affairs and 'big politics' (an approach typical of an authoritarian model of rule), 2022 saw top-down efforts to mobilise them around the government's aggressive goals (a shift to a totalitarian model).
Ben Judah - Foreign Secretary (United Kingdom) Judah, Ben (2022-03-10). "How Putin Plunged Russia Toward Totalitarianism". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2025-03-06. Russia is crossing into a fragile, chaotic version of what could be a new mode of Putin-style totalitarianism. It is not yet there, but there is a high risk of things becoming darker ahead
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sophisticatedevening (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Not done: seems sourced and is further discussed in the government section Cannolis (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
