Talk:Russians/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Religion of Russians. Contradiction in infobox.

This article contradicts itself in that it talks about ethnic Russians yet it says that 15% percent of them are Muslims. In the 'Islam in Russia' article as well as the 'Religion in Russia', it says that Muslims in Russia belong to other ethnic groups.

Also, the number of Russians in Russia, is 115 million. The population of the whote country is 140 million. If you include all religions in the the Religion part of Infobox, please include the 140m (Russians in the widest sense) instead of the 115m (ethnic Russians). The infobox contradicts itself, which is evident to people who know that ethnic Russians who practice religion identity with Eastern Orthodox Christianity and that ethnic Russians with nationalistic viewpoints are quite Islamophobic and view islam as a 'foreign' religion.

But yes, most Russians do not have a religion and are atheist or agnostic. As Eastern Orthodoxy was the state religion of the Russian Empire, many ethnic Russians who do not practice religion identify with it on nationalistic grounds. Russians citizens of other ethnicities do not identify with it unless they are baptised into that religion. They do not associate it with their national identity.

Yes in the Western World, especially US and UK we include every citizen in our nationality, and do not think of ourselves as ethnic groups excluding smaller ethnic groups living in our countries.

Russians, however are not so politically correct and can be offended if they see that 15% of Russians are Muslim as well as 15% of them are Eastern Orthodox Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.243.218 (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Russians Religion

I'm am a Immigrant Russian to America and I have read a lot of Stuff about Russia and Religion. I believe saying that "63% to 73% of Russians are No-believers" is false statement because if there 70.3 Russian Christians in Russia say this article "http://en. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_by_country" Tell me that 70.3 Russian Christians are in Russia and Russia has 115 of the population of ethic Russians vs 150. Why is 63-73% of Russians Atheist!

http://www.valley.net/~transnat/russrel.html http://www.sewanee.edu/Russian/html/html_culture/Religion/religion.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikitaAlexoivch1 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the figure from the CIA World Factbook, as cited in the article. The CIA Factbook is a reliable source. Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. The Valley.net article makes a claim about a Time Magazine article, but we need the Time article itself, not a report of it, to judge. The Sewanee article only says the primary religion is Russian Orthodox - that is consistent with what the CIA source says. So far, the best source is the CIA World Factbook, which is reflected in the article. Sparthorse (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sparthouse, the CIA book shows figures for all the population of Russia, and as we all know Russia is multi-ethnic. This artile is about ethnic Russians, and I can assure you that 10% of them do not follow Islam. It is an ethnic minority 'foreign' religion. Ethnic Russians actually fought against Muslim countries, mostly Turkey, and even fought hard to gain independence from a Muslim empire in the middle ages. I can say that traditionnly, Russian nationalism was quite Islamophobic and ethnic Russians traditionally identified themselves as Christians, especially Eastern Orthodox ones. The CIA is not an expert on Russian identity! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.212.101 (talk) 11:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, another US or British person does not understand the concept of ethnicity in Russia. in Russia, a Russian is someone of an Eastern Orthdox Christian background who does not identify with ethnic minorities, i.e. Tatars, Yakuts, Jews, Poles, Volga Germans, etc. In Britain, anyone from Russia, who was born and brought up there is fully Russian. Ethnicity, ancestry or Religious afiliation does not come into it. But Britain and America are immigrant countries, whereas Russia isn't, therefore national identity is exclusive.

How would you like it if a Russian, changed the wikipedia article on the English or Americans saying that they are exclusively of Anglo-Saxon descent and people of any other ancestry or Muslim or Jewish or Roman Catholic are not English or American, even though they clearly are? That Russian person would be disrespecting our notion of nationality/ethnicity and would be offending us. Please take into consideration their notions of self-identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.61.119 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Anthropology of Russian

Why not add a section of Russian Anthropology? As is well known for the average user of English Wikipedia, the image of the typical Russian is primarily connected with a number of stereotypes (high cheekbones, dark pigmentation etc). Thus, there is every reason to acquaint users with real anthropological features of Russians. As a sample can be considered corresponding section in the article about the Russian people in the Russian Wikipedia [1] translation - [2] Also ask to pay attention to the following quote from the article: "В русских популяциях отмечается крайне низкая частота генетических признаков, характерных для монголоидных популяций. Частоты восточноевразийских маркёров у русских соответствуют средним по Европе" translation - "The Russian populations has a very low frequency of genetic traits characteristic of Mongoloid populations. Frequencies of markers in eastern-Russian match the average for Europe." As you can see a widespread stereotype was not true, and for this reason it is necessary to add a similar paragraph in section Genetics.

Sorry for my english D.E.E.F.E.I.N. (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Much fewer than 150 million, went down by 5 mil in Russia

Firstly, the Russian population in Russia declined from 116 mil to 111 mil. How can the estimate not be reduced after that? Secondly, if one sums the Russian populations in regions where it is significant (i.e., the current list with about 35 countries), one will get 111016896 (Russia) + about 20333351 (other countries) = 131350247. ~132 million is a lot less than ~150 million. The Japanese or Turkish estimates, for instance, do not add 18 million out of the blue. There wasn't any massive emigration of Russians that would make it so difficult to measure their numbers. --Humanophage (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

The population of Russians in Russia did not go down by 5 million. The 111 million figure is taken from the percentage of only those who replied.

In the 2002 census, and previous ones less than 1% of the population was not present when the census takers came.

In the 2010 census, as per the sources, 6 million people (4%+ of the population.) were taken from admin. sources, and could not answer about their ethnicity.

Notice that this is different from people refusing to answer or saying "other" of which there were a couple of hundred thousand people.

It is estimated that due to the location of those 6 million and the overall composition, the ethnic split is about the same as the overall.

This means that of the other 6 million, about 81% are also Russian. There are multiple sources provided for this in the Demographics of Russia article. By looking at the Turk article (which you mentioned) it is clear that the higher estimate is listed (70 million) although in the bottom sources, the lower range is about 50 million. This is similar to the Germans, Italians, French, and most other articles.

Another example, the Bengali people pop. adds up to 200 or so million, but the total listed is an estimate of 300 million. It has been established that a higher estimate is always used for all groups. Hope that clears things up! Cheers,--Therexbanner (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note that none of the four sources provided for the 150M figure are reliable - three of them are random patriotic articles that have nothing to do with demographics research and use the figure as an offhand reference to "us, Russians" and one is a copy of an old version of the Russian Wikipedia article ru:Русские by an anonymous person on a free hosting site. Source number two tops them all, though, by attributing the figure to none other than Akhmad Kadyrov and his "If every Chechen kills 150 Russians, we win". Seriously. --illythr (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

They are no worse than other sources used for other ethnic groups. The Kadyrov quote is out of context. He is mentioned in proportion to the 150 million Russians. Also, they are not "patriotic" articles, whatever that means.

When a Russian source refers to Russians as "us", that makes perfect sense. Even the official GKS sources often do that, as well as Putin and the rest of the government. Regardless, no need to be biased against Russians by making the count different from the above-mentioned groups.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, finding the exact worldwide population of any ethnic group is not an easy task. I don't think any normal/sane government would ever publish such statistics as most countries consider all their citizens equally and do not track the stats of the dominant ethnic groups outside of the country.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Some more, these together with the above articles are 5 times more than what other groups have (Bengalis and Arabs do not even have one source for the total estimate.) http://top-antropos.com/rating/item/207-krupnejshie-narody-mira , http://www.russian.kiev.ua/print.php?id=11606390 .

Anyways, my point is that we should take the same approach that all other group articles take, without deviating from their consensus. Given that we have several (albeit not great) sources to support the numbers it makes sense to give that estimate.--Therexbanner (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source for a demographical estimate is one that deals with demographical estimates (like, say, a demoscope.ru article or something as respectable), not patriotic speeches, copies of old Wikipedia articles or propaganda quotations.

Of the two more sources you provided, one is a personal site by a "Dmitri from Arkhangelsk" and the other is citing the Russian Wikipedia article (!) at the critical point (150M). Nothanks.

If other articles use substandard sources, feel free to bring it up on their respective talk pages. This is certainly not an argument to use such low-quality sources here, see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Indeed, there appears to have been no recent (post-2002) academic attempts to estimate the number of ethnic Russians in the world. Because of this, I suggest to either slap a "2002" on the 150M estimate, or remove it until a recent reliable source is provided. --illythr (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I doubt we'll find an extremely reliable source any time soon, so I'll go with the 2002 tag. Taking out the number entirely would not look good, so as long as we have an approximate relatively recent figure, it should be OK. Meanwhile, I'll try to dig further, but so far I've gone through hundreds of Yandex and Google pages, and haven't found anything 100% solid. Usually overly optimistic (150+) or pessimistic ("all governments lie, 50 million left and 10 more dying every year, will die out in 5 years," etc.)--Therexbanner (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my first action here was to google around too, but all I could find were these generic sourceless references. It seems this 150M number is quite popular, but nobody has ever bothered to trace it down to its source, which we'll probably never know, now. I supect that Wikipedia itself has become this source in recent years (shudder). --illythr (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep searching, maybe some academic research has been done in recent years, maybe not, we'll see.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• As an aside, would it make sense to explicitly date the rest of the estimation/census data? It's getting rather divergent... --illythr (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I think it would.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Here's one for ~133 million. Seems kinda religious, but at least cites its own sources. It also seems to date the 150M estimate with 2000. I don't really like it, as its primary goal appears to be religious proselytism (as opposed to demographics research) but I guess its better than nuthin. --illythr (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Natalie Wood

Natalie Wood isn't really some notable Russian I mean Eduard Khil is more Russian then her. I think she shouldn't be here for she has nothing to do with Russia or Russia and there are much more popular Russians then her.--89.212.220.154 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I suppose somebody added her as a representative of the Russian diaspora. See above discussion starting with "8:57 pm, 7 April 2010". --illythr (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

right because she's Russian-American not just Russian. shes born in America to Russian immigrants. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

About Natalie Wood

hmm...she should stay in the Russian-American article. this article should be for Russian-born Russians. not American-born. someone should replace her, i already tried before. it got reverted. replace her with someone like Vassily Zaitsev or Vladimir Putin. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

if nobody acts I'm changing Natalie Wood

she's not really Russian...she's Russian-American. i'm going to change her with an actual Russian (RUSSIAN BORN IN RUSSIA not AMERICA) if nobody speaks up or replies within 8-9 hours. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Russian Americans are still Russian. However, I don't mind you changing the picture, as she's not the best representative for the group, and there are more important people that can be added.

P.S. Your ethnicity does not change, regardless of where you were born. An ethnically French person born in China, is both French and French-Chinese.

Being born in Russia has nothing to do with being Russian. Russian refers to either citizenship (which is not always acquired, even if a person is born on the territory) or ethnicity - which is what this article is about (ethnic Russians.)

In terms of ethnicity especially, there are tons of other groups (Tatars, Chechens, etc.) that are not even part of the same language family, who are not Russian but were born in Russia. It is a multi-ethnic country, and this article is about the ethnic group specifically.

Anyways, I think Putin or a notable scientist would be a better replacement for her in the collage.--Therexbanner (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

a little funny you should say that...speaking to the fact that Russian people are descended from Germany and Lithuania. Polish people are descended from Russians, Germans and Austrians, but I don't here Polish people celling themselves Russians, Germans and Austrians...only POLISH! Same with Serbian people, who are Russians by ancient descent. hmmm...Russian is NOT really an ethnicity. its just like American, its a nationality. Chinese, Russian, American, Argentinian, British, Filipino and Indonesian are NATIONALIES not ethnicities. Natalie Wood is Russian-descended. being born in American makes you American. the term "Russian" does not have a good definition anyone can live anywhere. the reason why ethnicities form is because of immigrants. it may take time however, but still. deep breathe.... but yes I shall change the picture. thanks for the permission. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 03:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Oye Bozhe, what is this? Anyway....Russian people are not descendants of Germans and Lithuanians - they are descendants of Slavic peoples of Ukraine who later mixed with Scandinavians (re: Varangians) to an extent, and spread north-eastwardly. Polish people ARE NOT descendants of Russians, Germans, nor Austrians. Serbs are NOT of Russian descent. And your statement that "Russians are not really an ethnicity" is pure nonsense.--Львівське (говорити) 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What on Earth are you raving about? Russians are ethnicity and nationality (there is no difference between those terms in Russian language, they mean exactly same thing) people who live in Russian Federation are not always Russian and some editors already pointed that out to you - Russians and citizens of Russian Federation are not the same thing. This article is about Russians, not citizens of Russian Federation(Empire,SSR and so on). Natalie Wood is full-blooded Russian and it does not matter where she was born, be it Kazakhstan or US of A. She has to stay precisely because some editors here seem to misunderstand what this article is about. On the other hand, several other people, like Lenin for example, have to go, they are not Russians, not even partly and I have utterly no idea what they are doing here other than confusing people since it pretty much common knowledge that Lenin was a Jew who's family spoken Yiddish at home, meaning he was not even native speaker of Russian let alone has anything to do with Russians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference in the Russian language, we just don't differentiate in English. In Russian, Russkiy means ethnic Russian, while Rossy means a Russian citizen.--Львівське (говорити) 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

so, you're trying to feed us with conspiracy theories about Lenin? i've heard about those conspiracy theories and they are complete CRAP. Once again, Russian is a nationality. here is what I'm raving about. you move to a country, you form SEVERAL generations of offspring into that country, and your ethnicity will simply become your offspring's ancestry and descent. that is what I'm raving about. in case you havent noticed, in Britain there are Brits, Irish, Scots and Arabs/Iraqis living there. they're all BRITISH. in Poland once more, comprises of Russian, German and Austrian descent. yet Polish people ONLY CALL THEMSELVES POLISH. i never heard anybody from Warsaw raving on saying, "hey guys! I'm a third German, a third Russian and a third Austrian!" you are born in America, you are American. I don't hear Vietnamese, Thais, Filipinos, Camnodians, Burmese and Malays calling themselves Chinese/Taiwanese because their origins are from Yunnan, China and Taiwan! Chinese people went into these SE Asian areas and had offspring there. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Even though they are British subjects in this instance, English, Scots, and Irish are still distinct ethnic groups within the UK.

The question of ethnicity is a tricky one and has a lot to do with cultural heritage and self-identification. Members of a diaspora, for instance, usually identify themselves as part of their original ethnic group. This is particularly visible in multiethnic countries such as Russia, where most of the recognized "minority peoples" don't self-identify as Russians (russkiye). Another example would be the French Canadians who are Canadian by nationality, but French by descent and self-identification (and thus ethnicity). No opinion on Natalie Wood, though. --illythr (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No offence but your English is quite bad, I can barely understand what are you talking about here, but that's not the point. How does the fact Natalie Wood has American citizenship changes the fact she is Russian? Russian person might live in Norway and have a Italian citizenship, that wont make said person Norwegian or Italian. Furthermore the question of ethnicity not the question of identification when it comes to Russians as Jus Sanguinis principle has always been applied in Russia throughout it's entire history. You're Russian only if your parents are Russian, its question of bloodline, not self-identification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, ethnicity is tricky indeed. I'm not going to go into the details. But, Natalie Wood was born in America. Not Russia, that means she's a Russian-American. Ethnic French people in Canada, are French-Canadians. The reason why can actually be called French-Canadians is because they retain their culture. Still speak French and etc. They are called French-Canadians, and they have no problem. Not just "French". Not to mention, most of Americans who idendify themselves as "French" can't even speak a word of French, because they've lost touch. That is kind of how you lose your ethnicity. Most Russian-Americans do not speak Russian. Natalie Wood, is a Russian-American. Not Russian. This article is for ethnic Russians born in Russia, not America. Not Canada or wherever else. Because the ethnic Russians that aren't in America actually know how to retain their culture. I, just got my butt handed over trying to prove that Filipinos are ethnic Malays. Why? Because Filipinos no longer speak Malay, or follow Malay customs. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

"This article is for ethnic Russians born in Russia" Not at all. This article is about Russians and it does not matter where said Russians were born. Korolyov for example was born in Ukraine, many famous Russians were also born abroad. I have no idea why would you think that this article is only and exclusively about Russians from Russia, because at some points in Russian history Russia didn't even exist as a unified state, especially during medieval times — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 06:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, Wood was born in America but is still Russian. Just because she's a hyphenated America, remember, the word before the hyphen denotes the ethnic/national group, and the 'American' the citizenship--Львівське (говорити) 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, you mentioned Korlyov being born in Ukraine. Really....!? Because I just read his biography, and during that time Ukraine was part of the Russian Empire....therefore Korlyov was born in RUSSIA! sure..Ukraine is an indpendant country today. BUT, back then it was Russia. Not to mention that Kiev, Ukraine's capital city was once Russia's capital city. it all COUNTS Russia as long as there was no such thing as Poland, Ukraine or even Belarus back then. Because it was all Russia! ha! a Russian Article for Russians from Russia ir is. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Regardless what you want to believe, Ukrainians (Ruthenians) existed as an ethnic group before Ukraine, the nation-state, was formed. Also, Kiev was never the capital of Russia, it was the capital of Kievan-Rus', the predecessor of both states.--Львівське (говорити) 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian Empire is not equal Russia, Russian empire (at very least de jure) consisted of several other sometimes semi-autonomous states. As for Kiev being Russia's capital. Medieval Kiev has nothing to do with post-mongol/tatar invasion Kiev, really. But that's not a point anyway, it is not for you to decide what this article is about. This article is clearly about Russians and ethnicity has nothing to do with physical borders. Just because you, for some bizzare reason decided Russians cant born outside of Russia (and if they do they are not Russians, according to you) it does not mean your opinion has anything to do with reality, it's as simple as that really. In any case I'm not going to continue silly revert war, instead I'd rather remove non-Russian from infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Львівське (говорити) 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope! They were still ethnic Russians back then. Ukrainians and Belorussian were simply sub-ethnicities of the Russian ethnicity. Natalie Wood's children are only Russian by decent. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

This is just some conspiracy theory you've cooked up. Ukrainians and Belarusians were Ruthenians, and does not your theory about 'sub-ethnicities' subvert your previous claim that Russian isn't an ethnic group?--Львівське (говорити) 22:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that's it. Stop vandalizing this article already and get out. Using that retarded, broken logic of yours there could be no Russians outside of Russia and yet if you check numbers in infobox you'll find out there are more than 10 millions of them living abroad and they did not move in yesterday - they lived there for generations and they are still Russians. I hope you can understand that? As for "Natalie Wood's children are only Russian by decent." I think you seem to misunderstand what this article about despite our discussion. This article is exactly about that - descent. "Russianess" is determined by descent and descent only. That is the only way one could become Russian - so yes, that's precisely why Natalie Wood deserves to be here - she is full-blooded Russian, there is literally no reason why you cant use her as example of famous Russians. UNLIKE Lenin who is not Russian and does not belong to this article. Is this clear? I'm getting tired of borderline troll logic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There exists some conflict over what actually is Russian and what is not.

In order to overcome this conflict one really needs to define the parameters of who should be included and who shouldn't be defined as Russian. In fact this is something that is currently happening in Russia as the definition of Русскый and Россиянин are beginning to be defined. (One initial difficulty is that one is an adjective and the other a noun,... but I digress.) There exists a diference in the Russian language between the concpt of an ethnic Russian and a Russian citizen (who may or may not be ethnically Russian).

If one takes a citizen definition, then one cannot include ethnic Russians from other countries, citizens of the Baltic states, Ukraine or the USA. This would exclude people like Natalie Wood.

If one takes an ethnic definition one cannot include Pushkin, Gogol, Stanislavsky, Koroliov, Tchaikovsky, Chekov, Akhmetova, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Gorbachov and even Natalie Wood because of their mixed, or non-Russian ethnic make-up.

Russian culture is so great and vast that it really does not need to highlight people of the perifery in the galley. There are so many prominent Russians that this argument should not really take place. Maybe it would be beneficial to have a second gallery of ethnically non-Russians who have been influenced by Russian culture who have made signficsnt contributions to Russian and world culture through Russian culture. This would allow the claiming of many more people and show the leading position of Russian culture amongst the cultures of the world.

I would think that it would be generally better to initially differentiate and confine oneself to ethnic Russians in the main gallery. And then have another gallery with a more international make up featuring people who made significant contributions but who were not necessarily "pure Russians".

One could even have an additional galley for succesful Russians living outside of Russian such as Sikorsky, Natalie Wood, David Sarnoff etc. Bandurist (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

They are all ethnically Russian. No one is looking at "pure" ethnicites as that simply does not exist. All humans are mixed in some way.

For the purposes of all these articles, ethnicity is defined by self-determination by each person either through a census (or through verified statements for famous people.) If Natalie Wood said she is Russian many times, and we have sources for that, then no one can say she wasn't--Therexbanner (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about here. There are lots of clearly non-Russians in infobox and it confuses people because this article is about ethnic Russians. Having one distant non-Slavic ancestor in family is fine, having Ukrainian/Belarusian parent is alright, since both ethnic groups are East Slavic. But having pictures of people who had basically zero Russian blood is just a joke. Oh and by the way Natalie Wood in question was not mixed to any degree, both of her parents are ethnic Russians and she even called herself Russian and yet she is repeatedly replaced by a Jewish Lenin here, in article about ethnic Russians. This quickly becoming annoying to revert raving lunatics who are hell-bent on vandalizing this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You just do not give up do you? First off, I agree with the other person. Nobody is pure, everybody is of mixed descent. I already told you, that Lenin's ancestors are mixed. Lenin, has some Kalmyk, Jewish, Orthodox Russian and Swedish origin. But you continue to feed us with Lenin conspiracies, that he was a Yiddish-speaking Jew. I already told you, to post your conspiracy crap on Vladimir Lenin's article, start a new section about the Lenin conspiracies or go spread your crap on the talk page. You are the one, vandalizing the infobox due to conspiracy theories you hear or read online. Lenin, is probably more "Russian" than Natalie Wood. But that's not my point anymore. The fact of the matter is, Lenin is still a Russian despite his mixed ancestry. I'm a Filipino, my ancestry comes from Japan, Thailand, Taiwan, Russia and Spain. I'm just Filipino in the end! Once more, quit it with the dogma about a Jewish Lenin. Who even cares if Lenin followed the Jewish religion? Does that really change him being an ethnic Russian? Jews from Africa and India, aren't afraid to call themselves ethnic Indians or Africans. Again once more, you are making this WAY MORE complicated than it should be. Just because, you believe the story of Lenin was a conspiracy, does not make anything vandalism. Vandalism, would be adding hurtful information or anything based on hurtful information. Which is what you are doing. You don't see me going around, telling people that I'm Japanese or Russian and not Filipino! If I converted to Judaism, are you trying to tell me that I "magically" aren't a Filipino anymore? Or if, I converted to Islam; does that magically make me a Malay? No! I'm going to report you to the administrators. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

This is really getting nowhere, this discussion would a valuable lesson for future editors and a good example just how much Wikipedia degenerated during last several years. I see no reason to engage in silly revert wars or getting worked up with someone who can't even comprehend meaning of Jus Sanguinis or concept of ethnicity, I just it find funny that articles are not improving at all, in fact they seem to be getting worse and worse with time, especially on English wiki. I guess thats why many good editors either moved to Ru.wiki or just quit it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.148.166.210 (talk) 10:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's people like you who degenerate Wikipedia. As I already told you, feel free to post your Jewish-Lenin conspiracy crap on the biographical article about him, but you don't listen. You would have destroyed the neutrality of Wikipedia and you are the one bringing this entire thing into a circle. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Zaytsev

Who is he and why is he in the infobox? The infobox should only contain the most important Russians, not some soldier who was only notable for his killing activities. I therefore suggest to remove the picture and replace with someone who is far more notable, be it an artist, religious leader or politician. Regards.GoP_T^C_N 17:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

He was notable to have a movie made about him (Enemy at the Gates) but I agree someone more important should be in his place. The user who put him in has crazy about him, it seems.--Львівське (говорити) 22:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why we should remove him. Replace with Putin, maybe?--GoP_T^C_N 09:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a rule against inserting current politicians into these things? I thought I read that once --Львівське (говорити) 05:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I replaced Natalie Wood with Vassily Zaytsev. Wood isn't a good representation of Russians. I'm not gonna fuss on and bitch about putting him back in the infobox, because I'm not. But Vassily Zaytsev was an important sniper (among many imporant Soviet snipers from World War II). I don't see a problem with soldiers here. Adolf Hitler is in the Austrians article and Joseph Stalin was on the Georgians article and they both killed much more than you can imagine. Enemy at the Gates was a false-interpretation of Zaytsev. It was based off of Zaytsev but it barely has any relation with the actual Zaytsev's experiences. Sure, Zaytsev is in my book. But I'm not crazy about him, speaking to the fact that I'm a guy! But yes, I was interested in Soviet Union history and Soviet and Russian soldiers in general. Which is why I was very familiar with notable Soviet soldiers. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Infobox portraits

I think I know two major problems with the mugshot mosaic.

A lesser one is that there are too many famous Russians to fit here, but this can be dealt later. A possible easy solution is to rotate the selection, like the DYK page, only not so freq. WikiProject:Russia may establish the suggestions page and set the rules.

However the major one is that the collage is one great big original research, and on the very top, too. Fame aside, there must be an actual solid (i.e., scholar and of resonable consensus) reference that a person in question is of Russian ethnicity. This would have prevented the long rants and wrangles in this talk page. I suggest start compiling a verifiable list right away.

As for notability, I remember some time ago I heard there was a poll in Russia about most important Russians of all times. I tried (not very hard) but failed to find any info about it. I suggest to consider taking it as a starting point. (Buit only a starting point: for example I remember Stalin was in the top 10 if not the topmost.) Staszek Lem (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Does Tchaikovsky count? I know it seems silly to say out loud, but being of Ukrainian-French descent...he was obviously a Russian subject, but does he fit the 'ethnicity' factor, if that's what this article is driving for?--Львівське (говорити) 05:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Your question corroborates my point. There should ot be a chaotic questioning of this or that entry. There must be a unified discussion of all entries, supplied with reliable sources about ethnicity. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Guess what...

On a funny note; while researching the subject I came across an interesting list: 10 most famous Russians in the USA (2004). Now, test your IQ and tell me how many Russians are in this list:

1. Mikhail Baryshnikov - ballet dancer, producer, actor.

2. Anna Kurnikova - tennis player and model.

3. Dmitry Sims - President of Nixon Research Center.

4. Leon Aron - Director of Russian Research of Institute of American Entrepreneurship

5. Nikolai Zlobin - Director of Russian and Asian programs of the Center of Defense Information.

6. Elena Bonner - human rights activist, the widow of Academician Andrei Sakharov.

7. Yury Temirkhanov - conductor of Baltimore Symphony Orchestra.

8. Semen Kukes - businessman, Head of YUKOS company.

9. Ariel Koen - Research Director of Nasledie (Heritage) Foundation.

10. Eduafrd Lozansky - publisher and lobbyist, President of American University in Moscow, founder of Russian Annual Economic Forum.

Jokes aside, this may shed some light that not only wikipedians don't actually know what Russians are. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Esthetics

After writing the above, I took one last look at the pic and it strikes me as very gloomy and dull. It is almost as if created by Russophobes. In these pics Nabokov looks like a schizo, Lomonosov is a fatso, Gorbatchoff teaches us hysterically how to live, women are ugly (and scarse in numbers), Yashin is a Goth joke, etc.. I say Zaytsev looks the best (discounting a prettypainted Lenin). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter which faces you like or not. Zaytsev is no way as notable as all the other people in the box and to me he looks mentally disorded and distracting. If this article is about the Russians as ethnicity, then Lenin would be definitely disqualified. But it seems like we include just Russians, no matter if ethnicity or nationality. Regards--GoP_T^C_N 09:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes it matters. I know there is a hictorical fact that quite a few people would like to portray Poles, Russians, Croats, Ukrainians, etc. look moronic and ugly. If you want talk wikilawyer talk, here it is: the collection violates WP:NPOV, since it appears to push an unattractive image of Slavic people. Just look at these self-confident, smiling French, Japanese, and English. And the discussion precisely about the fact that we include "just Russians". And I would say too that eg, admiral Ivan Kruzenshtern is more deserving than Zaytsev. Heck, I am sure way more Russians know "адмирал Ива́н Фёдорович Крузенште́рн" than a Zaytsev. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The notion that a NPOV is being pushed to convince people Slavs are ugly maniacs is....well, maniacal in of itself--Львівське (говорити) 05:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed. Ваш аргумент порожній (а крім того вважатиму за неповагу), шановний пане. This is both a historical and modern fact that this opinion is propagated by quite a few: that Russians are all druncards and uncivilized and whats not. If you want to ignore this, fine with me. This is a problem of Russian wikipedians, not mine. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

See Hanlon's razor. Replace "stupidity" with "enforced public domain image use". Yashin's photo a prime example. In any case, we can always revert to the prewar, comparatively small and tidy version. --illythr (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pre-war version is a bit too small. GreyHood ^Talk 22:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Guys, the two last subsections were kinda thumb in cheek. What about my serious proposal above them? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Gorbachev

What is he doing in the mosaic? That's insulting.78.84.28.163 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

yep, what he doing is insulting: he looks like he teaches us a lesson: "You wikipedians with your undercooked social-utopist ideas will eventually run into glory and trouble, just like me." :-). 99.107.86.46 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant we could find a less controversial figure, right?62.85.121.15 (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Lenin is more controversial, but we still include him. I personally preferred the former infobox, with 19 of the most influential Russians: Godunov, Peter I, Lomonossov, Pushkin, Dostoyevksy, Tolstoy, Mendeleyev, Tchaikovsky, Checkhov, Pavlova, and (Korolyov); and to have a round number we can include eg Gagarin or Ivan IV.--GoP_T^C_N 10:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually thought that Lenin's picture in the mosaic was just vandalism. He obviously should be removed as well. 78.84.28.163 (talk) 11:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Another stupid "Lenin was a Jew!" conspiracy theorist. Adolf Hitler used the same exact argument against the communists. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

I don't care about his ethnicity. He is simply too controversial. 78.84.28.163 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-Russians in collage (again)

Lenin/Alexander II/Ivan IV

Neither of them was Russian, I'm wont even bother explaining the fact that Lenin, a murderous Jew, was responsible for genocide of Russians during the communist instigated civil war. I think I should remind you what this article supposed to be about: "This article is about the ethnic group. For citizens of Russia, regardless of ethnicity, see Demographics of Russia. For other uses, see Russian (disambiguation)." 213.148.166.210 (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

umm..no Lenin was Russian. but he had a mixed Dutch, German and Jewish bloodlines. but thats his ancestry and ancestry is different anyone can have ancestry. Ivan IV and Alexander II were Russians! i'll tell you who wasn't Russian, that is Natalie Wood she's American born so she's Russian-American. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Александр II русский? А давно Гольштейн-Готторпские - стали русскими?

Так же.. Гоголь - украинец; Суворов - наполовину швед, на половину армянин; Достоевские - татарский род; Чехов - украинец и т.д.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.37.168.56 (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Lenin redux

Lenin must go. There was a big discussion about this earlier, and it seemed that everyone involved either supported removing Lenin or was ambivalent about the matter. Lenin was out of the mosaic until someone decided to come along and re-add him without first reaching consensus. Well, guess what? Since he was re-added without consensus, he can be removed without consensus. Any suggestions for a replacement? --50.46.248.86 (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Lermontov, Bulgakov, any other famous writer, any world chess champion or a famous sportsman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.28.163 (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just the same conspiracy dogma being spread by a several people using different IPs or not logging in. Like I'm gonna fall for that BS. Lenin isn't going anywhere. There is no legit consensus on anything. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Why do we need to have him there? Do you like murderers? Why is it such an important question for you? 78.84.28.163 (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What conspiracy do you keep rambling about, PacificWarrior101? Several editors have voiced concerns over the inclusion of such a controversial figure in the mosaic, which is why he was removed. There is no conspiracy. If you want to participate in a serious discussion, you can start by respecting Wikipedia procedures. Consensus doesn't mean unanimity, and a single dissenting voice doesn't get to decide what happens. --Eightofnine (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree to remove Lenin from the mosaic. Also the infobox is too large and distracting; it is about 1/3 of the size. Compare the current one with this good version. --GoP_T^C_N 08:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Then tell, what is this "entire" contrevoursy all about? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

It's clear you did not read the previous discussion, let alone what 78.84.28.163 (talk · contribs) said above. Want to know why Lenin is a controversial figure in Russian history and shouldn't appear in the mosaic? Here's the answer. --50.46.248.86 (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Cool story, you wanna complain about murderers? Then tell me my friend, what is Joseph Stalin doing on the Georgians infobox hmmmm? PacificWarrior101 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

Why isn't Hitler on the mosaic of Germans? Or Pol Pot on the mosaic of Khmer people? Or Leopold II on the mosaic of Belgians? Or Slobodan Milosevic on the mosaic of Serbs? Who cares?! If other ethnic groups want to glorify questionable historical figures from their past, why is that our concern? Several editors working on this article want Lenin removed from the mosaic. That is the issue at hand. --50.46.228.114 (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Terror or not: Lenin is an eminently NOTABLE Russian, and will stay as such.--Galassi (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

HITLER!!??!? WANNA KNOW WHY HITLER ISN'T ON THE GERMANS!??? Because he's AUSTRIAN fucktard. PacificWarrior101 (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)PacificWarrior101

And there are NOTABLE Russians who are not controversial figures. The point is that there are many more suitable candidates for illustrating this article. --50.46.228.114 (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• As before, I don't see a problem in including Lenin into the infobox, seeing as how he's indeed an eminently notable 20th century Russian figure that has affected the history of the Russian people in a dramatic way. Positive or negative feelings some people have when looking at his image are irrelevant to this fact. Vladimir the Great, Peter the Great or Ivan the Terrible weren't exactly the nicest rulers either. On the other hand, the pool of eminently notable Russians is so deep that replacing Lenin shouldn't pose much of a problem either. Still, considering that nearly every candidate is bound to offend someone out there, whether due to their role in history or "racial purity" concerns, I can only reiterate my suggestion to restore the prewar version of the mosaic. --illythr (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If I had my way, I would remove the politicians and leave only the artists, writers, musicians, and scientists. I know that isn't going to happen, and I generally agree with your sentiments about notability. But what I want to stress is that Lenin seems to be an exceptional case. How many discussions have we had about Vladimir, Peter, or Ivan? None. Yet there have been several heated debates about Lenin, and I think I know the reason: As a 20th century ruler, his crimes are fresh in the minds of people. This is not a discussion far removed from the lives of ordinary Russians - this is a discussion Russians are having right now, particularly the young people who are learning about the horror stories from their grandparents. Are the constant battles worth it? You mentioned the old infobox. I also greatly preferred the old one, mainly for it's simplicity and aesthetics. So let me summarize my views:

I support restoring the old mosaic. I support the removal of Lenin for all of the arguments above. --50.46.228.114 (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, as there's one more user who apparently supports restoring the old mosaic as well, as long as nobody objects, I'll do just that tomorrow.

Note that the old mosaic has a "hole" in the lower row. I suggest filling it with Kovalevskaya or Tereshkova from the current version, due to women being underrepresented there. --illythr (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I would choose between either Pavlova or Akhmatova, but Kovalevskaya and Tereshkova are also notable.--GoP_T^C_N 20:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Pavlova is already included and I find Akhmatova's image kind of scary.

Meh, looks like User:I1990k went ahead and fixed the issue with both content and copyright of the mosaic. Everyone happy now? --illythr (talk) 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it is too large. Prefer a 3x4 format. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 08:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• The new mosaic is too wide, indeed. Good work with choosing recognisable large face portraits, but there is still some problems with choice of persons. Too few women (though it was also a fault in the previous versions) and perhaps too many old people and too much grey images in the last two rows.
• Furthermore, I do not like the idea of using one image instead of a table. In a table, a person's name is more clearly identifiable, and we can change persons and portraits more easily - and really, why not rotate them from time to time? Why not give a chance to more notable Russians to be featured here? I'd tentetavely agree, though, that perhaps we better avoid featuring 20th and 21st century politicians who might be controversial and cause edit warring. GreyHood ^Talk 23:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm back to my apathetic ambivalence, i.e., no opposition to either suggestion. --illythr (talk) 21:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
• I'm going to try to eliminate my personal bias, since I'm a pacifist, but here are some suggestions: If we're going to include military people, I would replace Zhukov with Fyodor Ushakov (or possibly with Stepan Makarov). Ushakov was a much more competent military commander than Zhukov ever was, but he was also an admiral and we already have two generals (Suvorov and Zhukov). As for weapons design, what makes Kalashnikov any more notable than, say, Tupolev? I also agree that the mosaic is a little too wide; personally, I wouldn't go any wider than the mosaic of Germans, primarily because the current mosaic creates a large gap in the infobox between the list of countries and their respective Russian populations. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 19:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Following this logic, it's ridiculous that Gorbachev is included. He is as controversial among Russians as Lenin. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Mistake in Collage

GreatOrangePumpkin, you've made collage smaller and added Nicholas II, who was four times less Russian than his grandfather Alexander II. 93.72.94.205 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nicholas II is an exception.--GoP_T^C_N 07:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

By what means? 93.72.94.205 (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Total number of Russians

This is a copy of the Russian Wikipedia article (again) and this is a political statement by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who is not exactly known for his demographics research. While the current number of Russians is probably greater than the (now) 132 million cited by the Joshua Project, it is the only source we have that's even remotely reliable (cites its data, focuses on demographics). If you'd like to amend the figure, please bring a source that is at least as reliable. Simply pasting random links that mention the number "150 million" just won't do. --illythr (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We have agreed on this before. Look up if you need a refresher. Using Joshuaproject is unacceptable as the numbers do not match any census data even remotely (ex. US and Canada, and most others.) Either use the 2003 data with the 150 million, or find some new reliable sources.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

From "Российская газета", article: http://www.rg.ru/2012/08/09/perepis.html, and posted on the official 2010 Census website: http://www.perepis-2010.ru/news/detail.php?ID=7403

"Впрочем, директор Института этнологии и антропологии РАН Валерий Тишков считает: "Среди 5,6 миллиона человек, национальность которых для Росстата осталась неизвестна, минимум 4 миллиона, или 80 процентов, - это русские. Радикального уменьшения количества русских не произошло. Их доля даже повысилась"."

A statement from a Russian academy of sciences official and re-post of the article in the government neewspaper and census website should be enough proof for anyone. Therefore the number of Russians in Russia alone has increased from 2002, and not decreased to 111 million. Many were unable to respond to the census and were taken from administrative sources.

To clear this up, they did not say they had another ethnicity or not stated out of principle, there were a separate 1% of those in the census. The 4%, mainly Russians were simply unable to reply.--Therexbanner (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The main problem with the 150M figure is that it comes from random opinion pieces by authors who only mention it in passing and focus their articles on something completely different. None of them are reliable because of that. The Joshua Project, while not the best of sources, at least focuses on demography and thus works as a "stopgap" solution, until a real academic source can be found. But whatever, I suppose the current figure can stay with current sourcing, as long as it states the year. Just don't add any more Wikipedia ripoff pages to support it. --illythr (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good, still looking for some data, it doesn't help that some wiki-based articles occasionally masquerade as real research.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this figure seems to be particularly prone to feedback loops. I bet the majority of Internet "sources" citing this number took it from Wikipedia. --illythr (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Politicians?

Do we absolutely have to have Soviet Politicians? I mean the Russians did so many great things, we all know that. But Soviet politics wasn't one of them. I mean we don't have Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Chernenko, Andropov, insert Soviet politician here, so why Gorbachev? Why have any at all? They're all controversial, and might still be offensive to people who are still living. I mean Ivan the Terrible was bad, but it's not like he messed up the family of anyone alive today. I'm sorry, I just don't see the reason for it. Instead of Gorbachev, why not put a Soviet rockstar? Or a famed filmmaker like Bodrov? Or one of the two Soviet female pilot fighter aces in WWII? And that goes for any politicians, even including the current Russian ones. For Americans, we get Franklin, but none of the current politicians are shown. 71.165.41.87 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So, no objections to removing Gorbachev? 71.165.41.173 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please remove Gorbachyov, he doesn't deserve to be there. 78.84.6.86 (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Russian genetics

Evidence that the northern Russian genetically related Finns outdated. In the original article is written: "In particular, the northern Russian by Y-chromosome markers have a more significant similarity with distant Balts than closer Finno-Ugric peoples. According mtDNA northern Russian gene pools are similar to Western and Central Europe. This gene pool Finnish people as distant from the northern Russian. study autosomal markers also brings northern Russian and other European nations, and calls into question the Finno-Ugric reservoir in the northern Russian gene pool. this data can hypothesize about saving in these areas of the ancient paleoevropeyskogo substrate that has experienced intense migration of ancient Slavic tribes." Correct. Sorry for my bad English, because I am from Russia. P.S. also, I suggest to add data about the fact that the Mongolian population is not native Russian, because I often hear Deletant opinion about the fact that Russian descended from the Mongols. This is nonsense too. 37.79.91.46 (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Y-chromosome markers cannot show whether two peoples are related, they pertain solely to male ancestry. If you look at the Y-DNA of Mexicans, you'd think they are Spaniards with minute native admixtures, which is untrue. Autosomal DNA analysis shows that Northern Russians (e.g., from Vologda) have large Finno-Ugric admixtures. See any ADMIXTURE analysis at, e.g., Dodecad, Eurogenes, MDLP, etc. --217.172.29.4 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

About R1a1 in Kyrgyz population not correct. Kyrgyz population with R1a1 only from Jumgal District. The descent of the Kyrgyz from the autochthonous Siberian population is confirmed by genetic studies.[14] For instance, 63% of modern Kyrgyz men of Jumgal District[15] Other groups of Kyrgyz show considerably lower haplogroup R frequencies and almost lack haplogroup N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.61.52.56 (talk) 13:39, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"ethnic Russians" = "этнические россияне"

In English, the term "Russian" means related to Russia (born in Russia, living in Russia, a citizen of Russia, the official language of Russia, etc). It is a common misconception that if you add the word "ethnic" to the word "Russian" the result would be what we call "русский". An English equivalent of the people that came from Rus should be based on the word Rus and not on the word Russia. Otherwise, "ethnic Russians" means "этнические россияне" which does not make any sense at least to someone who knows how many different peoples have lived for centuries in Russia.

178.176.151.119 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC) 178.176.151.119 (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Religious claims

It seems like someone added in a bunch of information about religion but without providing more reliable sources for those claims... For example, I couldn't find a proper source or citation for "Islam with over 100,000 ethnic Russian followers" - the citation at the end of this sentence doesn't seem to support this claim, so I suggest finding a better source for it (I couldn't find any that mentions these numbers in relation to "ethnic Russians") or removing it altogether.Rndomuser (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Alexander II... Russian?

I start with the assumption this article is about Russians as an ethnic group in Europe---do correct me if I'm wrong. How is Alexander II Nikolaevich Russian? The tad of Russian blood he got from Peter III, his distant ancestor and Peter I Alexeyevich 's grandson is overwhelmed by his German ancestry. 202.171.163.7 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please, stop adding Israel

The number 1,500,000 is the approximate number of the immigrants of the great wave of Aliyah from the USSR and the former Soviet republics during the 1990's and somehow 2000's. The majority of these immigrants are ethnic Jews (the fact that made them possible to immigrate to Israel under the Zionist law of Return), the rest are from partial Jewish ancestry or non-Jewish people married to Jews / people of Jewish ancestry. The number of ethnic Russians in Israel seems to be difficult to estimate, since the official Israeli census doesn't even deal with the ethnic affiliation of the immigrants that are not considered as "Jews", but merely define them as "non-Jewish citizens" 77.127.28.36 (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a few questions here. Firstly, those of partial Jewish ancestry are presumably (for the most part) also of partly Russian ancestry, and thus might be considered "ethnic Russians" as much as they are "ethnic Jews." In the second place, several of the countries listed in the sidebar are for "Russian ancestry" rather than "ethnic Russians." I don't see why Israel should be any different. At any rate, certainly there must be some kind of estimate here. Even if 2/3 of the Soviet immigrants are pure ethnic Jews, that'd still leave about half a million with full or partial ethnic Russian ancestry, which would put Israel ahead of Kyrgyzstan. john k (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's just as you say - "presumably", "some kind of estimate", etc. There are no official or even unofficial data made by some serious research. There's no separate "ethnic Russian" community in Israel, but there's a "ghetto" of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. 77.126.84.16 (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Israel

Why isn't Israel mentioned in the info table? john k (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Because there are no Russians in Israel. There are a lot of Russianized Jews, but no actual ethnic Russians. 23.240.42.139 (talk) 07:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Where's Lenin??

Lenin may just be the no.1 most famous Russian. He's certainly right up there. Why isn't he in the infobox? Not that I'm a fan, but I've just been going down my list of (in)famous totalitarian dictators and he seems to be the only one from the list of Big Ones not featured in the relevant ethnic group article infobox. What gives? -- Director (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Because this, this, and this. --50.46.245.232 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I see Lenin is back, this time joined by other questionable Russians. Confusingly, our article makes the distinction between русские and россияне, but conflates the two groups in the infobox. Is there evidence that Kasparov has any Slavic Russian ancestry? --50.46.245.232 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Most of people in Russia hate Lenin. 77.126.164.93 (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't speak for many. I guess most have no strong feeling to either side, but neither can be proved. It is easy, insane and unhealthy to hate distant people, gross pity if you're right, but I think you are not. - 89.110.18.225 (talk) 10:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Mother of Lenin was jewish woman and his father was kalmyk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.72.22.218 (talk) 18:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Read Vladimir Lenin#Early life. Lenin's mother was half Jewish (her father was Jewish, and her mother was Swedish-German), so Lenin was only a quarter Jewish and obviously was not religiously Jewish. Lenin's father was ethnically Kalmyk, a Tatar people, although it seems he was culturally Russian. Therefore, Lenin was half Kalmyk, quarter Jewish, quarter Swedish, and quarter German. Like the other great Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin (who was ethnically Georgian), Lenin was not ethnically Russian. 23.240.42.139 (talk) 08:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Lenin should be removed from the collage due lack of Russian ancestry. Khazar (talk) 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov

Half Jew, half Armenian. Born in Azerbaijan and now lives n Russia, but ethnically not Russian at all. 77.126.164.93 (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Kasparov can only be considered Russian by citizenship. He is not an ethnic Russian. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Plus, Nikolai Lobachevsky is of Polish origin. Nikolai Gogol is half Polish, half Ukrainian. Both of Maria Sharapova's parents are from Belarus. --Երևանցի ^talk 06:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Dostoevsky is of "Polish origin" and he is Russian and hated Poles. If you are russophobe keep you hate somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.165.173.131 (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If we include Gary Kasparov, we can as well include Stalin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.116.11 (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Russians" in the collage

Seriously, why are there non-Russian people in the collage? Kasparov was Armenian-Russian Jewish, Lenin was Russian Jewish/Swedish/Kalmyk, and there's no evidence of Sharapova's Russian ancestry. Until then, the collage will not stay until it's resolved. Before one of you argues that Russian Jews are ethnic Russians, please consult the genetic studies of Ashkenazi Jews before making a wild and uneducated assumption. Khazar (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to first clarify the definition of "Russians". As stated in the Russians#Terminology section, there are two definitions: 1) the Slavic ethnic group ("russkiye") 2) Russian citizens ("rossiyane"). In English, there is only one word for people [of all ethnicities] from Russia: Russians. For instance, French people collage includes people like Josephine Baker, an African American and Zinedine Zidane, born to Algerian parents, because the French are, primarily, a nation in a legal sense not in a cultural (ethnic) sense. If we add "nation" to the opening sentence ("Russians are a nation and an ethnic group"), it would be perfectly acceptable to include people of any origin (Armenian, Jewish or whatever). --Երևանցի ^talk 00:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is clearly about an ethnicity [which in this case is Slavic Russians], not a nationality [which are citizens of the Russian federation]. Khazar (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"This article is clearly about an ethnicity" why so? What about Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and many other ethnic groups articles have people of clearly not of those ethnicity such as Jewish people? French people? Germans? Are those articles not about ethnic groups? There is no clear distinction between Russian ethnicity and nationality. --Երևանցի ^talk 05:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I just read some of those articles and they mention nation, therefore creating an ambiguous article. This has nothing to do with nation. Otherwise, The population count for Russians would have to change. As for no clear distinction, how do you explain the Terminology section? Khazar (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Support. Such Wikipedia articles are about ethnic groups ("Regions with significant populations: Russia: 111,016,896", not 143 million Russian citizens). However the Constitution of Russia stated "Everyone shall have the right to determine and declare his (her) nationality [i.e. "ethnicity" in English language]. Nobody shall be forced to determine and declare his (her) nationality". --TarzanASG (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What you don't understand is that nationality is not the same as ethnicity definition wise. This goes for the Russian and English language so your passage of the Russian consitution isn't relevant and taked out of context. Khazar (talk) 04:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Genetics data

That section needs expansion because it only mentions Y-DNA and a brief statement regarding Autosomal DNA. There should be mtDNA studies mentioned as well. Khazar (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox collage

This ridiculous collage illustrates the bottom end of the slippery slope that was started with this childish fad of cramming as many pictures into a single collage as can fit, to adorn the illustrate just how Great And Magnificent Our City/Nation™ Is. The Greater the Nation™ = the more tiny pictures in the collage. Except that, at no less than 32 persons (only three being women) these are not tiny anymore, but occupy a significant portion of horizontal space. Now, you can replace it with something like the photo below. No one would notice, trust me. No such user (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Good point; there shouldn't be this many people in a collage. Khazar (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with current version of Infobox collage? 23:04, 30 April 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.109.17.116 (talk)

Everything. The style, size, quantity, quality, and layout. Not to mention that multiple IP addresses are desperate to change the infobox images despite no consensus being reached. I'm dealing with multiple WP:NINJAs here but that won't matter as soon as this page becomes locked for good. Khazar (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Native Y patrimonial Slavic haplogroup

The native Y patrimonial Slavic haplo group is R1a1a (that's why there are no differences between Poles, Russians, Belorussians, Slovenes, Slovaks). The latest genetic studies of Slavs are well portraited in newest book of Anatoliy Klyosov / Anatole Klyosov; Slavs... The origin of Slavs was around the Black sea (in current Ukraine - which is interesting a target for NATO invasion).

Did you hear whom Klyosov calls "Slavs"? He said he uses the term "Slavs" to call "ancestors of all inhabitants of the Russian Empire" and that he "does not deal with languages". Klyosov should be treated with great caution. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

Please edit this infobox with examples of Russians. There are many greater Russians who not list. This moaner Khazar constantly revert my recommendation which is undoubtedly better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misanthropo (talk • contribs) 18:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems that you're the one whining here. The infobox was designed to be gender neutral and include ethnic Russians who've made significant contributions. Some are well known, other are not despite their crucial contributions to science and literature. That's why Losev and Prokhorov are included. Also, Fyodor Dostoyevsky is not even Russian and is actually Lithuanian. The only ones in the infobox who aren't >50% Russian are Anna Pavlova and Sergei Korolev. If you look towards the bottom center of the editing box, you'll see in bold: Sign your posts on talk pages:(with four tildas). Be sure to do that. Khazar (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky is HALF Lithuanian. The father of Pavlova is unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misanthropo (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Remove Lenin NOW

"There has been general consensus on several talk pages not to include dictators, criminals, etc. to the picture gallery" - Talk:Austrians

For the same reason that the dictator Adolf Hitler has been barred from being included in the page on both Germans and Austrians, Valdimere Lenin must, for the sake of NPOV, be removed from the image on the page of Russians immediately. Whether you like him or not, his actions, including his use of a Coup d 'etat to secure power, have considered him to be a dictator and thus NOT ALLOWED in any collage about peoples.

Remove him now or include Hitler in the Austrians page. I hate both men but either both are presented in their respected nationalities pages or both are excused. This is the consensus of Wikipedia and ideological attachment cannot override the NPOV rules.

Lenin is not universally accepted as a dictator. And even if he was, he is nowhere close to being as negative of a historic figure as Hitler ever was. For the record, Stalin is included in the infobox of Georgians. --Երևանցի ^talk 06:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No red herrings please. Who or what is included on the Georgians infobox is irrelevant to this page. The issue of including Lenin has been debated ad nauseum and the consensus has always been not to include him. Please go read the archived debates (see the links above). If you think you have good reasons to include Lenin and those reasons are not the same tired arguments that have consistently been defeated over and over, we can have a discussion. As it stands now, Lenin was added back into the collage without consensus and can be removed without consensus. 50.46.245.232 (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Should then Napoleon be considered as a dictator for usurping power, Coup d'etat and attempts to conquer the world? Or any other person who started or who was a leader of revolution in his country? As for the ethnicity, every member of any European royal family should be removed from the similar positions due to the enormous amount of royal marriages between the states... Going back to Lenin, he was not only an important leader of the country and a part of its history, but also an important Marxist theorist, acknowledged even by the Western International Relations theorists. 0zzz3 (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Alexander Pushkin?

Well as we here discuss, should people be defined as belonging to an ethnicity be based on some "ethno-racial" criteria. Lenin f. ex, he may not have been ethnically pure Russian Ok.. Then the question about Alexandr Pushkin should be the same, as he is included in the box, but you are aware that one of his parents was of African/Ethiopian descent, so why should he be included? As the issue with Lenin not a "pure" Russian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.116.11 (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you people that clueless about Lenin? He didn't have a single drop of recent Russian ancestry. He was Swedish, Russian Jewish, and Kalmyk/Tatar. Putting him in the collage is inappropriate considering his lack of Russian ancestry. If Lenin, or other "Russians", aren't removed soon. Then the whole collage goes down.Khazar (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox people

I suggest replacing Anna Kournikova with Alina Kabaeva. She is well known and was more successfull in her area of expertise.Epoxyorlyx (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Why would you use a Tatar sportswoman to illustrate Russians? --176.195.162.81 (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Soviet Cinema

State all your supporting points for this irrelevant information to be re-added. Khazar (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The infobox

State all your objections here before planning to edit and revert. Khazar (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I add people as in case of other etnic groups (for instance Ukrainian). It has 25 people. If there is any question, you can change some people to other. --Glovacki (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• I add: Leo Tolstoy, Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Anton Chekhov, Feodor Chaliapin, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Andrei Sakharov, Lev Yashin, Vladimir Vysotsky. --Glovacki (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's not relevant. The Ukrainians page is monitored by nationalists who serve no purpose on Wikipedia. Your changes do not benefit the article at all. Khazar (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• What do you have against my addition? --Glovacki (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Everything. This edit of yours is unconstructive and serves no purpose to the article. The number of people in the infobox isn't as important as you think. The people represented is what matters. I oppose your change and I'll give you a week to create and establish a consensus. If can't do so, then I'll simply revert. Khazar (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Since you haven't established a consensus, I've reverted your irrelevant edit. Khazar (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky

He's missing from the famous writers under "Culture" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.161.234.125 (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag

Is there any reason for this tag to remain, or are other editors okay with my removing it? I've noted that the archives reflect no discussion surrounding its being placed there, so where is the problem?

As an addendum, I've changed the 'Triune' with 'All-Russian nation' in the see also section as the article was a complete mess and refactored last year. I'll leave it up to other editors' discretion as to whether it is relevant or WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The only reason it's there is probably because of the population section in the infobox. The latest censuses from these regions are needed for the article to be "up-to-date". There are a few countries with pre-2009 censuses and that might be why it's there. I'm sure each of the countries in the infobox is quickly updated with the latest census so finding them on their own articles shouldn't be too difficult. I would do it now but real life has never been busier for me right now. Khazar (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha. Okay, I've been keeping my eye on the Russia article (and surrounding articles) and seem to recall a couple of more contemporary sources. Most of my time has been consumed by trying to keep a lid on the POV attacks from various nationalists who haven't gotten their way on the recent events in Ukraine articles. I've got a few things on my plate IRL, but I'll put this on my priority list. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Mix of content in Culture section

I suggest to remove the paragraph starting with "Russian literature is known for ..." and ending with ".. Alfred Schnittke". Reasons:

• The article pretends to cover Russians as an ethnic group. However, this paragraph is in fact related to Rossiyane rather than the ethnic group. E.g.:

"Russian literature is known for such notable writers as Aleksandr Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy, Anton Chekhov, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Boris Pasternak, Anna Akhmatova, Joseph Brodsky, Maxim Gorky, Vladimir Nabokov, Mikhail Sholokhov, Mikhail Bulgakov, Andrei Platonov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, and Varlam Shalamov." The term Russian literature denotes everything written in Russian, not only that written by ethnic Russians. Тhis sentence includes Boris Pasternak, Joseph Brodsky who are not ethnic Russians. But simply removing them would make an implicitly biased statement, if it does not clarify that the listed authors are ethnic Russians who represent a subset of famous Russian writers.

Similarly Alfred Schnittke mentioned at the end of the same paragraph was not ethnic Russian.

• Another reason is that most of this is also listed further down in section "Notable achievements". A few missing names can easily be integrated into that section.

--Off-shell (talk) 23:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

1,000,000 "Russians" in Israel.

What is "Russian"? Everyone from ex-Soviet lands? If in Israel there is 1,000,000 "Russians" than in Belarus it must be 10,000,000, in Russia 140 millions, in Ukraine 45,000,000, in Kazakhstan 18 millions, etc.

The reference 7 shows total number of immigrants to Israel from USSR and post-USSR. It doesn't show not how many citizens of Russian Federation are living in Israel and doesn't show how many ethnic Russians are living there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.216.253 (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point. At best, this figure only reflects the number of Russophones. Considering the number of Soviet Republics that existed, there is no indication of where the majority of the million immigrants came from. I'd consider this to be WP:OR working on assumptions. I could just as easily assume that only 5,000 of them were from Russian SFR. For the time being, I'll leave a template query next to the existing citation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It's better to get rid of it. This article is about an ethnic group and no sources mentioned the 1+ million Russians in Israel as Slavs while most of them mention them as Jews. Khazar (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll just go bold and remove it. I'm predisposed to understanding the figure as meaning that they are predominantly Jews by ethnicity (and would probably perceive themselves as such) unless there's any RS to indicate otherwise. If anyone has objections based on RS, they're welcome to chime in here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I think the figure of 3,500,000 Russians living in Germany should be removed as well. The majority of immigrants from Russia in Germany are ethnic Germans (Russian Germans, ru:Немецкие переселенцы), and there is also a smaller community of Russian Jews (see ru:https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Контингентные_беженцы#Беженцы из СССР). As in Israel, ethnic Russians came usually as family members with them, however I suppose their number is by far lower than the total number of Russian immigrants. --Off-shell (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)