Talk:Russia#Request for Comment 2

{{edit extended-protected|Russia|answered=yes}}

The phrase "under an authoritarian dictatorship" conveys a biased and politically motivated perspective, which can be seen as instrumentalizing Wikipedia for other agendas. To maintain neutrality, it is essential to describe the form of government as defined and enshrined in each country's constitution. The use of other sources are subjective and open to interpretation. Readers are free to form their own understanding of the complex realities of governance in each country without being "guided" by Wikipedia. Utilizing Wikipedia in this manner ultimately diminishes its credibility. I strongly urge you to remove this phrase. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 14:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• Wikipedia relies on secondary sources and does not defer to "each country's constitution" in cases where the general consensus among independent sources is that this description it not accurate as a representation of the actual state of things. GMG^talk 15:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :I believe the description of the form of government should be kept minimal, without extra qualifications. Even qualifications from secondary sources—scholarly ones included—are often subject to interpretation and debate. It's noteworthy that this change occurred within the specific political and geopolitical context we find ourselves in. I would like to reiterate my disagreement. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
• :How about an independent source that isn't western? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 21:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}} per GreenMeansGo; well-sourced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

::If Russia is labeled an "authoritarian dictatorship," how would you define Greece under the Colonels, Spain under Franco, Portugal under the Estado Novo, or Chile under Pinochet? Where do you see clear and precise parallels between those regimes—universally recognized as authoritarian or dictatorial—and contemporary Russia, which would allow you to categorically define it as an "authoritarian dictatorship"? It's crucial to maintain perspective and apply a critical lens when evaluating sources, particularly when, as I’ve observed, they are largely one-sided. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::It should be unsurprising to find one-sidedness where few defensible positions exist. We do not stack free press against a press that is (for some reason) constantly afraid of haphazardly falling out a window. GMG^talk 12:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm glad to see that you at least acknowledge it's one-sided. My point wasn't about using Russian sources, even though credible Russian sources do exist—provided you have a thorough understanding of Russian academia and scholarly output (and I can assure you, many of them succeed in taking the stairs when exiting the building). However, you could start by consulting a broader range of Western and non-Western sources, rather than relying on those that simply reinforce your pre-existing assumptions or ideological leanings. It’s only by broadening and diversifying your sources—and therefore your ideological lenses—that you’ll begin to truly understand the complexities and nuances. For instance, reading authors like Stephen Cohen, Nicolai Petro, Richard Sakwa or Alexei Yurchak (to name just a few) provides a different perspective on post-Soviet Russia, compared to Taras Kuzio, whom you cite, or leaning on openly Atlanticist think tanks—largely liberal in doctrinal terms—like Freedom House (funded by the U.S. Department of State) or the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, which has close ties to the German federal government. While all perspectives warrant consideration, they must also be critically examined and systematically challenged by other credible sources.

::::While one doesn't expect scientific or methodological rigor from Wikipedia, it’s still important to maintain a basic level of rigor. Otherwise, you risk turning it into a tool for other purposes, as your response seems to implicitly suggest. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Agreed. I second this. Very well-said! ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 21:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. BSMRD (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Here are several sources that offer a different and more nuanced view, emphasizing the complexity and hybrid nature of Russia's political regime in the post-Soviet era:

::- Russian Elections: Authoritarianism or Limited Democracy? (published in in iAffairs Canada; link: https://iaffairscanada.com/russian-elections-authoritarianism-or-limited-democracy/)

::- The Role of Political Parties in Putin’s Hybrid-Regime (published in e-International Relations; link: https://www.e-ir.info/2016/02/13/the-role-of-political-parties-in-putins-hybrid-regime/)

::- Eurasian polities as hybrid regimes: The case of Putin’s Russia (published in the Journal of Eurasian Studies; link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240450427_Eurasian_Polities_as_Hybrid_Regimes_The_Case_of_Putin's_Russia)

::- Overmanaged Democracy in Russia: Governance Implications of Hybrid Regimes (published in Carnegie Papers; https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12953?seq=1) ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Russia’s democratic standards have consistently declined over time. Two of the articles you cite date from 2010, when Russia still had a score of 4.26 on the Economist Democracy Index, classifying it as a hybrid regime. By 2016 and 2021—the years of your other two articles—Russia’s score had dropped to 3.24 and was already classified as authoritarian. Its most recent score is even lower, at 2.03: Authoritarian. Our text in the infobox is correct. Lova Falk (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::If I understand correctly, you're excluding scholarly articles unless they align with the Economist Democracy Index classification. Does this mean that the analysis of two of these articles (2016 and 2021), which does not align with the classification, should be disregarded, or that the classification itself should not be critically examined or challenged? It’s certainly an interesting methodology. ZeusMinerva25 (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Two of your articles are from 2010, when Russia was still a hybrid regime, so they say nothing about the present situation. The third article is from 2016, and did you read what was written there? "This content was originally written for an undergraduate or Master's program. It is published as part of our mission to showcase peer-leading papers written by students during their studies. This work can be used for background reading and research, but should not be cited as an expert source or used in place of scholarly articles/books." The article from 2021 is from iaffairscanada, and take a look at their about: https://iaffairscanada.com/about/ This is also not a reliable source for Wikipedia by far! "Online discussion and commentary by both established professionals and graduate students [...] Original research and policy commentary from a diverse range of authors, including new and senior scholars, practitioners, and industry professionals." The statement about Russia being under authoritarian dictatorship is well-sourced; The Economist Democracy Index is just one more source that confirms this status. Lova Falk (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{not done}} Sources provided were either old (2010) or not reliable sources. The text in our article is well sourced. Closing the request. Lova Falk (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I am Captain Cornwall. I am an autistic editor of Wikipedia, with what I would describe as a fair number of years of experience. I am aware that context is everything, and have my own analogies for the importance of context, although that is a story for another time.

Anyway, I seem to have found myself in a dispute with Remsense regarding my edits in relation to the first sentence.

I am autistic, and I often interpret things literally as a result. Other notable autistic people include Gary Numan, Chris Packham and Tay Zonday. The collaborative nature of the Wikipedia project would suggest that autistic people should be considered too.

I am aware that it is recognised that the names "Russia" and "The Russian Federation" are considered to be equally official. However, in everyday usage, most ordinary people would not use the full words "The Russian Federation". They would simply refer to the country as "Russia".

Accordingly, I amended the sentence to "also officially known as the Russian Federation". The full name "Russian Federation" is only, in practice, seen on passports and other official documents, but my addition of the word "also" was intended to recognise that the names "Russia" and "Russian Federation" are equally official, in accordance with previous consensus.

And to Remsense, I would like to say this:

I do not appreciate you stating in your edit summaries that I had "needlessly" cluttered the lead. The word "needlessly" implies bad faith. You are more than welcome to set the record straight if I got this wrong, but I believe I should let you know for future reference. This is a collaborative project, and it is a reasonable expectation that you should work with me, not against me. You are well within your rights to expect the same of me. Captain Cornwall (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi Captain Cornwall! There are many editors of Wikipedia who are autistic - some have mentioned it, others have not. When judging an edit, we don't look at who made it, but at the edit - does it improve the article, or does it not? And I am with Remsense on this one.

:* For me, saying that an edit "needlessly" cluttered the lead is not at all assuming bad faith. It is simply stating that it is not only not necessary but also redundant to use "also officially known as" instead of "or".

:* I agree with Remsense's assessment. Using more words to express something that basically can be said with one word reduces the readability of an article.

:* I want to praise you for stopping the edit war, and explaining on the Talk page instead. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Very well. Evidently it is time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass (and yes, I have read Wikipedia's essay in relation to this matter), even if I don't completely agree with Remsense's assessment. I shall therefore do exactly that. Captain Cornwall (talk) 22:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm autistic too, thanks for sharing. It's not fair to you if I imply I see some need for the change, as I don't. Remsense ‥ 论 18:04, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for sharing this with me too, Remsense. I think it's easy to see why I might perceive things a certain way, which may or not be intended. Anyway, as I have explained above, I have decided to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I would recommend reading Wikipedia's essay in relation to that matter, if you haven't done so already. It's excellent reading material. Captain Cornwall (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Great article! I loved the picture. Lova Falk (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@DayakSibiriak, you add Some publications point to the influence of discrimination against ethnic Russians in a number of post-Soviet states on Russian foreign policy based on 1998 source, right after the paragraph discussing Russia has also continued using subversive tactics to increase perceptions of its geopolitical power in its rival countries;[325][293] including cyberwarfare, disinformation campaigns,[326] sabotage attacks,[327] assassination attempts,[328] airspace violations,[329] electoral interferences[330] and nuclear saber-rattling. Composed as such, it may appear to the reader that the latermentioned recent developments could be justified with the discrimination, which may be or may be not the case, but we definitely cannot state so using 1998 source. Please observe the return to the consensus version [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=1289156306&oldid=1289121022] performed by @TylerBurden and reach the consensus for your edits first. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:The point is not where in the section to place about discrimination or that my source is from 1998 or that I cited only one source. Everyone silently understands that for the sake of correctness it is better not to include in the main article about Russia the recognition by some authoritative authors of discrimination against Russians in certain states. That's all. And this will be immediately resolved even if I cite more sources. I feel sorry for doing monkey job. DayakSibiriak (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Well monkeys aside, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1289703294 this edit] sure was an interesting one, @Mellk.

::Since you are accusing the content of being WP:SYNTH, let me give you the relevant portions.

::[https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2237.html RAND:] "In the Baltics, Ukraine, and other nearby states, the Kremlin aims to drive wedges between ethnic Russian or Russian-speaking populations and their host governments, NATO, and the European Union"

::[https://gfsis.org/en/russian-propaganda-and-russian-speaking-communities-baltic-experiences/# Rondeli Foundation] "However, little attention has been paid to Russia’s ethno-political leverage, which it uses against European societies, especially those with significant Russian-speaking minorities. The attempts to use the Russian-speaking groups against those societies stems from Russian propaganda mechanisms that draw negative images of the countries of settlement and, in response, encourages polarization. This is something the Baltic states have been experiencing and are trying to develop coping mechanisms against."

::How this in good faith can be labelled synthesized content for the sentence "The status of ethnic Russians in post-Soviet states, including their use in Russian propaganda, has also been a point of contention in relations between Russia and some of those countries" is beyond me, and is reminiscent of when just a couple months ago (visible in archive 22) the same editor claimed sources describing Russia as becoming increasingly totalitarian were in fact not doing so. TylerBurden (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I explained this in the edit summary. The sources you added are about propaganda campaigns targeted at Russian speakers with the aim of destabilization or shaping their opinions, for example through Russian-language media ("Russian-speaking communities have little to no knowledge of the local languages and have weak social connections with titular groups, thus information sources for them are often uniquely Russian"). The other sources are about the issue of the treatment of ethnic Russians being brought up when it comes to diplomatic relations with the "near abroad" (former Soviet Union) i.e. humanitarian policies. Propaganda campaigns are already mentioned.

:::You claim in the edit summary that I am removing content I simply don't like when you have now removed this three times recently, even though it is well-sourced. You now dismiss these sources as portraying the "Russian state being their saviour". Did you even read the sources? I also ask because you only provided a quote from the summary of the RAND report, not the report itself. The first source was published by the Library of Congress and is authoritative, the other two are journal articles from Policy Perspectives and Journal of Eurasian Studies. Although it clearly shows how you approach the topic. The fact that sources have covered this over the past 30 years shows that this is a notable aspect of FSU/CIS diplomatic relations as a whole.

:::Therefore, I do not see the issue with briefly mentioning that humanitarian policies are often used, without accusing other states/entities of pursuing a policy of discrimination or mistreatment. This does not belong in the high-level overview. Kundu says: "For Russia, the major interest in the FSU is to protect the interest of millions of ethnic Russians living in these states and maintain considerable influence via a big brotherly attitude towards them" -- this is describing the policy in diplomatic relations with the FSU. We can also mention that this is done in order to maintain influence in the region. Since this section is only an overview, this should only be general. Mellk (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, the section is not only about the last decade, and especially the last few hot years, when propaganda also takes place. We are talking about Russia's elementary attention in its foreign policy to the situation of the Russians in new neighboring states since 1991. There are serious English-language sources (there are also academic Russian-language ones) of the 1990s-2020s about this and a deleted text about this. DayakSibiriak (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It is unclear why the following text was removed on May 10, even after the words about discrimination were removed from the main matter. Without this addition, the description of contemporary foreign polucy is incomplete. And don't abuse the right to send editors to the talk page if the edit is justified.

The status of ethnic Russians in post-Soviet states has also been a point of contention in relations between Russia and some of those countries.[1][2][3]

1. {{cite book |editor-surname=Curtis |editor-given=Glenn E. |chapter=Chapter 8. Foreign Relations |title=Russia: A Country Study |series=Area handbook series |others=Library of Congress, Federal Research Division |edition=1st |place=Washington, DC |publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office |year=1998 |isbn=0-8444-0866-2 |chapter-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210518024135/http://countrystudies.us/russia/76.htm |url=https://www.loc.gov/item/97007563/ |archive-date=2021-06-11 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210611210545/http://countrystudies.us/russia/ |url-status=live |pages=429–486 |quote=The problem of discrimination and ethnic violence against the 25 million ethnic Russians living in the new states was a growing concern in relations with several of the former Soviet republics.}}
2. {{cite journal |last1=Kolstø |first1=Pål |title=Beyond Russia, becoming local: Trajectories of adaption to the fall of the Soviet Union among ethnic Russians in the former Soviet Republics |journal=Journal of Eurasian Studies |date=1 July 2011 |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=153–163 |doi=10.1016/j.euras.2011.03.006 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879366511000133 |issn=1879-3665 |quote=This is indeed true, Russia does insist that the country has a right and a duty to pose as the protector of all Russians in the so-called 'near abroad'.}}
3. {{cite journal |last1=Kundu |first1=Nivedita Das |title=Russia and the Former Soviet States: Dynamics of Relations |journal=Policy Perspectives |date=2007 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=49–59 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/42909162 |issn=1812-1829 |quote= For Russia, the major interest in the FSU is to protect the interest of millions of ethnic Russians living in these states and maintain considerable influence via a big brotherly attitude towards them.}} DayakSibiriak (talk) 06:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:I would probably add something like "the Russian government has used such humanitarian policies to maintain its influence in the 'near abroad'". Mellk (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::The sources clearly talk about ethnic Russians, although I think it would be more accurate to talk about Russian-speaking people. Just as we write in Wiki about Israel's protection of ethnic Jews or Druze abroad, so we should write about Russia's policy of protecting Russians who have found themselves in new states. I am ready to abandon the assertions about discrimination at this point, perhaps there are few sources and the time has not yet come for a non-partisan encyclopedic presentation. DayakSibiriak (talk) 06:33, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:We should consider more recent sources. Some are collected at Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#Donbas genocide allegations - In his announcement of the invasion, Putin baselessly claimed that Ukraine was carrying out genocide in the mainly Russian-speaking Donbas region.[79] He said the purpose of Russia's "military operation" was to "protect the people" of the Russian-controlled breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. ... and so on.{{pb}}There are more: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Routledge_Handbook_of_Russian_Politics_a/Z9iYEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 Routledge Handbook of Russian Politics and Society - Google Books] ... In doing so, the Putin regime escalated the low intensity conflict in Donbas into a war, justified both in terms of the “demilitarisation” of Ukraine and the defence of the Russian- speaking populations, who were allegedly the victims of discrimination and even genocide in Ukraine. ...
[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Russia/ITDPEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=The+defense+of+these+populations+served+as+the+pretext&pg=PA9&printsec=frontcover Russia Great Power, Weakened State - Google Books] The feeling of being contested on its periphery makes Russia anxious. In turn, its actions have provoked anxiety in others, primarily in neighboring former Soviet republics with significant ethnic Russian or Russian-speaking populations, such as the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, and, to a lesser extent, Kazakhstan, or even those with non- Russian minorities, such as Georgia. The defense of these populations served as the pretext for Russia’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. ...
As for the Russian strategy of contesting post-Soviet borders, Russian officials’ justifications have varied, from the right of popular self- determination, to the defense of Russians and Russian‑speakers abroad as a strategic interest. ...
State identity and the place of ethnic Russians in it have been further complicated by the strategies Moscow has developed to maintain its influence in the “near abroad.” In gradually implying that ethnic Russians living abroad and, even more broadly, Russian-speaking populations could potentially (re)join Russia, the regime has blurred the relationship between the civic nature of the Russian Federation and the notion of Russianness. (my bold)
Yeltsin fought an uphill battle to delay the Baltic states’ accession to NATO over the fate of Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia, who were the objects of discrimination, launching the idea that Russian-speaking populations abroad should be placed under the protection of Russia.
[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Russia_s_Approach_to_Post_Conflict_Recon/f2foEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=dignity+of+ethnic+Russians+wherever+they+may+be+and+that+it+recognises&pg=PA72&printsec=frontcover Russia's Approach to Post-Conflict Reconstruction - Google Books] ... This ultimately leads to any for mer Soviet state with Russian-speaking populations being seen as fair game for Moscow’s intervention. To this end, Russia upholds the so-called Medvedev thesis, which states that it has the right to defend the lives and dignity of ethnic Russians wherever they may be and that it recognises particular regions as holding unique significance and interests for Moscow (Riegl & Doboš, 2018). ... ManyAreasExpert (talk) 10:07, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the quotes. However, the sources of recent years are too politicized, they are not about Russia and Russians, but about criticism of the current government. We are writing an encyclopedic article about Russia.

::I once again urge you not to reduce everything to sources about the war of recent years and propaganda. Problems with the situation of Russian speakers in the near abroad have existed since 1991, before any Putin, sources from those years talk about this. The article should also talk about Russia's normal concerns about this after the collapse of the USSR and about the use of the problem by the Putin regime in recent years. One does not cancel the other out, the sources talk about different things. DayakSibiriak (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2025 (UTC)