Talk:Russia Voyage Tips and guide

@Brateevsky, Soshial, Wolverène: I was just wondering, do you guys think we should split the information on taking trains in Russia to a different article? The dog2 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

That seems like a really good idea to me. There is a lot of information already, and I think there is a lot more that could be added in a separate article about what must be one of the largest rail networks in the world. Ground Zero (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I support the idea, rail travelling in Russia is a very special experience, including long-time journeys (up to a week being in one seat), special etiquette and rules, an opportunity to see Russia in its different sides - as rich and poor, exciting and boring, modern and peasant. It's worth to describe it more and separately. If the information on it is generally ready to be published, I could give my little help with expanding, especially since my mother is a retired manager at local railway administration so I probably might know a little something. --Wolverène (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Definitely, we have separate rail articles for other big countries too. BTW, there's an article for Rail travel in Russia in German Wikivoyage, that perhaps could be translated inasfar the information is up to date. --Ypsilon (talk) 19:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

It can be done. I don't understand German good (though I taught for 1 year, but >10 years ago, so I forgot the knowledge), but I a little bit understand this article and you can take German article as a basis (about 1520 mm gauge, about type of trains - Klassen, etc.). It's better also to say about special trains in Moscow region, such as Aeroexpress, MCD and MCC trains in Moscow. --Brateevsky (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

There's a lot of content already in the Trans-Siberian Railway article, it could be a good startig point. Ibaman (talk) 11:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Article created with content from the corresponding German-language article and the Get around section. Ypsilon (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Wolverène (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Is Stalin really considered a national hero to many Russians? Even though he murdered so many of their grandparents and great-grandparents? That's sounds like one editor's opinion, not something based in fact. Ground Zero (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

He wasn't even Russian.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I came across this advice from an English YouTuber living in Russia: [1]. Make of it what you will. The dog2 (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how the average Russian feels about it, but I think there are two things to remember. Firstly, in most countries people are proud over their big leaders, however cruel or whatever they were. Did Napoleon bring happiness to France? Richard Lionheart to England? Where they nice people?

Secondly, free speech is not what the Soviet Union was known for, and Putin is not the person to take a new critical view on past events. There is no tradition of finding the real truth in the general public. People know not to trust propaganda, but digging deeper has always been dangerous. The intelligentsia is upset about the Memorial being closed down, but I don't expect big demonstrations about it in Sochi, Novosibirsk or Archangelsk.

So yes: many people certainly think Stalin was a tyrant, and might be glad to share that feeling, but you never know whether your new friend thinks he just did what he had to do, and saved the world from Hitler.

–LPfi (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: Do you think that the warning about talking about Stalin is needed? Should we also provide advice about talking about other contentious people and events in Russian history, or is Stalin so contentious that he warrants a special warning? Ground Zero (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

He might be somebody that Westerners might bring up. Communism, the Gulags, whatever, including the many issues touched on in Sensitive issues and Political issues. They should be a Captain Obvious, but many Westerners live in another bubble than the Russians, so a reminder is probably needed. We could cut down the list and talk more in general terms: if people are warned that there is nostalgia for the Soviet period, and support for Putin's politics, including regarding international conflicts, they should understand not to be foolish regarding Stalin, Brezhnev, Yeltsin, Putin, whomever. The one thing to point out separately, I think, is the Great Patriotic War, as that's good to know about regardless of sensitivities. –LPfi (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Keep in mind, though, that I am not a great guide to Russian sensibilities. Our papers probably cover Russian everyday life better than those in Canada or Singapore, and I have some acquaintances who have lived in Russia, but I haven't, and my visits there have been with little interactions with ordinary people. –LPfi (talk) 11:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

In the video, he says that the Russians are not as ignorant as Westerners think, and they learn about the gulags and Stalin's purges in school. But nevertheless, many of them still hold him up as a hero for his leadership during World War II. In many ways, this is similar to the situation in China, where many Chinese people are not as ignorant as most Westerners think, and are actually aware of mainstream Western views but still support their government nonetheless.

Anyway, I think the takeaway message is to just not talk about Stalin when you're in Russia, and tread very carefully if the topic is brought up to you. After all, Russian views of Stalin can diverge significantly from the mainstream Western view. The dog2 (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

LPfi's more general caution about "nostalgia for the Soviet period, and support for Putin's politics, including regarding international conflicts" is more useful than focusing one one aspect of that, whichhis unlikely to cone up in conversation anyway. We should avoid long, detailed in Respect sections. Excessive detail in long Respect sections will mean that fewer people will read them, which defeats the purpose of having them in the first place. Ground Zero (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

We do have some somewhat active Russian editors, so let's also see what they have to say. @Soshial, Atsirlin, Brateevsky, Wolverène: The dog2 (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello The dog2 and others, sorry for a long silence from my own side. The views on Stalin is extremely polarized in Russia and don't depend on an individual's age, residence, or personal environment.
The position of an average Russian be like: "Stalin is a controversial person who did a lot of evil. But who didn't, remember the Inquisition or the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre! At least, we defeated the Nazis thanks to him. Anyway, could we close the topic? We all don't know the truth!" Of course we don't, thanks to numerous rewritings of historical facts in (Post-)Soviet school textbooks, but then a foreigner could've learnt that "in your West there are also many lies". Voilà, you've provoked a tough dispute, but why?
The wisest thing here is not to talk about any Russia's ruler, be it Stalin or e.g. Putin. Pretend that you are not interested, even bored, and close the topic. In short, as the article says, "try to keep your political opinions to yourself". It's very precise advice, you may just bold this part.:-) --Wolverène (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

• P.S. Talking about if Stalin is a national hero. Officially not - most of local officials and historians are avoiding to call him so, curiously enough. For the left-winged part of the society - probably yes, but not for all of them and they are not the majority. --Wolverène (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that. I fully understand. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your response. Well, there are also Marxists in the West who admire Stalin, even though Stalin's ethnic cleansings were very much against Karl Marx's own teachings; actual Marxist philosophy is explicitly anti-racism. The dog2 (talk) 23:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Mass murders of ordinary citizens are non-Marxist, too! Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

We now say that "many governments have suspended commercial transportation options to and from Russia". Flights are cancelled, but what about other transportation? The trains from Finland still run (although restricted to Finnish and Russians citizens for COVID-19 reasons). Finnish and Estonian cross-border ferries take Russian passengers (although not lorries), and I haven't heard that the Russian buses, marshrutkas or ferries would have been banned over here – so what transportation is this about? –LPfi (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LPfi: The train service from St. Petersburg to Helsinki has been terminated wef. 2022-03-27 due to sanctions against Russia, so perhaps other transportation means are not so secure?廣九直通車 (talk) 03:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I added a notion on that. It was odd: the minister responsible for government-owned companies told VR's board that the connection was "unsuitable" in this situation. I don't know whether it was a whim of theirs or whether there had been a larger discussion in the government. Perhaps this was an action of a "government closing down commercial transport options" (enacted much later than the quoted wording). Still, Marshutkas have continued to travel, and if that ends, you can still walk across the border. There has been no law on the matter, but of course banning Russians from getting visas is possible, and border stations could be closed down. I hope not. What about the Baltic states and Poland? –LPfi (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

You know, as the kind of armchair Wikivoyage users, I can only rely on news and travel advisories to update contents here. I remembered previously there are protests along the Polish-Belorussian border to demand shutting down the border, but these aren't really related to Russia though. Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here cities and towns near the border gave up their Russophobia soon after the fall of the Iron Curtain; they have benefited greatly from cross-border tourists and shoppers. The 2015 migration crisis limited cross-border traffic, but that was overcome by the President having a talk with Putin or some minister in charge. The pandemic shut down the Imatra border station, probably to the woe of locals. Now the situation is different, but still, I see no reason to close borders for passenger traffic. There may be closures, but I think they are irrational: we will share borders also in the future, so good cross-border relations are important, and Finns have no reason to be less interested in Petrozavodsk, Vyborg, Saint Petersburg and Moscow (other than those travelling for business, who were just one group). –LPfi (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't see any thread about spelling, either on this page or in the archives. How was the English language version arrived at? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Our default is US spelling unless there is a reason to use a variant, such as local usage of other spelling. If you think UK spelling is more common, then we could discuss switching. As Russia is not part of the EU, there isn't an institutional usage reason for UK spelling. Ground Zero (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea what spelling of English is more common in Russia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I assume Russia did hear more from Radio Free Europe and the like than from the BBC, and I think that in Russia USA represents the liberation from the Soviet Union more than Western Europe does. But I do not know, some real facts would be good. For defaults, I think it makes sense to have British English to be the default for all of Europe. –LPfi (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Per Wikivoyage:Spelling: "If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for a variety to use, US English is used". Unlike Greenland (where I advocated for using Canadian spelling) or the Faroe Islands (which isn't a part of the EU but I assumed they'd use UK English given they're only 280 km from the UK), Russia doesn't fall into either of these. I did a little bit of digging, and their ministry of defence is indeed called the Ministry of Defence, not (more logical if I may say) Ministry of Defense. They also seem to use labour and not the more logical labor if I may say; see Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation. w:en:Talk:Russia calls to use British spelling for Wikipedia's Russia article. I'm fine with using British spelling, but we could consider LPfi's suggestion to have a default BrE for Europe because generally, most European countries tend to use British English. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 13:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I believe that we use UK spelling in all EU member articles on the basis that the EU uses UK spelling, despite the UK not being a member. (The US is not a member either.) This should probably be spelled out in Wikivoyage:Spelling. Non-EU European countries default to US spelling (other than the UK, of course).

SHB2000 makes some good arguments for changing Russia to UK spelling. On the other hand, the independent Moscow Times seems to use US spelling, as does the state-controlled RT. Ground Zero (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

I suppose this is a similar case to why we use British spelling for Iceland, which isn't an EU country. As for the media, unless they have a style guide, I'm not surprised. Most non-native (and sometimes even native speakers) don't really care too much about consistent spelling. That said, Saint Petersburg's official name, St. Petersburg, uses American spelling, not the British St Petersburg. I'm undecided on this one, but I really don't think it matters too much. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

These states were annexed by Russia today, and while de jure both states remain part of Ukraine, when these states declared independence, we removed them from the Ukraine breadcrumb. Therefore it seems logical that now they are under Russia's control, we breadcrumb both of them under this article.

There's one problem with doing this, however: part of the Donbas territory remains under Ukrainian control. The lines are fairly stable at the moment but it is possible that either side could make advances in the coming days. Should we maintain the separate breadcrumb or move them to Russia? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thr annexation means nothing. As the territories are in dispute and the battle lines are shifting, let's not breadcrumb them under either Ukraine or Russia. We shouldn't take sides. Ground Zero (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, the annexations meant nothing on the ground, and that's what we try to reflect. In the longer run they might get Russian administration and the borders may transform into regional borders, but that will take time if it ever happens. The borders of the new "Russian" regions are a fantasy, as Russia controls only part of the claimed area. Until the 2022 invasion, the situation was stable and Ukraine more or less accepted it as a fact. If the "republics" ceased to exist, the regions became a battleground claimed and partly controlled by two countries, with the claims of one of them internationally recognised. –LPfi (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

But doesn't this mean the end of the administration of these republics as separate entities? No more DPR and LPR visas, etc.? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we should get rid of the articles about these "countries." I would suggest merging them back into Ukraine, but it's actually hard to know what to do during a war. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

We could rename them "X Oblast." The oblast is the province-level region that covers areas occupied by either nation. Both Russia and Ukraine use the term "oblast" for lower-level regions so which country controls the region is irrelevant using the term. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:10, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I support the Luhansk Oblast and Donestsk Oblast proposal, breadcrumbed under Eastern Europe as control is divided between Ukraine and Russia, and sovereignty is claimed by both. Ground Zero (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

Luhansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast are now covered as Donbass in Eastern Ukraine, except the parts that were part of the "republics". If we use those article names, then they would be like Western Sahara, only that the borders are less well-defined, with a description on areas on both sides of the battlefront. It might be workable. Or then we'd include everything in Eastern Ukraine, covering also Get in, Stay safe etc. of the occupied areas. –LPfi (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

But Luhansk and Donetsk don't have articles, so the coverage as far as I can see is merely a brief mention. I'd support creating separately breadcrumbed regions for the two contested oblasts and not cover either of them under the Ukraine article until front lines have stabilized. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 18:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I would categorize the four oblasts that Russia annexed directly under Eastern Europe for the time being. It's important to note that there are still many areas in three of the four oblasts (all but Luhansk) that are under Ukrainian control. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

A bit of Luhansk Oblast was recaptured by Ukraine recently. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

What use is there to change the breadcrumb? Anybody who goes there should know they belong to Ukraine according to international law (even just referenda by an occupying power are invalid, and these were obviously just theatre), so won't be confused if Kherson Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast are breadcrumbed to there. If some Russians believe otherwise, they are well served by being confused for a while. If, at some point, we can write dependable information on getting in from Russia, then I might reconsider. I assume the occupied areas (accept probably most of former LPR and DPR) are war zones where you may or may not be allowed to enter, probably according to ever changing procedures and criteria. Until the situation stabilises, changing the breadcrumb will just mean work for us and confusion for editors and readers who have learnt were they are to be found. –LPfi (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

We can create Donbass as a country-level territory, part of Eastern Europe. /Yvwv (talk) 09:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Will it then be a Western Sahara-like article, covering both what is controlled by Ukraine and what is controlled by Russia? After eight years under separatist control, I am afraid they differ a lot. On the other hand, Understand etc. can handle them separately as needed (as in WS). Luhansk People's Republic doesn't cover much that couldn't be included in such an article, neither does the article on the DPR. –LPfi (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

However, I see a problem in bypassing Ukraine for part of Ukraine-controlled Ukraine in the breadcrumbs. That would mean our accepting that those areas are contested. We don't take parts in conflicts where one party has de jure control and the other de facto control, but where illegal claims are purely fictional, I don't see any need to stay "neutral". If South Ossetia would claim the rest of Georgia, would the country become contested territory where we don't want to take sides? Breadcrumbing everything to Ukraine is taking sides, sort of, but as the Russian "regions" include non-controlled territory and the "republics" don't exist any more, there is no entity that can be seen as sort of Russian. –LPfi (talk) 10:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's a concern I have, too. Ukrainian-controlled Donetsk is, and always has been, Ukrainian as the provinces to its west. Giving it a separate categorization doesn't make a lot of sense. That said, do most readers even follow the breadcrumb? I doubt most will even notice that Donetsk is breadcrumbed under "Eastern Europe" and not directly under Ukraine. We can explain later in the article that some of these regions remain under Ukrainian control while still breadcrumbing the region as a whole independently. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 12:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I also have a concern with this new breadcrumbing. Ukrainian-controlled Ukraine will always be Ukraine. However, this isn't permanent and the fronts will move either way as time progresses. I think Yvwv's solution works for the timebeing – it's not permanent but at least highlights the disputed four oblasts. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The problem with Yvwv's suggestion is that, as I understand the situation, the Donbass region does not include Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, which are occupied by Russia. That said, I would support the creation of a Donbass region article, essentially a merge of LPR and DPR, as we can sort out the other two regions later. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 13:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

For Donbas: would that mean that Kramatorsk & al, under Ukrainian control, would be breadcrumbed to Donetsk People's Republic? I think that would be absurd. If we will have the Donbas article, it must have regions also for Ukrainian-controlled parts of Donbas (and these should obviously be breadcrumbed to Ukraine). –LPfi (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

We can of course merge and redirect the DPR and LPR articles to Donbas, and then there is no need for a separate region article for the Ukrainian-controlled part of Luhansk Oblast, and there is less need to keep info on the battlefront updated (moving cites back and forth). Still, Kramatorsk, when created (150,000 inhabitants before the war, provisional seat of Donetsk Oblast), should be breadcrumbed to Ukraine. –LPfi (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think I've changed my mind here. Ad SelfieCity points out, the Donbass includes only 2 of 4 oblasts, and none of the oblasts is completely Russian- or Ukrainian- controlled. This war is not over yet, by a long shot. I now think that we should revert to internationally recognised borders for these four oblasts, with a note on each article explaining that sovereignty is contested and actual control is split. This is sufficient to avoid any appearance of bias. At some point in the future, when there is a settlement or a ceasefire, we revisit the breadcrumbing. As Ukraine controls no part of Crimea, we would leave that under Russia for the time-being. Realistically, no-one should be travelling to these places these days anyway, so we needn't stess about getting this "just right". Ground Zero (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, such breadcrumbing would put all four oblasts under Ukraine. We can put a warningbox at the beginning of each oblast article. This seems reasonable given the currently unstable situation. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see that Ukraine is retaking the city of Lyman, which will undermine Russia's position in Luhansk. I think it increasingly appears that Ukraine has the upper hand, although I don't know whether Russia's conscripted reinforcements have reached the battlefield yet. When they do, the war could seesaw back in favor of the Russians. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

By sticking with internationally regconhised boundaries until a ceasefire or settlement in the oblasts where war is underway, we don't have to worry about the seesaw. Ground Zero (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 00:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of which, it appears that Ukraine is making advances into Luhansk now as well. Russian positions in the occupied regions looking vulnerable now. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

A paragraph was added, saying foreigners from some countries risk arrest "because these countries are mentioned in a very negative way by the Russian media in relation to the Ukraine war". That doesn't seem convincing. Since when does the police act depending on media attitudes? The media may of course reflect the official positions, which may indeed affect police orders. So, is there an increased risk of arrest (and possible maltreatment)? Are there random arrests of foreigners or can you avoid the danger by not making a public fuss about it? LPfi (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I found it too alarmistic, and out of line with WV:Tone and WV:Be fair. The user in question has not an outstanding record of good edits. I'd rather undo it, and that's what I did. Ibaman (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

User:Brateevsky just removed a photo as there were too many photos from St. Petersburg and Leningrad oblast. I had a look through the article and there are indeed eight photos from there (1/3 of the article's photos?)! Surely St. Petersburg with surroundings is one of the most important tourist regions in Russia but we definitely need more variety so I will try to change 4-5 of those to photos from somewhere else. Ypsilon (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, as for me (I'm from Moscow) it's very many photos from St.Petersburg and Leningrad Oblast. I wrote about this here in Russian. I don't know why there are too much photos from these regions, even taking into account the fact that St. Petersburg it may be a little easier to get from Western Europe than to Moscow. Moreover I have already deleted 1 or 2 photos of St.Petersburg, but not just now. =) Thanks Ypsilon. Now, yes, the article is more or less balanced by photos by region, but new photographs, it's better to take in other regions. Brateevsky (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Done --Ypsilon (talk) 18:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added a brief description of Wagner Group's rebellion to the warningbox. Feel free to revise my contribution as the situation is likely to develop quickly. Do you guys think any further warningboxes or notices are necessary for this situation? Anyone know what it is like in Russia right now? --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems wise. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm trying to follow the news the best I can but many of the reports coming in seem to be unverified, so it's hard to know what the situation is. It seems that the decisive moment will come when Wagner reaches Moscow around 16:00-17:00 UTC. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think it is unlikely we have any readers who are travelling in Russia now. We shouldn't spend too much energy trying to keep up with the news. Ground Zero (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Probably not many Westerners, I agree, but what about people from the rest of the world? A more succinct warning box is certainly appropriate, though. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I agree, though of course most of those travelers probably aren't using English Wikivoyage. But I still think that we have a responsibility to provide the best information we can. I think we could cut down on some of the Ukraine information which is at this point widely known, as the threat to travel posed by the rebellion appears more immediate, as reports coming in now indicate that Russian highways even are being torn up to prevent its advance. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 17:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree, though I think we should leave the nitty gritties of the current situation to the travel advisories (this way, we won't have to constantly update the article). SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Providing details of the sequence of events is not a good idea. That belongs in Wikinews or Wikipedia, not a Wikivoyage warning box. And there is no reason to address conditions in Belarus here. This article is for providing information to people travelling to Russia; Belarus is not a part of Russia. Ground Zero (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article is very long over all. In particular the history section is lengthy and detailed, with many statements subject to controversy. Our articles on the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union (as well as European history, World War I and World War II in Europe) give an opportunity to describe Russian history in detail, with relevant destinations. To make the article more accessible, we should consider to have a brief history section here, with expanded history in the historical travel articles. /Yvwv (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, please do so. That would improve this article a lot. Ground Zero (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have cut the history section down. Readers looking for more detail can take a look at our Russian Empire and Soviet Union articles, or at Wikipedia, which does a much better job of explaining hustory. Ground Zero (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

We provide such a long list of "sensitive issues" and political issues not to talk to Russians about. Are they really that fragile? And have these been added by people who have geen to Russia recently and have experienced Russian sensitivity on this? Ground Zero (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Some of what I've added are based on what I've heard in vlogs by people living in Russia, and my experiences interacting with Russians in online forums. Keep in mind that Russians living in Russia do not necessarily have the same political opinion as Russians living Western countries; political dissidents are likely to be overrepresented among the latter group. But in any case, we have Russian editors we can ask for opinions on this. Pinging Wolverène, Brateevsky.

One experience I can describe is that whenever I have a discussion about Russian colonial rule in Harbin and Dalian, because the Russian colonial buildings in those Chinese cities are tourist attractions, Russian participants in the forum will often come at me and insist that it's not imperialism or colonialism. In the Russian view, China voluntarily leased those cities to Russia with no coercion whatsoever (though most Chinese would disagree with that). The dog2 (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would hesitate to base opinions of anything other than online interactions on interactions on online forums. I believe that impressions of everyday U.S. behavior, for example, would be highly skewed if the basis for them is from online behavior. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: True but that said, American exceptionalism and manifest destiny are common ideologies both online and among average Americans in the street. One thing to keep in mind is that nationalism and the "Rally behind the flag" phenomenon are extremely powerful tools that can be used to unite a population, whether it's in America, England, Russia or wherever. Many Americans will feel offended if you describe the invasion of Iraq, Libya or Syria as imperialism. The dog2 (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

No-one would ever say there is no overlap between online and in-person behavior, so your first sentence smacks of being a straw man. After that, you show how skewed your impression is with your remarks, because there are also lots of Americans who themselves criticize imperialist U.S. invasions and CIA interventions, and there are loads of others who have no idea where Libya or Syria are and probably wouldn't know what you are talking about. (Parenthetically, I don't know which invasion of Libya you mean. The most recent U.S. intervention in Libya was purely bombing, with no invasion but military aid to militias fighting to overthrow Qaddafi (maybe there were some covert operatives on the ground, but it was not a U.S. invasion). I supported it at the time on the unsound basis of wanting to protect Benghazi from mass murder, but I think it was a disaster for several reasons, at least one of which was known in advance. However, I doubt even as many as 1% of Americans know enough to have any opinion about it.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I was referring to the campaign to oust Gaddafi by NATO aerial bombing, and providing weapons to the "moderate rebels". But anyway, as we can see in American elections, both the Democrats and Republicans like to invoke American exceptionalism, presumably because you have no chance of winning if you don't. Anyway, back to this article. Most Americans believe that America made the biggest contribution to the defeat of the Nazis, but from what I've heard, it's incredibly offensive if you express that view to a Russian. Many Russians feel that they are not getting the credit they deserve for defeating the Nazis despite the enormous death toll that they suffered. The dog2 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also, one common view I have come across from Russians is that bigotry is a Western thing, and Russia has always been a harmonious and inclusive multicultural society. Visitors to Russia probably should know that that is what many Russians believe even if it may not be true. The dog2 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

My concern is that Wikivoyage is presenting Russians as very fragile people around whom you really should not talk about any sensitive topic related on the basis of second-hand information gleaned from the internet by someone who has shown their inclination to view things through a very, um, skewed lens. I hope that the Russian editors that The dogs2 pinged will give us a Russian perspective. Ground Zero (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC) Ground Zero (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Russians being angry if their contribution to defeating the Nazis is minimized is a no-brainer and need not mention the Americans. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Yes, but in most of the world, people believe that it was America that made the greatest contribution to defeating the Nazis, perhaps influenced by Hollywood's portrayal of the war. In Russia though, that's different. Because of the enormous death toll they suffered, Russians believe that they and not the Americans should get the most credit for defeating the Nazis. The dog2 (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

They do believe that? I wasn't taught that in school in the U.S.! What makes you think most of the world believes that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Yes, but in most of the world, people believe that it was America that made the greatest contribution to defeating the Nazis, perhaps influenced by Hollywood's portrayal of the war." – that's the biggest piece of bullshit I've read this month. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I'd be shocked if there's an ounce of truth in it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Provided that the political situation in Russia has changed dramatically since the beginning of 2022, most of this advice is obsolete, or will soon be. As Russia will be off limits for most international travellers for some time to come, it is no hurry to make a comprehensive rewrite. Instead we should remove errors and misleading statements. /Yvwv (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Russia is not off-limits to international travellers. It's just a much bigger hassle to get there from the West, but you can still apply for a Russian tourist visa and go via Dubai, Doha or Abu Dhabi. Emirates, Qatar Airways and Etihad still fly into Moscow. As far as I know, the Ukrainian drones and missiles have only gone as far east as Moscow, so if you're going to Vladivostok or Khabarovsk, that's far removed from the fighting, and there are still international flights into the Russian Far East from China. Apart from Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore, the non-Western world is not sanctioning Russia and doing business as usual. And for that matter, Singapore's sanctions on Russia are half-hearted at best; the Russian government is still building a church and cultural centre in Singapore as per an agreement signed prior to the war, and Singapore has explicitly banned its citizens from going to Ukraine to join the international legion to fight the Russians.

Speaking of World War II, that was the impression I've been getting watching the mainstream media like CNN. American media often likes to say something along the lines of "We defeated the Nazis and saved the world." Some more unorthodox political commentators on YouTube have often remarked that the Soviet contribution to defeating the Nazis is often forgotten in the West. The dog2 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Don't draw conclusions on "most of the world" based on US media. Even in the Nordic countries, where we do watch Hollywood shows and get some news via US news agencies, we do have other channels. For one, our teachers' education indeed does not consist of watching CNN. –LPfi (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

CNN ≠ American media in general ≠ "most of the world". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't say what students are taught in, like, Florida, but as I said, I was certainly never taught that the U.S. sacrificed more in World War II than many other countries. We were taught that the entry of the U.S. into the war was crucial, but in no way did that mean that the U.S. was more important than, for example, the U.S.S.R., the UK or China. I don't think it is at all standard U.S. education to pretend that the American contribution to the war, let alone suffering from it, was greater than others'. But keep basing your opinions on how you interpret Hollywood movies, which I think you are misinterpreting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

And it definitely isn't "in most of the world", too, let alone the part of the US you're from. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I'm not from the U.S. I grew up in Singapore, and our history class on World War II focused more on the Pacific theatre for obvious reasons. But yes, in the Pacific theatre, the U.S. arguably played the most important role, because the British were mostly tied down in Europe, and the Chinese did not have the capability to fight against the technologically superior Japanese military. The Chinese suffered the second highest death toll after the Soviets, but it was the Americans who managed to push the Japanese all the way back to the home islands, which was crucial for the Allied victory. We were taught that Midway Island was the turning point for the war in the Pacific theatre. It's different in Europe though, because the Soviets were able to push the Germans all the way back to Berlin, albeit suffering the highest death toll in the process. D-Day only happened in 1944, by which time the Soviets were already advancing on Berlin, albeit having taken enormous casualties in Stalingrad and Leningrad. Of course, the British and Americans certainly played a significant role in Europe too, because D-Day created a "pincer attack" situation for the Nazis, whereas had they not entered, it's conceivable that the Soviets would have had to push the Nazis all the way to Portugal and suffered even more casualties before they could claim victory. The dog2 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think this discussion demonstrates that allowing one opinionated editor to contribute a lot of text to a subjective part of a major article (like a Respect, History, or Politics section) is a disservice to readers, and undermines the credibility of Wikivoyage. Ground Zero (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Amen to that, GZ. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 01:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have trimmed these sections down, removed repetition, and made it more concise. If any editor feels strongly that these issues require more elaboration, I think they should provide links to articles indicating why raising these issues puts the traveller at risk of deeply offending Russians Ground Zero (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Does it really punish religious intolerance? That would be unusual for a blasphemy law. Such laws generally make it illegal to make statements or take actions that are perceived as offending a particular religion. I've never heard of a blasphemy law that prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of their religious identity or statements of belief or unbelief. Laws that prohibit discrimination are usually different laws. But I'm not familiar with the Russian blasphemy law. What does it cover? Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm adjusting this until we have confirmation that religious intolerance is punished. We have similar laws in Singapore, and if that is anything to go by, you can be punished for insulting other religions, but making statements of faith or promoting your own religion is not illegal, so long as you don't insult other religions in the process. The dog2 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, but Singapore is such a different country from Russia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have reverted these edits because I think we should see evidence that they are true before adding them. The dog2 has a history of adding statement to the respect and history sections without verifying that they are true, and has added false information to Wikivoyage. I assume that they have done this unintentionally. Because of this, I think it is in the interest of Wikivoyage's credibility and of readers that statements like these be backed up by some evidence -- a link, for example -- and not just "I heard someone say this once'. Also, this could have been written much more succinctly and without repetition. Ground Zero (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's a Native Siberian YouTuber who has done a few videos on this topic: [2], [3] and [4]. From my own interaction with Russians in online forums, it seems to be a common view that racism was something that the Western European powers like Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and the UK invented, and that it has never existed in Russia. They insist that Russia's eastward expansion was completely peaceful, and that all those indigenous nations in today's Asian Russia decided to join Russia on their own free will. And they also insisted that Russia has always embraced multi-culturalism, and has always treated its ethnic minorities well and protected their cultures. And in fact, whenever I have brought up the history of Russian colonial rule in parts of China like Harbin and Dalian, the Russians have always jumped on me and insisted that it was not imperialism because China voluntarily leased those territories to Russia with zero coercion whatsoever. They insist that imperialism was something that the other European colonial powers, the U.S. and Japan did, but Russia has never been imperialist in its history, and they get extremely offended whenever I refer to Russian rule over those parts of China as colonialism or imperialism. The dog2 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is extremely anecdotal. Is this sufficient for us to include such advice under Respect? I don't think so, but let's see what other contributors think. Ground Zero (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think what needs to be said is already in the minority cultures of Russia article. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 23:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

We also include sections about the sensitivities of the indigenous people in our articles about Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I can't imagine that the Native Siberians wouldn't have legitimate grievances against the Russian government similar to what the Native Americans, Australian Aboriginal people, Canadian First Nations and New Zealand Maori have with their respective governments. Siberia did not become majority ethnic Russian by pure chance. The dog2 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's also true. Do we have any editors from Russia (or are very knowledgeable) who may be able to give some input? SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 00:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Our Russian editors have not been active recently, but I can ping them and see if they respond. Pinging Wolverène, Brateevsky, Atsirlin. The dog2 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

We can't base anything like this on what a single YouTuber said. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That said, the responses she says she gets from ethnic Russians when she discusses these issues is basically in line with what I have experienced when interacting with Russians in online. The dog2 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because a YouTuber would never select responses in order to support the argument they are trying to make. No, we can be sure that the YouTuber would have too much integrity to do that. Ground Zero (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the statement "many ethnic minorities... are resentful of the settler colonial and cultural assimilation policies" is too strong because most people originating from these minorities have accepted the assimilation trend, lost interest in their native language, and deem all of this an episode of the past. However, when you meet someone who is interested in these local cultures and languages, they will be very critical about the assimilation policies, and such topics will be very sensitive indeed.

There are also many subtle details related to each particular minority. Some of them do have their so-called national republics where local language may be still used more actively than Russian (example: Altai) or where their own religion may be prayed (example: Buryatia). Others like Chuvashia are in a fully assimilated state, and only a few local enthusiasts would remember national traditions, language, etc. -- Alexander (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't imagine that the Native Siberians wouldn't have legitimate grievances against the Russian government -- They have, but this is hushed up at the federal level. I do not live in Siberia so I may not know something, but see e.g. w:en:2024 Bashkortostan protests -- of course, Bashkortostan is not in Siberia and Bashkirs are relatively big ethnicity, but you may see to what the grievances can lead in theory.
They insist that Russia's eastward expansion was completely peaceful -- Of course, not recommended for visitors to argue about such topics, although this is easily refuted by historical facts, even if you will read only History of Russia textbooks for schools. (Although the History of Russia textbook editions published after 2022 may probably state even more ridiculous things, like native Siberians who literally begged the Russian rulers to annex them.)
they also insisted that Russia has always embraced multi-culturalism, and has always treated its ethnic minorities well and protected their cultures -- The visitors will have to pretend it is true (although it is not true in 90 % of cases), and if they want to discuss this problem, they will need to speak about this with the real representatives of ethnic minorities, probably even with activists, not with ethnic Russians or assimilated ethnic people who forgot their languages and started believed in any nonsense. Then again, it is not recommend even to initiate such discussions with every random person.
If an ethnic person states that the govt allegedly supports their ethnic group, and their ethnic group agreed to live among Russians completely voluntarily in the past, just close this topic, it will lead to nothing. --Wolverène (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Historically racism has certainly existed in Russia & Ukraine; after all the word progrom is from Russian. I do not think we need to go into any detail on that in a travel guide, though.

Is this text, from the Tibet article, worth considering adapting here?

To a considerable extent, the issues in Tibet are the same as for indigenous peoples anywhere, such as Uyghurs in China's western province Xinjiang, or the indigenous peoples in the Americas, Australia and the Asian part of Russia. The government points proudly to development work such as mines, railways and highways; locals complain that those facilities are all owned by outsiders, outsiders get most of the good jobs while locals do most of the heavy work, and environmental consequences are often ignored. The government say they are improving education; locals complain that the system aims at forcing assimilation by using a language foreign to them. Immigration is encouraged and sometimes subsidized; locals complain of an influx of outsiders who do not want to adapt to local culture and often do not even bother to learn the local language. When the locals get really agitated, the government does not hesitate to send in troops to "restore order"; generally the locals see this as vicious repression, but the government claim they are only dealing appropriately with "hostile Indians", "reactionary elements" or whatever.

Pashley (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That works as a compromise for me. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The text agrees quite well with my understanding (about "indigenous peoples anywhere"), but I am not sure it is needed in this article. It is probably good to include something along these lines where such minorities are described, but see Wolverènes comment above (timestamped 09:53). Perhaps best added to Respect and Responsible travel. –LPfi (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I certainly don't buy the nonsense that racism has never existed in Russia (or any other country for that matter). But if that is something that is believed by most ethnic Russians, we should certainly inform visitors of it. The text Pashley quoted should be fine as a starting base, but it could probably be trimmed down. For a Respect section, the important thing to reflect how issues like these would impact travellers' interactions with people when they travel around Russia. I guess we can have something along then lines of telling people to tread carefully when discussing Russia's relationship with its ethnic minorities, and mentioning that issues concerning the ethnic minorities in Asian Russia are broadly similar to those faced by the indigenous peoples or North America and Oceania. The dog2 (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, here's my go at it:

"Relations with Russia's ethnic minorities are a very contentious and sensitive issue that is best avoided. While most ethnic Russians believe that Russia has always embraced cultural diversity and treated its ethnic minorities well, some ethnic minorities remain resentful over settler colonial and forced cultural assimilation policies that had been instructed by the Imperial Russian and Society governments."

How does that sound? The dog2 (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not entirely supported by the comments above, as for example you overgeneralize about "some minorities" being (remaining) resentful, instead of treating people as individuals. How about this?

"Relations with Russia's ethnic minorities are a sensitive issue that is best avoided. While most ethnic Russians believe that Russia has always embraced cultural diversity and treated its ethnic minorities well, some members of ethnic minorities resent what they see as discrimination, for example in terms of disproportionate military mobilization and war casualties relative to ethnic Russians, and forced cultural assimilation policies first adopted during the time of the Czars."

I just realized that when you wrote "Society government" you meant Soviet. Were they more respectful of minority cultures in Russia than post-Soviet Russia has been? I don't know; do you? As for my addition about disproportionate military mobilization and war casualties, there have been demonstrations about that, such as in Dagestan. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Noting that if "Society government" meant Soviet, then you probably want to include the current regime as well. There is alleged assimilation of ethnic minorities as can be seen in the 2021 census - Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I favor Ikan’s wording. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 03:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm fine with Ikan's wording too, although in the article "Czar" is spelt "Tsar" in the History section. That's just a minor point though. And maybe we should mention settler colonialism too, because Siberia did not become majority ethnic Russian by accident. Unfortunately, I'm not well-versed in modern Russian politics and don't speak Russian, but we know what Stalin did to some of these ethnic minorities (which is ironic considering that he was an ethnic Georgian and spoke Russian as a second language) during Soviet times, and Putin hasn't done anything nearly as horrific as what Stalin did to them. To my knowledge, on paper the ethnic minorities have the same rights as the ethnic Russians, and at least on paper they have the right to study their respective minority languages in school. Of course in practice it could be different, as we see is the case with the Native Americans or Australian Aboriginal people. What do the Russian editors think? Pinging Atsirlin and Wolverène. The dog2 (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would defer to any expert on this, however my understanding is that ethnic minorities do have official legal recognition and protection - however it against a backdrop of rising ethnic nationalism that unofficially promotes Russian identify above everything else. You are correct to say that if this unofficial discrimination were true, then it wouldn't be equal in magnitude to historical acts of displacement against minorities in Soviet times. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stalin committed horrible atrocities against Tatars and Ukrainians, for example, but I don't know much about what he might have done to specifically target Russian minorities in particular. It wouldn't be surprising if he targeted particular ethnicities of Russian nationality for genocidal actions, but I just don't know or don't remember. I know he went after Russians of German ethnicity, but did they have Russian nationality on their ID cards? Jews didn't, so Stalin's anti-Jewish actions were not against a Russian ethnicity, according to Soviet nationality classification. Of course that distinction was all bullshit, though. Did he go after any of the Muslim peoples of the Caucasus pointedly? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although they had previously experienced expulsion by Imperial Russia, in 1944 the Soviet State Committee ordered the deportation of all Crimean Tatars (Sunni Muslims) from Crimea w:Crimean_Tatars . Stalin was General Secretary leader) at the time. Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm aware of that. I guess Crimea was not yet part of the Ukrainian SSR at that point (it was gifted to them by Khrushchev, as I recall), so they would count as a Russian ethnic minority. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Stalin accused the Kalmyks of collaborating with the Nazis and deported them to Siberia, with the exception of the women who were married to non-Kalmyk men. It was not until after Stalin's death that Khrushchev allowed them to return to their homelands. The dog2 (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ikan's wording looks fine to me. -- Alexander (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Me too. Ground Zero (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

And yeah, I meant Soviet. My phone autocorrected to "Society" and I didn't notice. Sorry. The dog2 (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This section is getting way out of line. I wonder if the people writing it have even been to Russia in the last 2-3 years, or are just adding their own opinions based on what they read in on-line forums and see on YouTube. Here's a key learning: people behave like jerks on the internet, even when they aren't in real life. I don't think that Russians are the hypersensitive crybabies we're making them out to be by writing a long list of things you can't talk to them about. I've only been to Russia twice, and I don't speak Russian, but I think that Russians are not so sensitive. Ground Zero (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

One thing to consider is whether it makes any sense to take the initiative to add new content in the "Respect" section if you have never personally gone to a country. Of course, there are always exceptions for truly good research (I think User:Roovinn added some useful context to some "Respect" sections that probably needed it, because they really put in efforts to find out about it), but as you say, basing anything on online trolling and extremist remarks by individuals is a mistake, and it's also not about visiting a place and interacting with people in person. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I share the concern about people adding claims to "Respect" sections of places they've never been to. I've sometimes reverted this kind of thing in other articles where I know the claims are wrong or misleading. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now I'm not so sure about what parts sounded "off", but I have been to Russia a few times and I have a fair idea of aware of what's considered appropriate/inappropriate over there. And I don't think anyone is trying to make them sound as "crybabies". I certainly am not. If you feel that way, then I don't know what to say.

I'm not trying to start an argument, but these remarks directed to me were completely unnecessary. You don't have to be so sensitive about it. Roovinn (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is also another problem here:

"Try to avoid bringing up the Abkhazia conflict, the Georgian–Ossetian conflict, Russia's relations with Georgia, Russia's relations with the Western world, or the status of ethnic Russians in the Baltics."

These are probably sensitive topics, but should I avoid them? At all costs? Of course, I should tread lightly, as "many are not comfortable discussing" them, but that's a different thing. The warning is especially important for topics where expressing some opinions is illegal. However unless you or your discussion partner may get provoked into "discrediting the Russian military" there shouldn't be that kind of issues with the topics in the quote. Or perhaps that risk is real, and they should be included in a list of possibly illegal topics, to be avoided to protect your new friends from whatever KGB is called nowadays.

Perhaps Russians really don't want to discuss anything that matters and smells politics. Some Finns who lived there until recently tell about how they could not really discuss anything political with their local friends any more, because of the polarisation, uneasiness and wish to forget about the world's (read: their country's) madness. If so, I think we need to do a big rewrite, not focusing on specific topics, but the general mental atmosphere.

–LPfi (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Russian successor to the KGB is the FSB. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:26, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

And the SVR. Brycehughes (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That part has now been edited. Roovinn (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just removed the following:

As the result of the anti-Ukraine propaganda during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, speaking Ukrainian may provoke a hostile reaction from some locals or even from the police, especially in the borderlands or in annexed Crimea. Most Russians reject the notion than Ukrainian is a language, and consider it to be a Polonized dialect of Russian.

Are there any sources to back these claims up? I don't exactly have a good feeling about these sentences. Roovinn (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've not heard of Russians getting offended simply because someone speaks Ukrainian. But the Russians I have interacted with by and large consider Ukrainian to be just a dialect of Russian with some Polish words thrown in, and reject the notion that Ukrainian is a language. Their view is that Ukrainians are just Russians who randomly decided they did not want to be Russian anymore, and invented a fake language by replacing Russian words with Polish ones. And many Russians are quite resentful of Lenin for recognizing Ukrainians as a distinct ethnic group and not cracking down on Ukrainian ethnic identity. The dog2 (talk) 04:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd sum up your answer as amounting to "no." Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

+2. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will just say that based on my interactions with Russians in online forums, people got extremely offended when I called Ukrainian a language, and vehemently insisted that it was nothing more than a Polonized dialect of Russian. The dog2 (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which still amounts to "no", and once again, interactions on online forums are not travel, so please stop basing anything you write in any travel article on anyone's online behavior! Can you please stop doing that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I think we should definitely source our "Stay safe" from Reddit, X/Twitter, Mastodon or Threads. I'm sure they're perfectly reliable unbiased sources that have no political bias, surely we can, right? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I find the reliance on online behavior as a source for anything absolutely maddening, and it's frustrating that not everyone dismisses all of that, but at least one person keeps on relying on it, year after year. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If there's one thing to take, anonymity fuels toxicity; people tend to be a lot more toxic online as you don't see their faces. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I usually do not check what happens in this article, but yes, it is shocking how much dubious information is added by a person who has never been to the country (as it seems), nor has a fluent knowledge of the language. There is a lot of variety and complexity in Russia that can not be appreciated and understood without first-hand knowledge obtained on the ground. Most of this complexity it totally irrelevant to regular travelers, especially if they do not speak Russian. --Alexander (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I completely agree with you. Roovinn (talk) 01:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

[[User:The dog2]] [https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=4840452&oldid=4840413 removed] this text "and has further exacerbated Russia's demographic crisis" with the comment, "I don't know how much of a demographic crisis it has actually caused. Based on the numbers, the Russian economy is doing better than the British or German economies"

A good principle is that if you don't know, do some research before you change the text. The dog 2 does not seem to be willing to do that. This statement is easily verifiable through a Google search, which leads to a variety of sources, including a whole Wikipedia article entitled w:Russian emigration during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I suggest that based on The dog2's sloppiness in editing, we examine their edits careful, and demand proof beyond the anecdotal stuff they read in Internet forums.

It would be best for all concerned if The dog2 would just refrain from editing text in Politics, History and Respect sections, given their history of adding personal opinions, and incorrect iinformation. Ground Zero (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Russia's GDP growth in the third and fourth quarters of 2023 were positive, while those of the UK and Germany were negative. Russia now has the largest GDP in Europe when adjusted for purchasing power parity (though in terms of unadjusted GDP, it is still Germany). These are hard statistics that can easily be found. The dog2 (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

What does any of that have to do with a demographic crisis? Please stop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am now concerned that The dog2 is deliberately misinterpreting what is written as an excuse to remove text that is critical of the Putin government even though it is easily proven. Ground Zero (talk) 21:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not denying that people have fled Russia to escape potential mobilization, or out of opposition to the war. But whether or not this exodus can be called a "demographic crisis" is debatable, given that the impact on the Russian economy seems to be limited so far based on the hard stats I just quoted. The dog2 (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

From w:Demographics of Russia,

"during the mid-2010s, Russia had seen increased population growth due to declining death rates, increased birth rates and increased immigration. However, since 2020, due to excess deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic as well as losses from the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Russia's population has undergone its largest peacetime decline in recorded history. In addition, at least 1 million Russians fled the country to avoid military service in the war. In 2022, the total fertility rate across Russia was estimated to be 1.42 children born per woman, which is below the replacement rate of 2.1 and about equal to the European average."

The war has further exacerbated Russia's demographic crisis, as the article stated.

I don't think that The dog2 can be trusted to edit articles related to the history and politics of Russia or Ukraine. Ground Zero (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just focusing on the text ("and has further exacerbated Russia's demographic crisis") and regardless of anything else, I don't think it should be in there. Demographic crises are long-term structural phenomena and I don't see any evidence that the wartime emigration is/was anything more than a short-term shock. (I have heard, anecdotally, that many of the initial wave of emigres are now returning.) I think it would be safer to keep this text out of the article and add it back in, say, 10 years time if it is shown that the war really did affect long-term Russian demographic trends. Ground Zero that line from en.wp doesn't appear to be properly sourced. Brycehughes (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It was sourced from The Guardian, not from discussion forums or YouTube. And it isn't "anecdotal". There is a real problem if anecdotal evidence is used to dismiss a report from The Guardian quoting official government statistics. Ground Zero (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

That Guardian article was written before the war. Brycehughes (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

And for the record, I don't mind if we just say that there has been an exodus of people to escape mobilisation, or so they can freely voice opposition to the war and not get arrested, because that is factually true. The dog2 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

We just shouldn't mention it, because it's not really relevant for a travel guide to Russia. It's more relevant for a travel guide to Georgia, for example, where the concentration of emigres drove up hotel prices, etc. Brycehughes (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The demographic crisis began before the war, and the war exacerbated it. Newsweek and BBC among others have reported on those fleeing during the war. Le Monde called Russia's demographics "Putin's demographic failure" in Sep 2023. The Economist has called it "Russia’s population nightmare" in Mar 2023. In Jan 2024, Russia’s statistics agency Rosstat said that Russia’s population could drop to 130 million by 2046 due to declining immigration numbers and low birth rates.

I am usually in favour of saying less than more about politics in our travel guide, but when someone who has made edits to reduce criticism of the Putin government and Russia's war in Ukraine starts taking stuff out with a bogus rationale I am going to push back. Russia's ongoing and long-term demographic crisis (see references above) is relevant background information for understanding the state of Russia today. Ground Zero (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree that "Russia's ongoing and long-term demographic crisis is relevant background information". Relating their long-term demographics issues to the war is premature and speculative, particularly for a travel guide, and we should just leave that out. Re the other stuff concerning The dog2 I abstain because I'm not familiar enough with the situation. Brycehughes (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Economist says Russians have emigrated in huge numbers since the war in Ukraine. The Washington Post says Russians abandon wartime Russia in historic exodus. re:Russia says [ https://re-russia.net/en/review/347/ New data puts the number of Russians who have left at more than 800,000 people] (July 2023).

I've provided references to reliable sources. Not anecdotes. Not online forum discussions. Not YouTube videos. And not The dog2 claims that the international sanctions applied against Russia are not "international". The dog2, as is often the case, is pushing a personal agenda. Ground Zero (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not arguing that these two things aren't true. But rather that we shouldn't relate them in a sentence and I'm not sure that the war emigration thing is relevant to a travel guide. You'll notice, for example, that the first Economist article you posted uses the war more as a way to spice up a boring conversation about demographics ("War is not the sole—or even the main—cause of these troubles") and that the chart shows that the current cycle of demographic decline began well before the war. The other articles appear not to relate the two issues. Brycehughes (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"I'm not sure that the war emigration thing is relevant to a travel guide." That is true of the whole history section, but yet we have history sections to provide context for readers. But if we are going to have a history section about Russia, we should not allow an uninformed sympathiser of one side to sanitise it by excising anything that makes the government look bad. Look at The dog2's edits here They are agenda-pushing here, as they have done elsewhere. For the record, I did not write the text that we are discussing. I am just trying to stop The dog2 from imposing their views on it. Ground Zero (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since when have I ever endorsed the invasion? DON'T PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH! Show me the proof that I have ever endorsed Putin. I have never denied the fact that the annexation of Crimea and the full-scale invasion are illegal under international law. The dog2 (talk) 02:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where did I claim that you endorsed the invasion or Putin? I never did. Don't put words into my mouth. Ground Zero (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm pushing back against the fallacy that the majority opinion in the West is the majority opinion of the entire world. If the entire world save for a few "pariah states" was sanctioning Russia, then it would be accurate to say that Russia has been "isolated from the rest of the world". But that is not the case right now. Apart from the Collective West, only Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore have sanctioned Russia, and together they account for a minority of the world's population. And Singapore for that matter only joined in the sanctions after the full scale invasion of Ukraine, not when Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. Simply acknowledging that fact does not and should not imply endorsement of Putin or the Russian invasion of Ukraine. To say that Russia has been isolated from the Collective West and those four other countries is accurate, but to say it has been isolated from the "rest of the world" is hyperbolic. Let's not pretend that the collective West plus Japan, South Korea and Taiwan constitute the entire "international community". The dog2 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

No-one is "pretending that the collective West plus Japan, South Korea and Taiwan constitute the entire international community". The sanctions are international, however. That is a fact that you tried to excise from the article.

"but to say it has been isolated from the "rest of the world" is hyperbolic" -- the article doesn't say this anywhere. These are common talking points being pushed by Moscow through social media. They don't belong here. You are not a trustworthy editor for articles related to Russia or Ukraine. Ground Zero (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Moscow talking points or not, it is a fact that only a minority of the "international community" is sanctioning Russia right now. This is true whether you go by population or number of countries. These are cold hard facts whether you like them or not. The only measure by which the majority of the world is sanctioning Russia is by GDP. Calling them "Western" sanctions is accurate and precise. And Roovin's edits did say that Russia was "isolated from the rest of the world" until I changed it to "the West". The dog2 (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it is already been changed, what are you arguing about? You are clearly here to argue one side in this war, but this is a travel guide. You are being disruptive. Just stop it. Ground Zero (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

As we are arguing about restoring removed content, what's now in the article isn't essential. But the edit by The dog2 you linked removed "international" from sanctions, while "isolation from the West" was there from before. Please, The dog2, check what we are discussing not to create straw men. The sanctions have been international, even if driven by the West; like GZ notes, things can be international without concerning a majority of countries (15% of world population is significant). And the West has disproportional power: being excluded from SWIFT is not only about the West. Then, I am open to rewording this, e.g. by mentioning that the sanctions have led to more dependence on Asian countries that don't take part. I have no good wording handy though. –LPfi (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply