Talk:Moscow/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

More facts

To be fair, most other Wikipedia articles on cities don't really mention some of the major problems of those cities, as I've just begun to notice. In my opinion we should set an example rather than follow suit. Maybe we could start a general discussion on this somewhere - Village Pump, etc. -- Simonides 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with describing problems, but I think it's important to keep them in context and give them proportional amount of attention. For example, I regret the fact that five Japanese tourists were beaten during a soccer game broadcast, but given that we're writing an article about a 850 years old city with over 10 million people living in it - really, is it worth mentioning?.. How many people are beaten in any large city every day? The description of the incident takes more space in the Sports section then Olympic games! Isn't that ridiculous?!.. Don't we have more important things to write about?

Context is important, and it is true that Moscow is more dangerous a city for foreigners than is London, NYC, or Paris. -- Simonides

And I assume you have the data to support this fact, right? Azov 06:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Ok, I found the data. You're right about London, NYC, or Paris. People from LA or Chicago, however, would be safer then home. Azov 17:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing any mention of the Japanese tourists here, maybe you're thinking of someone else, but it is important to mention the violent and often racist crime in Moscow as it is very common, and also because the government and the militia either do not acknowledge it is a widespread problem most of the time, or when they do, they trivialise and ignore it - again, if you think this is not verifiable, you should read more independent newspapers. I can't think of many more important things to write about than frequent occurrences of violent crime, but of course you're welcome to your opinion. -- Simonides 04:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with most of what Simonides has said. The streets of Moscow are dangerous for foriegners. The more visibly different they are, the more dangerous. (Its not just Moscow though, I was recently in Tver and saw the spot where an African student was murdered by a gang of skinheads) Business in Moscow involves paying bribes. This is a fact - I challange Azov to find a single business person in Moscow who does not pay bribes. Moscow is more dangerous and corrupt than London (Where I now live - I can't say about NYC or Paris). Azov - as a native of the city, these are things you will not have encountered. I know nothing of racism in my home city (Limerick), however I have talked with foriegners there who do. This is the English language version of the Moscow article. 90% of readers are foriegners. Racism, corruption, violence should be mention, I would propose that it all be dealt with in a dedicated section. We should reference each statement. But this can be done by refering to news publication, for example [1], statistics are not always required. Seabhcán 10:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't say that we shouldn't mention problems. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't make blatant generalizations based purely on our guesswork. Yes, corruption definitely is a widespread problem. And it's perfectly ok to mention so. But, while it might look like nearly all businessmen in Moscow pay bribes, I didn't talk to all of them or conducted anything even remotely resembling a representative survey, and neither did you. We simply don't know. So, we shouldn't talk about "all" or "nearly all" unless there's data to support such statements. It's irrelevant whether I can find a single business person in Moscow who does not pay bribes (even though I can), we don't write articles based on our personal experience. It's not something I'm making up, it's an official Wikipedia policy. But of course we can - and should - use our personal experiences to dig verifiable data.

For example, here is some info on the crime rates (from World Association of International Studies, [2]):

There are very great misperceptions about crime in Russia. Although Russia had a burst of criminal activity in the chaotic middle 1990’s, the overall crime rates are very low. According to the United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, England has the highest crime rate among developed countries and Russia one of the lowest: Country Crimes per 100,000 population England and Wales 9,766 U.S. 8,517 South Africa 7,997 Germany 7,621 Russia 2,022 See, for example, www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798708/posts. One factor in Russia’s generally low crime rate is effective work of the police. Russia’s police are notoriously corrupt and are generally distrusted, but they achieve very high rates of success in solving crimes. Fully 76% of all murders are solved. The Russian police have apparently retained some of their police state skills. Once apprehended, criminals in Russia are treated harshly and are almost always imprisoned (they are no longer executed, as Russia implemented a moratorium on the death penalty in 1996). The statistics above concern all crimes; concerning murder, the picture is very different. The murder rate has fallen significantly from its peak in the middle 1990’s, but at around 15 per 100,000 population it is still by far the highest in Europe and is similar to the murder rate in less developed countries like Brazil and Mexico. Moscow remains the murder capital of Europe, with about 16 per 100,000 population, but Moscow, fitting between Los Angeles and Houston, is still safer than most big cities in the U.S.: Murder rates in selected U.S. cities: New Orleans 258 54.5 Washington 264 46.2 Detroit 402 43.5 Baltimore 253 39.6 St. Louis 111 32.8 Chicago 648 22.5 Philadelphia 288 19.3 Los Angeles 654 17.2 Houston 256 12.7 Boston 60 10.2 New York 590 7.3 Azov 17:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hm, sure. They're relying on statistics provided by ... who? And what is the methodology involved for comparisons?

Let me repeat again and again, because it doesn't seem to get through to your Kremlin-coloured viewpoint: no matter how liberal, non-Soviet and non-violent a state your heavily censored TV and radio and all your pop shows convince you you're living in, the fact of the matter is that Russia is still way, way behind even dangerous and often fundamentalist countries like the U.S. in acknowledging, recording and handling domestic crime, especially violent racist crime, particularly since your own authorities perpetrate it. You must live in a nice sheltered home - I'm happy for you that your social circle may be one of the exceptions - but you really need to learn more about your city and your country. Why don't you read this for a change, it's dated and it mostly focuses on Chechnya, but the smattering they mention is enough to make any normal person sick - http://moscow.usembassy.gov/bilateral/human_rights_2004.php . Here's a nice little excerpt:

Reports by refugees, NGOs, and the press suggested a pattern of police beatings, arrests, and extortion directed at persons with dark skin or who appeared to be from the Caucasus, Central Asia, or Africa, as well as Roma. For example, the press reported that in Novosibirsk four policemen were arrested on suspicion of extorting over $1 million (28 million rubles) from a Romani family by kidnapping and torturing family members until their demands were met. In November 2003, one Roma was allegedly tortured for 7 hours. The victims did not press charges, but the policemen were eventually convicted on earlier charges of a similar nature. Police continued to harass defense lawyers, including through beatings and arrests, and continued to intimidate witnesses (see Section 1.e.).

As for businesses, there is plenty of information on the web, and like I've said over and over, you only have to look for it. I'm sure you have a lot of time - I don't. Please don't keep wasting my time. Use yours to educate yourself about things your little TV set won't tell you. Here are some samples that verify what EVERYONE who actually WORKS in or with businesses in Moscow knows. Also, it's increasing every year, so don't try feeding us some crap about how it really was from a long time ago. Take a look at the chart in the Economist article, or pay attention to this line in the Forbes and the Moscow times articles: "The average businessman pays out $135,800 in bribes every year, an amount that is 13 times higher than four years ago, the report said." By the way - these articles are just about official corruption, not even about the Mafia (maybe you want some statistics kept by the Mafia too?)! -- Simonides 06:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2002/05/22/001.html

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2005/07/21/011.html

http://www.forbes.com/business/2005/08/05/russia-putin-corruption-cx_0805oxan-russia.html

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5061669

http://www.sptimes.ru/story/2571

http://english.mn.ru/english/issue.php?2005-31-18

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/news/nyt-8-14-05b.html

I posted the entire article Azov, so you wouldn't have the excuse of a broken link or not being able to find it. Yablokova ("from an apple" is the connotation if I'm not mistaken) is a cute name, don't you think? Maybe something we can agree on. -- Simonides 06:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Cute name, agreed :) Chill down a bit! I see your point. And I do read news, just like you do. Are you trying to prove that crime, bribery and corruption are serious and widespread problems? I'm not arguing with that.

I don't think you're in a position to ask me to "chill down". If I have to spend any time at all on WP, I would rather spend it editing than squabbling on Talk pages. Yet, inevitably, because of minor objections that people could easily take the initiative to modify themselves, I find my time wasted on the latter, in this case because of you - essentially I had to prove myself right once again by doing boring searches and posting long arguments to make you see what was never incorrect in the first place or what you failed to understand. If you're not arguing with my position then why go out of your way to create obstacles? Or make grand counter-statements like these: 'we shouldn't make blatant generalizations based purely on our guesswork.'? You should be much more careful how you go about making changes to articles. It's for your own sake - you can prevent foot in mouth disease too. -- Simonides 08:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"They're relying on statistics provided by ... who? And what is the methodology involved for comparisons?" - there's a very detailed article addressing exactly those issues. Check it out! :)

Once again, you fail to understand my comment. I'm not asking you about Wikipedia policies. I'm asking you about the verifiability of the article YOU quoted - what were the methodologies and numbers it was based on? -- Simonides 08:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Independent movie theaters

As to the independent cinema theatres - I didn't reinsert the paragraph because I didn't really understand what you're referring to. What do you mean by independent cinema theaters - independent from whom? For example, in the US independent theaters are independent from large chains, e.g. Century. In this sense most of the movie theaters in Moscow are independent, AFAIK. Or did you mean the theaters that show independent films? Again, I'm not quite sure which films are considered independent, Musei Kino (Cinema Museum) is probably the most famous theater for showing non-mainstream movies. Basically, there's no questions about neutrality of that paragraph, but I think it needs more clarity.

PS. I removed the article text you copied here, a link is perfectly sufficient. Azov 08:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If it requires clarity, clarify it, don't remove it. In using the term 'independent theatres' I meant both theatres that show independent or non-mainstream films, and ones that aren't owned, together with other theatres or other business ventures, by a single body. This is the only document I could dig up right now to show your speculations to the contrary are wrong; it's at least three years old, and things have certainly changed a lot now, but not in favour of the independent theatres.

In Moscow, one-screen movie theaters are being replaced by the American-style multiplexes, which are setting the trend for all over Russia. ... There are four privately owned Russian movie theater networks, including Imperia Kino, Karo Film, Kinomax and the Union of Independent Theaters. This year American National Amusement company started to actively work on the Russian market. National Amusement has ambitious plans to open several movie theaters in Moscow totaling 60 screens in the next four years. ... American-made films completely dominate Russian movie screens accounting for about 80-90%. Box office collections generated from showing U.S. movies double each year, starting from $10 million in 1999, increasing to over $20 million in 2000, and reaching $40 million in 2001. In the first six months of 2002, American movies have already made more than $40 million. -- Simonides 08:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

In fairness, the same situation applies to most of the world. The only countries that have lower precentage of movies from the US are those that have laws enforcing it, such as Korea, France and Venesuela. In Ireland, I'd say the precentage of US films shown is far above 90%, and the precentage of foriegn films is certainly 100% most years. The UK market is dominated by US film, miltiplex chains, with few independent films shown in small cimenas in town centers. There is a current example of the French documentary "La Marche de l'empereur" took a year to cross La Manche, and first had to take a detour to the US and pick up a voice-over by Morgan Freeman. In light of this, 80-90% in Russia is not bad. Remember, these films are not being imposed on the Russians. They like them. Seabhcán 09:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That's all totally beside the point isn't it? I said that there were few independent theatres in Moscow, I didn't make any speculations on the character or tastes of Moscow audiences. It's important to bring this up because Moscow had, despite censorship and various extreme interferences from the government, a thriving cinematic culture in the Soviet era. -- Simonides 08:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What is your point? Moscow still has a thriving cinematic culture, but now its Hollywood films that thrive there. Fashons come and go. In ten years Moscovites may have become bored by hollywood remakes and the cinemas might be showing all Russian films. Or maybe Bollywood or Nollywood will be the 'in' thing then. We get few non American films in the UK but "Night Watch" is currently drawing large crowds. How do you measure "thriving"? More people go to the cinema more often in Moscow now than in Soviet times. Just because you and I think the films they choose to watch are crap, doesn't mean there is anything not 'thriving' about Moscow cinemas.Seabhcán 10:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, you don't understand. There was a thriving NATIVE cinematic culture previously - ie Soviets watching Soviet films. Also, a lot of popular films would be broadcast repeatedly on TV, so most movie or TV loving Russians brought up in the Soviet era know most of their national classics well, whereas the younger audiences know much more about Hollywood. This is not a judgement on fashions or what is better. The fact is that Russian studios that were very prolific, Russian content, and also non-mainstream content from overseas, have all been on the decline in the market, and that's all the article is saying. -- Simonides 10:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

There are still loads of Russian films on tv and in the cinemas. Irony of Fate is still shown every new years eve. There are Russian films on every night on TV. There are also French, German, US and other films. I don't see the harm. To increase the precentage of Russian films in the cinemas Russia could impose a law mandating a certain percentage. France, Korea and other countries has been sucessful with this. But personally, I don't think its needed. Like all industry in Russia, the movie industry is quickly building its self up following the economic disaster of the 90's. Seabhcán 10:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Good, great, excellent. No one is disputing what you say so I'm not sure why you continue on your tangent. The article says a few things - Mosfilm was the home of many classics, it implies that Soviet film was very popular (as opposed to being, say, unpopular propaganda), Russian filmmakers are still famous outside Russia, Mosfilm produces a lot less, independent cinema is relatively scarce in Moscow, all of which are true and none of which contradict anything you said. -- Simonides 11:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Your data is quite outdated. Russia in general and Mosfilm in particular produces more films than the whole Soviet Union in its best years. During the last year, the Russian boxoffice record was broken three times: first by Night Watch, then by a Fandorin movie, and now by the Ninth Detachment. No Hollywood movie has been able to achieve better results. And The Day Watch opens in theatres on January 1! --Ghirlandajo 13:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any data supporting what you said about Mosfilm's production increasing between 2002 (when it was 5-6 times less than a decade previous to that) and 2005, so if you can link it for us, we can certainly correct the article accordingly. Also, some Russian films may be more profitable than American films, but I was speaking of trends, and the majority of the Russian market is still dominated by American or non-Russian films; between 70-90% of films screened at any time are American or non-Russian. -- Simonides 13:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Currently, there are 35 motion pictures being simultaneously produced in the Mosfilm. What is more improtant, most Russians have a habit of watching new films on TV, and 70-90% of TV series are Russian. --Ghirlandajo 13:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We're not talking about TV series or TV watching habits at all. They did influence the number of visitors to the cinema over the years, but we're not mentioning the influential factors anywhere; we're just noting the trends. There may be X no. of motion pictures being made now, but what I want to know is whether 1) Mosfilm, as you claim, currently releases more films annually than it did around 1991, when the figure reached around 300; in 2002 it was only around 50-60; 2) the majority of films being screened in theatres in Moscow is Russian. The answer to the latter is pretty definitely no, you aren't showing me any evidence on the former point. Notice I only say "once prolific native studios are much quieter" in the article - I don't even mention Lenfilm or Mosfilm etc individually - so if you have any facts contrary to the statement, and pertinent, please bring them up. -- Simonides 14:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that state owned and run Mosfilm was 'independent'? Independent of what? Seabhcán 13:03, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Seabhcan - I am not sure what your agenda is, but can you stop to read before coming up with fanciful objections? Mosfilm was a government-supervised STUDIO so of course it wasn't independent. However, I was never speaking of the independence of studios, I wrote THEATRES. Between the fall of the Soviet Union and the present state of things, there were briefly more independent theatres than there are now, and no matter which way you argue it, on a PARALLEL note, Russians were watching more Russian content in theatres, than they are now. It doesn't matter how bad or good the latter was. In fact a lot of Russian cinema from just after the fall was really bad - done on low budgets and in imitation of American movies. But once again, no judgements on quality are being made here. So what exactly is your point? -- Simonides 13:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

So, you're saying that during soviet times there was a higher percentage of Russian films shown, which has declined steadily to today's percentage of 10%-20%. Seperately, during soviet times there were of course no independent theatres, but shortly after there were many, and this number has also been declining since to a present low number. Is this a correct summary of your statements? If so, I agree. Seabhcán 14:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes! If you think the passage in the article is not clear enough on the same points you're welcome to insert an alternative. I'll give it a tweak too. -- Simonides 14:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wild fantasies

Who did full the article with wild fantasies?

For example:

Stalin did build seven other skyscrapers however, apparently inspired by 
the Municipal Building which Stalin saw on his visit to Manhattan.

Stalin NEVER been neither to Manhattan nor to the USA. Who did wrote this delirium?--Nixer 00:20, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

“Stalinist Architecture,” originated after Stalin visited New York, when he was so enamored with the Municipal Building he insisted on that wedding-cake style of architecture for Moscow University’s main building and its accompanying “Seven Sisters.” [3] and "The Municipal Building in downtown New York impressed Josef Stalin so much that the Moscow University main building (1949-1953) and its accompanying "Seven Sisters" was later based on it" [4]. The sources could be wrong, of course. -- Simonides 01:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is called original research, and it is inacceptable in Wiki. We have extensive articles on Stalinist architecture and Seven Sisters (Moscow), which cite Kremlin towers, Moscow baroque, and medieval Gothic cathedrals among possible inspirations for this particular extravagant form of scyscraper. Using a NYC website as an ultimate truth doesn't help: they are obviously biased. I don't know why you chose to delete the links to these articles and insert the third interpretation of the same subject. As an aside, I've never heard about Stalin's visit to New York, but this could be just my ignorance. --Ghirlandajo 09:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not original research, as I saw it mentioned in a book once and wrote the whole section on Architecture from memory. I corrected stuff as I went along, so if you go through the edit history you will notice I mentioned the Novy Arbat project was designed by a French architect, who I am certain was mentioned in some book I read, but the only reference I could find was Mikhail Posokhin, so I switched the two; likewise I mistakenly called the Ostankino Tower the Shukhov Tower at first, and so on. There were no 'previous links' to those articles, as there was no previous section on architecture, so I am not sure what you are on about. There were always links to Moscow Tourist Attractions and no one removed them. What you did was delete the whole Architecture section and replace it with links that already appeared below. Maybe I should quote that part of Wikipedia that says such silly oversights are unacceptable. The links above were brought up only after I was asked for a reference, and I have never read elsewhere that Stalin visited NYC, so I could be wrong too. -- Simonides 12:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Stalin never been in the US. This is a mistake.--Nixer 20:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't been in the article for almost a week, so you can relax. -- Simonides 08:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is now citing the wrong building in NYC. Nixer edited the text (Jan 21 10:16) to say that Stalin was allegedly inspired by [photographs of?] the Empire State Building, rather than the Municipal Building in New York. I see no basis for that revision. Various web pages do allege that the Municipal Building was an inspiration for the Seven Sisters. I know of no such claim about the Empire State Building. The reference should be changed back. -- David Cohen 14:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. I never heared of Municipal building. I thought it is another name for Empire State Building. Stalin (or Kaganovich) said that Soviet skyscrapers will not be like American. American ones are very tall but have relatively small land basis because high land value. Soviet highrise buildings will not be limites by high land values so they should be more proportional, rational and estetic.--Nixer 18:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of anything *proving* the link, but here are a few web pages claiming it or speculating on it, which thus back up the limited statement that the Seven Sisters were *allegedly* modeled on New York's Municipal Building (arch. McKim, Mead & White 1914). This one assembles a few links (no more than circumstantial evidence), but in the comments someone replied that "It's definitely the Architecture of New York college class line that the Municipal (Building) was copied, with varying degrees of faithfulness, throughout the Eastern bloc." A New York architecture page asserts that Stalin based his skyscrapers on the Municipal Building. And this forum has a discussion accompanied by a slew of photographs connecting these and many more buildings with some common elements. I'll let you all decide whether that's enough to justify removing the "citation needed" tag. -- David Cohen 22:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice Help For Paper

Article really gave me info on culture. You might want to update the coat of arms, though. Thanks. :-)

NTV

NTV - the first privately-owned Russian TV station 

It is NOT privately owned. It is owned by Gazprom.--Nixer 06:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really Nixter. It is owned by media concern - Gazprom-media. 95% Gazprom-media shares owning by Gazprombank. Where 33,3% of Gazprombank owning by Dresdner Bank and 66,67% by Gazprom.Elk Salmon 01:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Population

I recently read somewhere (& damfino where, because it intrigued me) Moscow's pop couldn't actually exceed 750K because road/ry system can't support more than that, & #s are a fic... Has anybody else seen this? Confirm & include?! Trekphiler 08:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

what you mean? it's 10,5mln. or you talking about annual growth?

In 1960, the Soviet government claimed the population of Moscow was five million: Western estimates put it at 750,000, based on the infrastructure, etc. (there was no way enough food was being shipped in to feed five million). Robert A. Heinlein wrote about this in his account of his travel through the Soviet Union that year (1960). -- Abraxas 19:35 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you out of your mind? Moscow is the biggest and most populous capital in Europe? 750 000? ha!--Davydov 21:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is obsurd! 750,000??? Do we have kids here?

I've read in a magazine some time ago that Moscow population exceeds 20 million, but are not registered as residents, so aren't counted in the census.

Actually, during Census, all population is counted (illegals, tourists, foreigners, etc.), not just registered residents.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Illegals are not being counted during census. Tourists and visitors are counting by special form V. Moscow only registered population (citizens of moscow or so called settled population) in 2002 was 10,4mln. In Moscow province - 6,6mln. Plus according to MVD estimates there are about 3mln of illegals in the Moscow region. Registered population of Moscow agglomeration was 14-15mln (by different ways of count) and registered population of Moscow metropolitan region was 20mln (metropolitan region includes Tver, Tula, Kaluga, Vladimir, Ryazan' etc cities within Railway and Bus suburban networks). All population including temporal visitors, illegals, citizens etc within metro region is around 25mln. As of agglomeration - there was a comment lower on the talk page. Elk Salmon 09:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Moscow in Western Russia

Could the editor who keeps placing Moscow in central Russia please stop doing so? Moscow is geographically in western Russia. See [5] [6][7][8]James James 00:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Moscow located in central Russia geographically. Please stop editing it incorrectly. Russia's east geographically located to east of Volga river. East is Ural, Siberia and Far East, that was expanded to in XVIII centuries. West is several regions - Smolensk, Belarus etc. Elk Salmon 01:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Belarus is not actually in Russia! I've sourced my change, so please stop reverting it. James James 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Check out this map. As you can see, Moscow is very much in western Russia. Please don't try to make a political point with a geographical fact. James James 01:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop it. Britannica is simply wrong. All other your sources are not really sources. East of Russia is on another side of Volga river. To west of it is geographical center. Smolensk, Belarus, Kaliningrad are West of Rus'. Geogrphical East was expanded in XVIII century. And it is full east. Elk Salmon 01:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Britannica is not wrong. It's a good source, of which you have presented none. It's plain for anyone to see that Moscow is in the west of Russia. You are pushing a political point, not making a geographical one. Please stop doing that. James James 01:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's clear from your discussion why you want to say Moscow is "central". You talk about Rus and you place Belarus within Russia. Moscow may be central in historical and political terms, but geographically it is in the west of Russia, as is noted by the sources I gave. You provide no sources whatsoever for your view. Please do so. James James 01:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pushing original geographical point, not political. Calling center of Russia as west is political.Elk Salmon 01:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If it will be more pleasantly for you i added "European" center. But don't call it western. It is terribly wrong. Elk Salmon 02:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly in Russia's west. I've asked for comments. Please produce sources to back up your point. I can't imagine you'll receive much support without them. Please see the article on Central Federal District, which makes it clear that the region also known as "Central Russia" (for political and historical reasons) is in the extreme west of Russia. It's ridiculous to suggest it's in the centre, when its western border is also the western border of Russia!James James 02:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Los Angeles is central USA, not western? Marseille is in northern France, not southern? European Denmark is only east of Denmark? etc. Moscow was started as center and stayed expanded its territories through the centuries. You can use European center. Politically geographical center is calling Krasnoyarsk. But existence of 'western Russia' on territory of Moscow is absolute nonsense. I first time hear about. Elk Salmon 02:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm. The US was started on the east coast. By your reasoning, Boston is in the centre of the United States. Moscow is clearly in the west of Russia. You are pushing a political point and ignoring the geographical fact that it could hardly be any more to the west.James James 02:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

US is starting on Alaska and Hawaii. France owns huge amount of islands in oceania etc. No, political point provides Western Russia on north. I'm not pushing it. Is the statement central European Russia enough for you? Elk Salmon 02:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Moscow is in western Russia. It's not by any measure in central Russia geographically. It's not even in central European Russia! Krasnoyarsk is in central Russia. Sverdlovsk is in central Russia. Moscow is in the west. James James 02:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

What is no? Not for USA , for France, for Moscow location or that 'central European Russia' is not enough for you? Elk Salmon 02:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I wrote what the "no" was for. Moscow is in western Russia. Your stuff about France and the US is incomprehensible. Are you trying to claim that western Russia is Russia, and the rest somehow isn't? James James 03:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: RFC, Moscow is clearly in Western Russia, and indeed the capital was moved there by Peter the Great in order to develop a more Western capital and people.

MSTCrow 09:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

MSTCrow, Peter the Great was moved capital to St Petersburg, not to Moscow. Is Moscow not in central european Russia???? Using your standards it is clearly there. OK James. I say more understandable. Don't use West Russia statement, but use European Russia. West Russia is not using because sounds ridiculous for country which political, historical, cultural, ethnical center located there and which expanded their lands to east of Volga just 200 years ago. Is it understandable? West of Russia is wrong / European Russia is correct. Elk Salmon 12:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops.

MSTCrow 00:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Elk Salmon, Moscow is historically center of Russia, but geographically part of western Russia. Olorin28 17:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No. European Russia. No western is exist. Use European instead. But European is considering center of Russian. Even by many in Russia as geographically. Elk Salmon 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand. You are expressing a political fact not a geographical one. But in common with most articles of this type, the reader is told where Moscow is. I will try a compromise. See whether you like it but write about it here on talk rather than reverting. James James 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

From a map, Moscow is clearly in the western part of Russia. This is not about the political division of Russia. This is about the geography of Russia. Olorin28 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I entirely agree, but I'm hoping to satisfy Elk Salmon's objection as simply as possible. James James 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

James stop vandalize in the article. I have said use European instead of western. Or Europe isn't geographical location now and not exist? I said - by many Russian calling western Russia for its center considering insulting. Stop it. Elk Salmon 01:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how using "European" will express the location of Moscow. Central Europe? It is not even located in the central part of Europe. Olorin28 01:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Central part of European Russia. That what it mean. Not Central Europe. Why can't you use this one instead of abusive one? Elk Salmon 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And European Russia is the western part of the country, so we are back to where we started... Olorin28 01:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you listen me? Western Russia is rather abusive for many Russians. Why you can't replace it by European??? Elk Salmon 01:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This encylopedia is for everyone in the world, and just not for Russians. Also where is your proof of "abusiveness" of the term "Western Russia"? Usage of Western Russia correctly characterizes the location of Moscow in Russia. Olorin28 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answered for the question. Why can't you use European instead of Western? Why European appears incorrectly for you? And what proofs? You are Chinese, I am Russian living in Russia. This is my prove.Elk Salmon 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Elk Salmon, please review Wikipedia:Verifiability Olorin28 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You need a prove that what you call 'western' located in europe? I don't really got your point and you didn't answered for question. Elk Salmon 01:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You need to prove that Moscow is not considered to be geographically in western Russia. If it is abusive to say that it is, you need to find reputable sources that say it is, and we will be able to quote them saying so. James James 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, your statement about the abusiveness of Western Russia is unverifiable. Olorin28 01:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Should I make site and post and article there, so is it will be source? I don't really want spend time for what you don't need. Because it is not the main point. Point is why can't you replace Western by European? Do you need source that will provide it you? Elk Salmon 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here just to make more clear, Elk Salmon, can you make a list of reasons why Moscow are not geographically Western Russia? Olorin28 02:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have another questionL Can you make list of reasons why it can't be called european? I said it's abusive. It's for people. I can't provide with source what people feel. But wikipedia has exclusions when articles closing down by requesting of poepl from a side without real proves from people. Remember one biographical scandal? Elk Salmon 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason why the term "Western Russia" will not generate a stir like the situation of Seigenthaler is because it is a fact. The Encylopedia Britannica uses it. However, that is not the point here. My request above remains. Olorin28 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

But he didn't proved that he is right. who knows may be he is really that who was drew in article. But you didn't answered why not European, which is also fact, instead of western?Elk Salmon 02:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And Britannica isn't really good source. They make mistakes sometimes very big like in first edition in XVIII century. They claimed existence of huge country to the east of Volga - Tartaria. With three big states. In second edition it was removed. Elk Salmon 02:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Because using "Western Russia" is much clearer than saying "Central European Russian". Besides several other articles say that Moscow is geographically Western Russia, interestingly including European Russia and Central Russia. You attack the credibility of Britannica, but where are your sources? Olorin28 02:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Replace it by just European. Not Central European. For James European = Western. Anyway. Why it should be there? I checked articles about London and New York City. There is no any mentions about geographical location. We have to Central District article. It is enough. No need to tell same 3 times. first time in district known as central, second as western russia, third in table on left. Elk Salmon 02:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. You posted my source above European Russia. Here is Wikipedia define what is western. Britannica does not define it. Or they does? Elk Salmon 02:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? Olorin28 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My point is it says why western could be replaced by European. Elk Salmon 02:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The articles about London and New York City include a geography section, something Moscow doesn't have, and many ignorant people won't know what European Russia is. Olorin28 02:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Many ignorant people in Russia don't know where London and new York located as well;) But it's not point. OK. I'll try to make geography section later.Elk Salmon 02:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

"European" does not equal "western". Cornwall is not in European England, and Los Angeles is not in European United States. The word used in English for parts of countries that are in their west is "western".

How does it relates to Russia? European Russia. Wikipedia already define it. Elk Salmon 02:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

But why are we redirecting users to that page, when we can easily define Moscow as "Western Russia?" Olorin28 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Many ignorant people does not know where is your so called western Russia located as well. They better now Europe instead. Should they go this article to see where it is? It's absolutely same. Elk Salmon 02:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You would need to be truly ignorant not to know what "west" means. James James 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use this talk for personal attacks. west is west, but western russia is western russia. it is different. second should have real defining, which most of people does not know, but they know european define for russia. Good night. I hope to morning I will see European instead of western. This is more understable for people and more acceptable for Muscovites and Russians. Elk Salmon 06:05MSK, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No one has attacked anyone. You said many ignorant people would not know where "western Russia" is. I said they would have to be truly ignorant not to know that western Russia is the part of Russia that's in the west. Moscow is in the west of Russia, and that's what the article is going to say. It absolutely is not understandable for people to say Moscow is in central Europe when it is in fact in the west of Russia. James James 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Who talking about central Europe? It's in Eastern Europe. And you said You, not They Elk Salmon 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You have not provided a single source that says that Moscow is not in western Russia, or that to say that it is in Russia's west is "abusive". Please do.James James 02:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

James, see above to see what we talking about. it doesn't mean if I says it's abusive. I am Russian and Muscovite and I am a source to you. It is 100% situation of Seigenthaler. But it is not a main point. See for main point above.Elk Salmon 02:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are not a source unless someone has published you.James James 03:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't he just called senator? Should I do same? Elk Salmon 03:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not even comparable. I can verify that Moscow is in the west of Russia by looking at a map. I don't think I need fear legal action on that basis. But do ring your senator. Perhaps he'll provide you with a source for your claim. James James 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

James. Can you tell me - are you really does not understand what we are talking about? ok. I'll try again. There was source to you that says European Russia is its western regions. 'Western' is abusive for many Russians and sounds like Russians live not in their country, but somewhere on its outskirts. It is not in use in Russia. I was proposing to replace 'western' by 'European' because it is same and was stated in another other wikipedia article. It is now understandale? Elk Salmon 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again you have to provide sources again. Please review Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No_legal_threats. Olorin28 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Now this is not correct for you? The city is in the central federal district located in European Russia. it is central federal district. or don't? it is european russia. or don't?

I rephrased this sentence without word 'western'. But it is still correct.

Understand now? Elk Salmon 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

And isn't Western Russia correct? and clearer? Olorin28 13:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Uhh...Moscow is located in Western Russia geographically. There really should not be an arguement about it. - Harlequinjack

In asnwering the Request for Comments, and having read the above discussion, I would say that Moscow is the historical centre of Russia and the geographical centre of European Russia (i.e. that part west of the Ural Mountains. Paul James Cowie 11:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems too wordy to be factually correct by stating that Moscow is in "Central European" Russia. I would stick to Moscow being in the west geographically (a source would be any map of Russia) and in the central politically (whether you emphasize it being the captial city, or with a map showing population density, etc.) How you would word that in the entry is up to the editor. - Spartanfox86 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside responses to RfC

Hi, I'm responding to the RfC. My map shows Moscow in Western Russia. If there is a desire to mention its central role in affairs or even historically, that is fine. If its geography within Russia is to be discussed, it should say western. InvictaHOG 06:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I was here from the RfC too, and I completely agree with InvictaHOG. Geographically it should say Western Russia. Olorin28 13:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've also just come from the RfC. The current compromise seems good - perhaps, if we were being really pedantic, it could read 'in the west of the Russian Federation', to emphasise that this refers to the modern state, rather than any other concepts of Russia Robdurbar 13:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

ok. in the west of the Russian Federation sounds less abusive. i'll make article on geography and geology of moscow sometime later. so this string could be removed. but anyway. according to constitution of russia, paragraph 1 point 2 - Russia and Russian Federation names are equivalent. but, Olorin28, you still didn't answered question - why not European instead of western since it is same. First is more politcorrect.Elk Salmon 15:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Because this is not a political question? Olorin28 16:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It's same for you. There is source it is synonym for you. Why can' you use it? Elk Salmon 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the term "Western Russia" has absolutely nothign to do with politics. However, the compromise by Robdurbar is good. Olorin28 18:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you understand me? I'm asking why do you again European Russia instead of western? Elk Salmon 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

European Russia is a political entity, something you should have learned from reading the above comments. Olorin28 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

European Russia is what located to west of Siberia for you known. I first time hear about political entity European Russia.... Elk Salmon 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In Geography of Sweden, there is a line near the end of the "Lands of Sweden" section that says: "The town of Stockholm, which became the Swedish capital mostly because it was centrally located vis-a-vis to Finnish provinces, is geographically located in the east and south of Sweden, but in the Swedish mindset this is rather more perceived as middle Sweden." A clarification just like this regarding Moscow might be helpful? siafu 05:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course Moscow is in Western Russia. Now, Perm is Central Russia and the capital should be moved there :) These snobby Moscovites are completely out of their minds if they think they're in the centre of anything.  Grue  14:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

i will not answer for insults Elk Salmon 13:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Western Russia, no dout. But, yes, russians commonly put Moscow in Central Russia, for unclear reason. TestPilot 03:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Moscow is clearly in the western portion of Russia. However, the current compromise version is a good one. event 05:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Moscow is in Central Russia. It is located in the Central Russian Plain.--Nixer 11:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I used to live in central London. Does that mean I lived in the centre of the UK? James James 08:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe there is semantic confusion here. Geographically Moscow is clearly in the west of the country as it is now, you only need to look at a map to see that ([9]), administratively I have no idea, but I would expect a Russian native to know better than me and if he says it's in the Central District then I'm sure it can be verified.nick 14:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to add my two cents. First: nuances of language. There's "west", and there's "West". Captial "W" and small "w"; they mean different things. "west" is entirely geographical; it's to your left if you're facing north, that's all. "West" is geopolitical, and roughly equates to the US and EU (I said roughly, don't flame me). As far as I can tell, Moscow is in western Russia and is in Central Russia. Get it? If you take a ruler and lay it out along the length of Russia, you'll find that Moscow is to the west of the physical centre of the country. Obvious. If you consider geopolitics and economics, then Moscow is in Central Russia; always has been.

And everybody knows that Moscow is NOT in Western Russia and in central Russia, right?  ;-) -Sckchui 10:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Muscovite and I don't find the term "Western Russia" abusive, it's just uncommon. You wouldn't call Alaska "North-Western USA", wouldn't you (though it's obviously located in the very north-west)? However I'm not sure what name is of common use in English-speaking countries. In Russia we usually use "European Russia" or "European part of Russia" for designating this part of the country. The region was actually central before Russia began to expand eastwards in the 16-17 centuries. At the moment it is obviously located in the west of Russia though, but the term "central" still remains, mostly because of economic and political roule of Moscow.--Shakura 20:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean:

• Central economically?
• Central politically?
• Central cultrally?
• Central geographically by land?
• Central geographically by population numbers?

? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove electoral corruption 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I came because of the RFC. I hope people will stop talking about where Moscow is located geographically, as it's rather silly. Just find different semantics.

I just superimposed a map of Russia on the United States. Although admitted I did a very sloppy job, Moscow appears to correspond to a position roughly in northern California. Also, Moscow is actually fairly far west in terms of population.

Anyway, an initial geographic description of Moscow must state that it is in the west of Russia. In other critical aspects, however, it would represent the antithesis of Western "European" Russia, or at least the middle ground between Russian cultural purists and Russian modernists for the past 300-400 years. #Masonbarge 00:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Masonbarge. It must be stated that Moscow is located in the west of Russia without using the confusing term "Western Russia" because of its ambiguity.--Shakura 11:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Mystery Airport

Does anyone know the name and use of this airport http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=Moscow&ll=55.787192,37.532644&spn=0.01303,0.066605&t=k

The stadium in the upper right is Dinamo stadium and the airport is, oddly enough, very near the Aeroport metro stop on Leningradsky Prospekt. I stayed 2 weeks in a hotel maybe 2 blocks from this place and had no idea it was there...209.47.162.98 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not mystery airport. It is Khodynka filed. Airport was closed in 60's during Moscow expanding. From 60's to 90's was used as racing circuit. Currently this area is under development. Several residential complexes now almost completed. Center of this area supposedly will be using by park and north part by several stadiums and huge museum as i remember. Elk Salmon 21:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Elk! I wish I'd known about the place when I was in Moscow, the museum looks like an interesting tour (although some sites say it's now closed).209.47.162.98 19:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[10] [11] [12] [13]

Added a page for Khodynka airfield. 209.47.162.98 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

There is also a hidden motro station under the airfield. I could be open if become necessary. See here: ru:Волоколамская (станция метро, Таганско-Краснопресненская линия).--Nixer 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way I think there is already a page on Tushino airfield(present name).--Nixer 17:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

These are two different fields. --Gene s 18:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The link to a Google map above shows Tushino airfield definitely. There a number of military airplanes are visible also.--Nixer 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for Tushino links a google map of a very different place (river on one side). I did many google searches for "Khodynka" and came across no references to Khodynka and Tushino being the same place.Burtonpe 19:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Field on google maps is Khodynka. Afaik there is some kind of meuseum of aeronautics or something like that. They plans to build huge building. Tushino still working for helicopters and small jets. Elk Salmon 14:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not revert

Ghirlandajo, please do not revert. What do not you agree?--Nixer 15:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As it's you who introduce controversial edits, it's for you to explain why you consider "Beliy" a better transliteration than "Bely" and why you insist that "Caucasians" are accosted thrice a day. I believe the latter passage reeks of original research and should be removed. As to the former, check the transliteration rules. Finally, I don't think the article is the proper place for spamlinks to all the websites of Russian media. Take care, --Ghirla | talk 17:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Moscow metro coveres the largest territory?

I storngly doubt this, in many cities (e.g. Paris or Chicago) the metro system goes far into the suburbs, while in Moscow it does not go beyong MKAD. Can you check and provide citation? abakharev 05:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Bulvar Dmitriya Donskogo and the whole Butovskaya Light Metro Line does go beyond MKAD, although Butovo is formally inside the city of Moscow. [14] However the extension to Mitino will pass territory belonging to the Moscow Oblast [15] -Kuban kazak 13:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, most lines have their terminus stations located too near the MKAD, therefore, it is clear that the Moscow's metro system covers the largest territory, at least, that of Moscow's

I don't see how it proves that Moscow's metro "covers more territory than any other metro system". For example, I'm pretty sure New York subway is larger in terms of area covered, whatever we mean by that. Azov 01:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think author meant that Moscow's metro "covers more territory than any other metro system" but it is the type of public transport that covers the largest territory in the Russian capital, compared to the territory covered by the whole bus and tram networks.

Well, that was the actual statement in question. Removed it from the article. Azov 18:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The writer was, however, right. http://vrm.vrway.com/issue15/MOSCOW_METRO_STATIONS_-_UNDERGROUND_PALACE_PANORAMAS.html --Davydov 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"Moscow Metro is the world’s largest subway system in terms of passenger rides", has nothing to do with territory. Azov 22:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sports

Does anybody have a good image of Grand Sport Arena in Luzhniki to incert in the sports section?--Nixer 10:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Crime

However, while the overall stability has improved in the recent years, crime and corruption continue to remain a problem hindering business development. A recent study showed that far from decreasing, corruption in the Putin era has been on the rise, and large businesses can expect to pay an average of over a hundred thousand dollars a year in bribes to officials. The Mafia also runs extortion rackets in most parts of the city, though there are no reliable data to understand how large their influence is. Who wrote it never been to Moscow and was never doing business here. Mafia is just fake stereotype about every single criminal. Corruption (if official reject to do something he should without private payment) in Moscow in last 5 years decreased significantly and almost gone to 0. Of course somebody who has frindly relations to some official could pass something he need using 'additional possibilities'. But this is from another opera. Mafia's rackets was popular in begin of 90's. Gone in mid 90's. Somebody above was talking about often racist crime in Moscow as very common. It's not true as well. Just several cases in year, unlike in Saint Petersburg and Voronezh. Elk Salmon 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Moscow agglomeration

Some people arguing on megalomania. Then why not to talk on what is real and what is megalomania. First of all - i will not refer to UN as a source because they have city proper population of moscow in list of metropolitan areas. First of all here is two sites that specialising on agglomeration population - citypopulation.de (define 13,75mln population for moscow agglomeration [16]) and world gazetteer (define 14,5mln population for moscow agglomeration [17]). Another, Russian source, is a book Social-Economical regionalisation of Russia [18] (links on site correctly works in IE). This book define 12,1mln figure for 1998. Most of settlements changed insignificantly, with total sum of changes not over 100 thous, unlike Moscow. Census of 2002 showed estimated population was wrong on 2mln and was 10,38mln in 2002, comparing to 8,3mln of official estimation before census. So roughly according to book - Moscow agglomeration is near 14,1-14,2mln in 2002. Elk Salmon 16:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

metro area

What is the population of Greater Moscow, the whole metropolitan area? It should be mentioned in the article!--Sonjaaa 06:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think there is no such thing as "greater Moscow". The boundaries of the city are clear and it is surrounded with rural areas and several smaller (but independent) cities and towns.--Nixer 06:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which, would you be willing to finally get rid of the Greater Moscow "article"?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Greater Moscow is not exist of course. It is just an agglomeration. I was talking about it in previous paragraph. Elk Salmon 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

btw, here is what Greater Moscow [19]. Just old (1921) plan of expanding. Elk Salmon 15:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would then be interested in deleting/re-writing that pity of a stub? And thanks for the link—it's very educational and can probably be used as a basis for a new Greater Moscow article.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Just made new article. Elk Salmon 12:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dining Costs

$70 for an average plate? $50 per person for Moomoo? No way. Moo moo is a $10 meal, no? Most franchises have close-to American prices.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dunadan11 (talk • contribs) .

If you ask me, this information belongs in a tour guide book, not in an encyclopedia. Prices change every day, who cares?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Seal

It is not a seal but coat of arms.--Nixer 13:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Industry

Should we have a chapter about industry?--Nixer 06:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Perhaps we could also merge some of the information from the Living Costs section to form an Economy section. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 06:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of {{fact}}s and references

The point of the {{fact}} tag is to get citations. This article, as it is right now, is for the most part well-written, but also poorly cited. And so by adding {{fact}} templates to the article, we would be getting others to notice this flaw in the article and perhaps replace the tags with citations. Removing them just because there are many does not seem like a good reason. I'm going re-add some of the tags back. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should really shy away from sources in Russian. I noticed that someone had an edit summary that removed a {{fact}} template saying because information about the number of cars within the city was available at this website. However it, of course, is in Russian. As the English Wikipedia, we should strive to find sources in English. And as a side note, that website should have been cited (I added the citation, although I hope we can find an English source with the same information). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Joturner, Moscow located in Russia. And official language in Russia is Russian. Not English. Therefore you will not find any reliable source in English. Mos.ru is official site of Moscow Administration. All you can do is ask Russians in Russia Portal for help with a sources. Elk Salmon 15:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not the way we should approach this. Certainly the official site of Moscow will prove to be an important resource (at least for you as I don't know Russian), but it would be preferable to find English-language sources that say the same thing. It doesn't matter that Moscow is in a Russian-speaking country; this is the English Wikipedia and so English is the language we should be looking for. Note that Belgium, which has a featured article, is a Dutch-, French-, and German-speaking country and yet the article for the country doesn't have a single non-English reference. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally. There are too much of absolutely useless references, some even just ridiculous. Like 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 as of this edition. Elk Salmon 16:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How can there be too many sources? Looking at the sources you indicated, I don't see a problem. More sources is always better, as long as they're correct and reliable. All of those sources are correct, reliable, and helpful in validating subjects that don't come to mind easily. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A MedCab case on this question has been opened. You can join the discussion on how many sourcers are needed, when are they needed, and which sources are prefefable, there. --CP/M 04:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To Do List Comments

The to-do list is not supposed to be a place for discussion and so I copied it down here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

From Moscow's peer review:

• Remove image gallery (perhaps just replace it with a link to Wikimedia Commons)

disagree. having small gallery some 4x4 photos, or 4x5 is very good. Elk Salmon 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a respository of images; if the images have encyclopedia value in the article, they can remain as parts of sections. However, the Moscow article is not the place for people to store photographs of the city, no matter have beautiful they may look. Galleries just don't look good in featured articles. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

disagree also. one picture is better than a hundreed of words. this allows reader to imagine the city. this gallery does not make the article a repository of images as it spreads on not more then 1/6 of the article.--Nixer 23:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Refactor Media section (as it is currently just a list of external links) to make it look more like Johannesburg's Communications and media section.
• Remove See Also links (like History of Moscow) that are already linked in the body of the article.
• Remove the list from the Moscow tourist attractions section
• Expand the Education section
• Explain the Crime Rates box better

well, same table is in nyc article. it is understable. Elk Salmon 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This item can be probably be crossed out because the rate has been clarified. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Copyedit the article
• Move Climate from under Tourism
• Put Air pollution in Moscow in a sub-section (as it's too short as it is)
• Sift through the External Links and get rid of any that are not very helpful.
• Add a significant number of references

disagree Elk Salmon 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Sources help may the article more credible. See why sources should be cited. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Add something about water transport (Moscow has two passenger riverports and regular motorship routes used mostly for entertainment)
• Add some image of Moscow sport facilities - Luzhniki and Krylatskoye sport complexes

i just took krylatskoye this sunday. i'll add later when will process all photos. Elk Salmon 16:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

May be an image of the newly-reconstructed Lokomotiv stadium would be good also.--Nixer 23:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• Refactor Living Costs section, which is quite repetitive.

  Dear Joturner! Some of the "citation needed" templates you've added are simply ridiculous. E.g., citation needed to PROVE that Medal for defense of Moscow and other Moscow-related medals were instituted. It is a fact! If you need proof, you'll have to find literature on your own to prove it to yourself, no offense. It's like asking to prove that GWB owns a ranch in Texas. KNewman 09:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  The two statements are not analagous. The statement in this article mentions two dates (1 May 1944 and 1947) and a rationale for the institution of the awards (800th anniversary). Those dates and that rationale is not just common knowledge (which is almost never common to begin with), at least not to the international community as a whole. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• A religious life section proposed

  I'm afraid we're going to start to get too many sections. I'm sure religious life can be merge into another section. Perhaps Demographics? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

  I'll start and then we'll see. I do not think it can be incorporated in demographics.--Nixer 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

sorok sorokov

I see this nonsence got its way into wikipedia as well (removed).

Сорок — «множество» (как «тьма» — 10 тысяч). Сорок сороков относилось не к церквам, а к всемосковскому крестному ходу, который устраивался по особо торжественным случаям. Клир и прихожане шли своими районами, которые и назывались «сороками». А каждая приходская церковь принадлежала по повелению Стоглавого собора 1551 г. к какому-либо району — «сороку». Это районирование на районы отошло в прошлое, а выражение «сорок сороков» осталось в народной памяти как воспоминание о том времени, когда в Москве было множество церквей

`'mikka (t) 07:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please translate this into English? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My translation, with additions in <<..>>

"Sorok (literally means 40 in Russian) means "multitude" < in archaic usage > (like "tma" ("darkness") is 10,000). Sorok sorokov refers not to churches, but to the All-Moscow Holy Cross procession (всемосковский крестный ход) carried out on especially solemn occasions. The clergy and parishioners walked in procession according to their districts known as soroks < e.g. Никитский сорок, Сретенский сорок, Пречистенский сорок, Ивановский сорок, Замоскворецкий сорок, Китайский сорок > According to a decree of the Stoglavy Sobor < literally: "Hundred-chapter Sobor" >> of 1551, every parochial church was assigned to a certain district called sorok. This administrative partitioning has long become obsolete, and the expression "sorok sorokov" remained in the memories of the people as a reference to the times where there were multitudes of churches in Moscow. < in fact, the expression "sorok sorokov" is used in the meaning "great multitudes" in a number of unrelated archaic russian expressions. And "sorok sorokov" in application to Moscow is yet another blunder: it is brainless truncation of a standard say "There are sorok sorokov churches" (Сорок сороков церквей) when spoken about Moscow >

BTW, you have a couple of red links to kill here... `'mikka (t) 19:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the 1980 Olympics

I added the statement about eighty nations participating in the 1980 Summer Olympics because I thought a major event of international importance in Moscow shouldn't just have a simple sentence that just essentially says "they hosted the Olympics in 1980". We don't have to talk about the boycott (although, honestly, that was a major part of those Olympics and unparalleled by any other boycott). However, perhaps something should be said (like the number of participating nations) that would show the international importance of those Olympics. What do you think, Nixer? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And also the geography section seems very far down in the article. It talks about the climate and the city plan, two basic facets of the city. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And unless more can be said about the environment (and ecology in general) in Moscow, Ecology should not be a header. I do, however, agree that more can be said about air pollution in Moscow. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-adding Mistakenly Removed Sources

In case there are any questions, I'm re-adding the sources (but not the {{fact}} templates) accidentally lost during this edit. Sorry about that, I reverted a little too far back. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Administrative terminology about Moscow city

There is a mismatch in terminology in ru:Административное деление Москвы and Administrative divisions of Moscow articles. in terms of choice of words "administrative/municipal" and "district/okrug/raion". Moskali, please make an order (in the whole category:Administrative divisions of Moscow). `'mikka (t)

The difference is due to the fact that the English version describes administrative divisions and the Russian version describes municipal entities. Municipal entities are formed on the basis of the administrative ones. Ideally, there should be two sets of articles, but I just don't want to get involved with all that municipal reform stuff, not yet, anyway. If someone feels up to that challenge, go ahead. The bottom line is that Administrative divisions of Moscow does not need to be changed, but we could use Municipalities of Moscow and cross-reference it with ru-wiki properly.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Original Research?

This...

A taxi from Sheremetyevo International Airport will cost the non-Russian speaking traveller upwards of $150; the Russian speaking foreigner will be charged US$30-US$40. The native Moscow dweller will negotiate the price to $15-20 or will avoid the taxi rank altogether and take a marshrutka (shuttle, shared taxi) to the nearest metro station for about a dollar

...sounds like original research (i.e. a testimonial from a Wikipedian instead from a more scholarly, reputable source). Since Wikipedia has a policy against original research, we need to get a reputable source to attest to this (especially if we want this to become a featured article). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 19:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section for now as it is obviously original research. Reputable taxi companies will have a fixed rate as several websites indicate, but I assume the negotiating can take place with private drivers not affiliated with a major company. In that case a native could obviously bargain easier, but that's just my speculation. TSO1D 20:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a bargain is certainly possible, but in my view, this kind of information is only suitable for a tourist guide, not for an encyclopedia.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the Gallery

I noticed User:TSO1D removed the gallery of images, while User:Nixer put it back. Repeating what I said earlier...

Wikipedia is not a respository of images; if the images have encyclopedia value in the article, they can remain as parts of sections. However, the Moscow article is not the place for people to store photographs of the city, no matter how beautiful they may look. Galleries just don't look good in featured articles.

I still hold that view; the gallery should not be in the article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 09:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I only removed the gallery becuase that was one of the items on the to do list, I was under the impression that there was no opposition to completing those tasks. Now that I look at the page, it makes sense to replace the pictures with a link to Commons. At this moment they take up too much space in the middle of the article without being of use to anyone. Maybe if some users want to keep it, it can be greatly reduced and added to the end of the article, although I still recommend removing the pictures altogether. TSO1D 13:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no item to remove the gallery in the toto list. There is an item to remove the list of tourist attractions.--Nixer 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is. It's the first item. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And regardles of that list, in my view the article looks more ungainly with the large gallery in the middle of it. I propose removing it for both aesthetic and practical reasons. Also, very few other articles about cities use such galleries. Look at Saint Petersburg or London, or Berlin, or Paris, or any other such articles. There is no need to make an exception here. TSO1D 18:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And no featured city article has a similar gallery either: see Kolkata, Mumbai, Hong Kong, and Johannesburg. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Two Recent Edits

Regarding this edit: Apologies, Nixer, for removing what you insist is an important sentence. However, I can't understand what it - Many industries also located in Mosow area near Moscow. - is saying. It is saying that there are also other industries located just outside Moscow?

Yes. You may of course rephrase the sentence.--Nixer 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: I was trying to show the popularity of Cristall in other parts of the world. The way it's phrased now makes Cristall sound the name of the plant. I thought it was the name of the company that manufactures vodka.

Cristal champaigne is not related to the Moscow Cristall distillery. It even does not produce vines.--Nixer 18:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all for now. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Living Costs

This section appears to have some odd information. For example it states that: "Today it [the service charge] is around $3000 per square meter." Thus if a person has a 3 room apartment with an average 70 sq. m, then the fee is $21,000? Who in the world can afford that? And furthermore it is not specified whether that is per year or month. And then this: "If a person from a family/group dies or moves, the service costs increase for extra meters." That makes no sense, the fee is directly proportional to the number of people, thus if that number increas, so does the fee, not vice versa. TSO1D 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Climate

Climate section in other articles about cities is always in the bottom of the article--Nixer 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Once again, see Kolkata, Hong Kong, Mumbai, and Johannesburg (all featured articles). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading currect version one may think that the reason of cold weather in Moscow is that Moscow is in the north. However, this is not the case: unlike most places in the world in western part of Russia "colder" means not "more to north", but "more to east". The reason is that in western part of Russia Gulf Stream is playing very big role in the climate (comparable with Sun energy). In St.Peterburg (which is much closer to north then Moscow, but a bit closer to west) weather is near the same as in Moscow or a bit warmer. However if one will have a look at cities on the same parallel with Moscow he will see that the cities in the west from Moscow have warmer weather and the cities to the east from Moscow have colder weather (of course, going to north in Russia also means changes in the weather to more cold, but this effect is less then when going to east).

Voitovich

You say "Voitovich manufactures rail vehicles". Saying this is just as saying "Kennedy manufactures spacecrafts in the space center in Florida"--Nixer 22:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Since you haven't gotten to it, I'll refactor the sentence. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moscow&action=edit&section=30

ZiL and AZLK are companies not plants, so I changed the sentence to "Automobile plants for ZiL and AZLK..." -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction ZiL appears to be a company while AZLK appears to be the factory. Am I misreading something in the ZiL article? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind completely, you're correct. I misread both of the articles. This edit/version of yours looks fine for that part. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Both abbreviatures means factories. ZiL = Zavod imeni Likhacheva (Plant named after Likhachev), AZLK = Avtomobilniy Zavod imeni Leninskogo Komsomola (Plant named after Lenin's Komsomol). --Nixer 23:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The city plans

The city plans are outdated. I recommend to move them into the History of Moscow article.--Nixer 23:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of the maps are to show the concentric circles formed by the roads. Clearly, those are there. If we can find a free updated map, that would be wonderful, but I imagine that coming up with decent rationale for using an unfree map as fair-use is going to be tough considering we already have two free Moscow maps. But I don't want to discourage you from looking for a free map or uploading a more modern map of Moscow under fair use. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 23:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Information on Russian State Library is better placed in Education chapter or in Science (which I am going to add)?--Nixer 09:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go under Education. If you add a Science section, it may work as a subsection of Education or a subsection of Culture, depending on how you write it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 18:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it doesn't seem to have a close relation to education, since this is a state library and not public. State libraries generally have more relation to science. It's not exactly one or another, but I'd rather add it to science. That's just an opinion. Considering the general science section, it deserves to be separate, as Moscow is (or was) one of the prime science centers, though library info is not enough. CP/M 10:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CP/M--Nixer 10:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion

I suggest the supporters' violence to move into crime section, and expand the sports chapter.--Nixer 07:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Living Costs

This section appears to have some odd information. For example it states that: "Today it [the service charge] is around $3000 per square meter." Thus if a person has a 3 room apartment with an average 70 sq. m, then the fee is $21,000? Who in the world can afford that? And furthermore it is not specified whether that is per year or month. And then this: "If a person from a family/group dies or moves, the service costs increase for extra meters." That makes no sense, the fee is directly proportional to the number of people, thus if that number increas, so does the fee, not vice versa. TSO1D 18:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted this some time ago, but I see no one got too excited about the information. In any case, I removed the dubious statement about the service charge going up in case of a decrease in the number of people living in a house. Can anyone find a source backing the $3000 figure? TSO1D 22:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems like misunderstanding. $3000/sq.m. (or probably already more) is the price for a permanent purchase, not a regular fee. Also, concerning the other sentence - I'm not exactly sure, but I've heard some info that it actually goes both ways, with extra charge for extra meters per person. CP/M 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see, I always assumed that the second paragraph in the "living costs" section was a continuation of the first. And I thought the "situation per square meter" refered to the service charge, but it's probably the price of the estate. I'll try to re-write that part a little. As for the service charge, I thought it covered basic services, so it would take into consieration how many inhabitants reside in a house (as more people use more water, etc) and calculate the price based on that. TSO1D 22:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the charges, it can go either way. Services go for number of people, but there is a charge for the use of the flat (they were given by the state in soviet times, and formally are state property; just formally, as a flat can be turned into private property, but this also means the owner will pay for repairs and maintenance himself, which is more expensive than this montly charge). However, I don't live there and don't know exactly which charges outweight. If someone with a first-hand knowledge could help, it would be best. CP/M 10:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a privatized flat, but the local administration made new floors of beech parquet in my flat two years ago for free.--Nixer 10:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to this wikipedia article Moscow is the most expensive city in the world that data appears to come from Mercer Consulting and according to CNNMoney.com - In Moscow, the apartment will run you US$3,000, the coffee US$5.27, the paper US$3.40, and the burger with fries $3.87. Yet to my confusion according to http://www.realestate.ru/eng/new.aspx?id=4387 Average per capita income at 28, 546 rubles in Moscow in April (2006) Which equals roughly 1,060.05 USD which means an average apartment needs 3 family to pay the rent and they get 8 cups of coffee and $36 burgers and fries for the month. I have not been able to prove it yet but I think this is ex-pat and overseas corporate pricing.

Centre

TSO1D, why did you changed all center words to centre?--Nixer 05:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can change it back to center if you want. The reason was that one of the links had the word center and that was a redirect to the centre version as it is a European city. And as the city pertains to Europe, I thought it was better to use the British version of the word (I didn't have time to change the rest). If you don't like it, it can be changed back instantly. TSO1D 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would better to bring back. There is no official English dialect in Moscow.--Nixer 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

British English rather then US English is by far the predominate version used by Russians in Moscow so I don't see the need to change it back Spartaz 08:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you know it from? I always write "center" and nearly nowhere can see the word "centre".--Nixer 10:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about common usage, but in official context, the word centre is usually used. The All Russian Exhibition Centre site for instance uses it among many others. TSO1D 12:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Centre is British spelling, Center - American. I believe English Wikipedia has a policy that either British or American dialect is fine, but it has to be used consistently - i.e. no mixing British & American in the same article. Since the article about Moscow uses American spelling, I suggest that you change it back to Center. Azov 12:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I changed it back for consistency but remember we can still make it consistent by changing everything to British spelling! TSO1D 13:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dining Section?

Do we really need a dining section? It looks like something for a tourbook (I know I may have said this about other items or sections). It's simply not particularly relevant to the city, or at least not in its current form. As a result, I have removed it. If someone thinks the section is essential to the article, I believe it should be written from scratch rather than re-added and simply edited. But you don't have to listen to me. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Order of Sections

Currently, the sections are ordered:

   * 1 History
   * 2 Government
   * 3 Culture
         o 3.1 Architecture
         o 3.2 Views of Moscow
         o 3.3 Visual and performing arts
   * 4 Education
   * 5 Transport
         o 5.1 Intercity transport
         o 5.2 Local transport
   * 6 Demographics
   * 7 Tourism
   * 8 Sports
   * 9 Economy
         o 9.1 Business and Trade
         o 9.2 Industry
         o 9.3 Living costs
   * 10 Geography
         o 10.1 Climate
         o 10.2 City plan
         o 10.3 Air pollution
   * 11 Social aspects
   * 12 Media
   * 13 Bibliography
   * 14 Notes and references
   * 15 See also
   * 16 External links
         o 16.1 General
         o 16.2 Media
         o 16.3 Images

I suggest:

   * 1 History    
   * 2 Geography
         o 2.1 Climate
         o 2.2 City plan
         o 2.3 Air pollution
   * 3 Government
   * 4 Demographics
         o 4.1 Crime
   * 5 Economy
         o 5.1 Business and Trade
         o 5.2 Industry
         o 5.3 Living costs
         o 5.4 Tourism
   * 6 Culture
         o 6.1 Architecture
         o 6.2 Visual and performing arts
         o 6.3 Sports
   * 7 Transport
         o 7.1 Intercity transport
         o 7.2 Local transport
   * 8 Education
   * 9 Media
   * 10 See also
   * 11 Bibliography
   * 12 Notes and references
   * 13 External links
         o 13.1 General
         o 13.2 Media
         o 13.3 Images

...with Views of Moscow - if it stays - merged into Architecture. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Geogrphy section does not need 3 sub-sections. Small paragraph about climate is enough. City plan can be moved into architecture section. Visual and performing arts needs expansion into Museums and galleries and Teaters and operas. New section Parks and recreation zones should be created of Tourism. Anyway industry and tourism should not preceed museums and theaters. Architecture should be placed in the beginning.--Nixer 05:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, why should the city plan be moved to architecture instead of geography, it is much more relevant to the latter. As for the architecture section, why should it be placed in the beginning? Almost all articles on cities have first introduce geography, then history, leaving architecture until the end. As for having the culture section preceed the industry section, I agree with that. TSO1D 12:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

I feel demographics is more relevant to education, dont you think so?--Nixer 11:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Demographics are (or is?) basic information about the city (breakdown of ethnicities, growth rate, etc) and, in my opinion, belongs in its own section, somewhere near the top. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

social aspects, wtf?

"As of 2006 there are 8470 thousand people able to work of which 1728 thousand employed by state, 4423 thousand - by private companies and 1988 thousand - in small business. There are 34.4 thousand officially registered unemployed."

where did that come from? it doesn't make much sence. if the city's population is 14million why only ~8000 people can work? i am deleting that section until someone can rewrite that paragraph.--Greg.loutsenko 16:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

8470 thousand is 8.4 million. I'm not sure why it says it like that though (perhaps it's regional like billion (US) equaling thousand million (Britain)). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple refs

Joturner, can you please make the third link to the same source from the city population in the first chapter?--Nixer 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the article!

Joturner, please make this article better, not worser! NO ONE of your edits to this article make it better!--Nixer 19:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? TSO1D 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just because you don't like my edits does not mean that it's vandalism. Can you explain why you think demographics should be so far down in the article? I can comprimise on the crime section, but I don't understand the demographics section. And can you also explain why you removed the Culture section? The stuff about galleries and theaters are very closely related. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Culture because the other city articles contain separate sections for architecture, museums and theaters. I dont understand why city architecture should go under the same section as theaters. And I was also inspired with Berlin article. As about demographics - we can place it after economy (as in London article), after sports or before or after education. --Nixer 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The articles you mentioned have Culture sections. Leaving the architecture section out may be okay, but the museum and galleries sections should be merged. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Image from #Demographics

The reason I removed one of the images from the demographics section is because the section's too crowded, especially on high-resolution computers. What I see, with a screen width of 1280px, is two images - one on the left and one on the right - and the crime statistics table pushed away from the right side since one of the images is in the way. Frankly, I don't see why we need both images and so the best way to solve this would be just to remove one of them. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

And you insisted we can place the images from the gallery into the article's body! To immediately delete them?!! Now I corrected the layout. If you feel a section is overcrowded with images, please try to expand the section, not to delete the images.--Nixer 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you didn't correct the layout (I don't see a recent edit). Also, I didn't say that we should move all the images from the gallery to the body, just a few important ones, and as space permits. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

{{fact}} Rationales

I'm trying to shy away from the {{fact}} tags, unless absolutely necessary. And so, here are the rationales for the {{fact}} tags:

• "Moscow is home to more Olympic champions than any other city in the world." - clearly this is not just common knowledge

  Probably this can be derived from articles about the champions.--Nixer 07:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• "A recent study showed that far from decreasing, corruption in the Putin era has been on the rise, and large businesses can expect to pay an average of over a hundred thousand dollars a year in bribes to officials." - what study is this?

  Really unsourced info. Should be removed.--Nixer 07:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• "An average one-bedroom apartment is about thirty square meters, an average two-bedroom apartment is forty-five square meters, and an average three-bedroom apartment is seventy square meters" - this sounds like original research

It would be great to find some sources for this information. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I changed "average" to "typical".--Nixer 07:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange phrases in tourism section

• Moscow has always been a popular destination for tourists looking for a less conventional European experience.

This sound very strange. What is less conventional experience and why Moscow is less conventional then other cities?

• The abundant greenery of Moscow gives the city a semi-tropical feel

Another very strange phrase. Had the author been to tropics ever?--Nixer 09:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first, I'm somewhat responsible for that one. Originally, the second began with "Moscow has always been a popular destination for more adventurous tourists" which sounded a bit strange to me because Moscow, although I have never visited, surely couldn't be comprable to a trip to Mount Everest. And so I reworded the sentence, not necessarily because I agreed with it, but because I wanted to clarify what the original said. I never had confidence in either of the sentences.

The second sentence was not my doing, and I wasn't sure whether it was correct. And so I left it. Apparently you (you've been to Moscow, right?) don't believe the sentence is correct and so I think it's safe to say it can be removed. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 09:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Srv2.jpg

Fair use images must serve a specific purpose:

1. to illustrate the work or product in question;
2. in the absence of free images that could serve such a purpose;
3. on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

There are three options for number one, regarding what the image illustrates:

1. The image is being used to illustrate the North River Terminal
   • However, this is not a valid reason because the article is about Moscow. The North River Terminal is only tangentially related to Moscow and not necessary.
2. If the image is being used to illustrate transport in Moscow
   • However, this fails criteria number two for fair-use images as there are free images available to illustrate transportation in Moscow (they're in the article already).
3. If the image is being used to illustrate Moscow
   • Same as above; there are many free images illustrating Moscow.

As a result, the image does not belong in the Moscow article. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 10:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is used to illustrate the North River Terminal and as such is valid under fair-use terms.--Nixer 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

But the article is minimally related to the terminal. That reason is not good enough. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 10:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is used to illustrate the North River Terminal regardless about what the article as whole.--Nixer 10:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The guideline for fair use of publicity images says, "to illustrate the work or product in question", not "to illustrate the work or product in question in an article solely about the work or product". Since it is used to illustrate the work, it's fine here. That rationale would not be appropriate if the image were used to demonstrate a particular photographic technique, or to illustrate the quantity of boat traffic on the river, etc. --MCB 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yet another strange sentence

• as a result of the large Irish precense in Moscow

Where did that guy get this delirium from? Is it original research or simply wild fantasies?--Nixer 17:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't me; go ahead and remove it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind; I took care of it. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It must have been a joke, the census shows that there are less than five Irishmen. Must have been quite a parade!. TSO1D 17:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Kremlin is not the seat of the Russian government

Kremlin is not the seat of the Russian government. It has been the seat of the Soviet government, but now it is not true.--Nixer 06:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Crime Table

I don't believe the crime table is really necessary. I feel it's enough to just summarize the crime situation in the appropriate section. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not oppose you if you decide to delete it, but now it looks OK for me.--Nixer 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Two Images in the Demographics Section

The section is so short and neither of the images provide much information about demographics. An image in that section is purely decoration, but two images is superfluous. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please expand the section, not delete images. You're doing what is easier, not what is better for the article. I think the image of the tallest building in Europe should exist anyway.--Nixer 14:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics sections tend to be short as there really isn't a whole lot to say. As far as I can see, there's not much else we can say here unless we merge the somewhat related Crime section into the Demographics section. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You can add data on age of population, religious composition, birth rates, migration etc.--Nixer 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is this obsession with the pictures. There's not a single corner of the article where a user can read valuable information without being cramped by pictures wherever possible or impossible. At least if the pictures were relevant to the particular passages I could understand, but they are simply views of Moscow from different areas, and this is in addition to the mammoth gallery in the middle. There is absolutely no reason to expand any section just to accomodate some random and unnecessary pictures. TSO1D 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please wait I'll add much information to the article, so it will be place for the pictures.--Nixer 17:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Survey

Do you support removing the current gallery of pictures in its entirety in the article, or do you favor its replacement by a link to the collection of pictures at Commons?

Oppose (Keep the Gallery)

1. Oppose. Because these pictures give a reader the overall impression of the city and its architecture. I believe one picture is better then a hundreed of words. Moscow has many buildings and other objects important enough to be placed in the article and we do not have enough room to place them outside the gallery. The gallery is relevant to the architecture section. Most of these images cannot be placed in commons because of copyright issues. The gallery inspired many authors to contribute to the article.--Nixer 20:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

   If some of the pictures cannot be moved to Commons, then perhaps the entire gallery could be copied to another page called Views of Moscow or something of the sort, which can be linked to from this article. We can leave 3 or so pictures in the architecture section of they are needed to reflect specific concepts. But having the 4 by 4 picture gallery in the middle of the article is excessive. TSO1D 23:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

   why can'twe move them to commons? If its because of copyright issues how can we keep them here? --Spartaz 08:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   Well, Wikipedia can include images with different licenses, like "with source stated", or having WP-only permission, or under fair use rationale. Wikipedia is actually very strict concerning copyrights, unlike almost all other websites. But commons are a repository of images which for sure have a clean copyright status, being compatible at least with GFDL, so some images can't be moved there.

   However, I have to add another objection: the resolution-independent form. For instance, I've got a large high-resolution monitor, and for me this gallery looks like a small square in the middle of the article. On a palmtop, though, it would require horizontal scrolling. Fixed layout is not good for any website, and should be avoided whenever possible. Even half of the gallery could be added into the article without disrupting it. I'm not against the images, it's just not the best way to present them. CP/M 09:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   thanks for the explanation --Spartaz 12:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   Is there any other gallery-lake template without fixed borders?--Nixer 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   It looks like all of the images in the gallery currently can go onto Wikimedia Commons. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 12:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   Where they will be shortly deleted.--Nixer 12:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   Why is that? Don't they fit under Wikimedia Commons' copyrighted free use? -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

   They dont. For example "with source provided" license dont fit with commons.--Nixer 07:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

   By the way, generally, I don't think these images are very valuable. It's not some military object, and all these pictures can be easily taken by anyone living in Moscow, this time with clean status. Maybe we shouldn't care so about them. If enough text is added, most relevant can fit into the article. CP/M 11:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose - per Nixer abakharev 00:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Strongly Oppose - per Nixer Elk Salmon 08:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose, although it was me who campaigned for removing this gallery and restoring the original one, which had been moved by Nixer to History of Moscow. No gallery at all is no good. If other cities have little to show, it's their problem. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think that other cities ommit galleries because they have less notable sights than Moscow. I am certain they could find 16 great prictures for Paris or London as well. It has more to do with the practical aspects of bulking up the body of the article. TSO1D 15:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose (responding to RfC) - Looks nice, if you ask me (which you did, in a way). New York City and Beijing also use photos to good effect as well. SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose The problem is not the pictures the problem is that they are in the middle of the whole article just move the different catagories around and place the "Architecture" at the bottom of the page. And move some other catagories around and make a better lay-out of the different catagories. Ramand 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Strongly Oppose removing this gallery would create a precedent for removing other galleries, such as Lisbon's, Stockholm's, Kiev's, Shanghai's, Kuala Lumpur's, etc, etc... Many cities have articles with galleries, I don't think they clutter them, they simply give a more complete visual perspective of the cities. The gallery in this article should me moved more towards the bottom though.--Húsönd 13:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Support (Remove the Gallery)

1. Support TSO1D 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC) In my view since no other (or very few) articles about cities have a gallery included in the main page, and as the pictures affect the general design of the page negatively and since they all exist at Commons, it is only logical to substitute the link for the gallery. TSO1D 20:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support No featured city article has a similar gallery; see Kolkata, Mumbai, Hong Kong, and Johannesburg. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. It bloats the article, and we already have enough pictures for an overview. A Commons link at the bottom would be sufficient. Wikipedia is not an image repository.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support, though I'd suggest to use put the most relevant pictures into the article. CP/M 00:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

   I agree; the most relevant pictures should be in the article (next to other sections). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

5. Support and...How about moving the relevant pictures to Commons and keeping those not eligible for Commons imbedded in the article somewhere (not a gallery section). - Draeco 15:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support A link to commons would be an appropriate change, would shorten the article, yet still be obvious for those wanting more information. POV: It's OK to use WP as a jumping off point towards other wikis which are better repositories for certain types of info. — MrDolomite | Talk 00:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support for reasons enumerated above, most importantly that Wikipedia is not an image repository, and that other major city articles typically do not have a gallery. There are other places in the Wikiverse for image galleries outside Wikiepdia. --MCB 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support for many reasons. First, it's a common practice to link to galleries in Commons using the Template:Commons. Second, Wikipedia is not an image repository. And third, using Fair use images in galleries could violates Fair Use rationale and be considered as copyvios.13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Support as the page is already image-heavy without it. The city article does not need to have a direct link to every nice picture taken in it. Editors should select the most important ones to illustrate certain sections, and allow the rest to be discovered through Commons or through the individual articles. Non-notable images, including redundant ones even if nice, should be deleted if htey have no use. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Support the gallery doesn't add any encyclopedic value to this article.  Grue  19:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral There are good arguments for both, keeping and removing the gallery. Perhaps we can move it to the bottom of the article - this way it's not getting on the way of the reader who's looking for information rather then pictures. The only problem is that there will be a temptation for future editors to expand it endlessly... Azov 08:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Sorry for reviving this issue but I still wish we could solve it one way or another and hopefully others will continue to vote and perhaps some form of consensus can be reached. If some users oppose removing the gallery completly, how about simply downsizing it and maybe moving it to the end. The 4x4 gallery in the middle is just too large and cumbersome. If you are afraid of the pictures being lost, we can move the entire gallery to Views of Moscow or something of the sort, and then only keeping half of it or so in the article, and ideally at the end. TSO1D 14:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The gallery disrupts the flow of the article. I, personally, don't think the gallery belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, and especially not in its own article. If this were an article on a artist, I'd consider a shortened version of a gallery showcasing an artist's works as that's essential to the subject. But right now, we have an indiscriminate collection of images that add nothing to the article. If readers want to look at a collection of images showcasing Moscow, they should be directed to Wikimedia Commons. Each wiki has its purpose: Wikinews is for news, so we don't put trivial news subjects here; likewise, Wikimedia Commons is for collections of images, so we don't but indiscriminate collections of images here. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As you know I am also against the gallery altogether, but there is opposition to its removal. As a result, the only other possibility I see is some form of a compromise. TSO1D 15:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If this article ever goes up for featured status, the inclusion of the gallery anywhere in this article would almost certainly prevent it from becoming featured (people will ask for it to be removed). If this could pass an FAC without objections over the gallery, then that's wonderful; I would have no problem with the gallery then. But I'm seriously doubting that. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 15:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

We can temporary remove the gallery when nominating the article.--Nixer 18:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't recommend you to do that. It expresses extreme bad faith. CG 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop distorting the meaning of the sentences

Tariqabjotu, please stop distortiong the meaning of the sentences. In various edits you distort the meaning of the sentences, completely perverting and distorting it. Please stop making changes which change the meaning unless you do not know what is true.--Nixer 16:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Which edits are you talking about? Since my last edit, here are the changes that have been made. Things have been added and words have been replaced, but there obviously is no evidence of the last version by me including some perverted or distorted sentences. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 20:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Map of realty costs

Can anybody re-create a copyright-free map of land costs based on this image: [20] ?--Nixer 23:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

==Should there be a section in the article which displays all the pros and cons of Moscow then gives it an overall mark and should this be done for other cities?==

Yes?No?87.113.26.73 17:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Pros and cons of what? Of living in Moscow? Of the Moscow's existence? Of having Moscow as a capital? It's not a kind of tool, it's a city, after all. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Private ownership of apartments was not allowed until 1990

This is not true. One could pay for a cooperative flat during the Soviet period and make it his own property.--Nixer 06:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansions

Please explain your concerns why this section about metro expansion plans should not exist in the article.--Nixer 18:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read comment to edits. Elk Salmon 21:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the comments are in very poor English. Do you insist not to include the section on future metro development at all or simply contest the verifiability of the sources (WP:V)?--Nixer 08:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Хорошо - расшифрую по-русски. Хотя там все и так понятно. Единственным достоверным источником является программа развития метростроения одобренная правительством Москвы. Ранее пришли к консенсусу редакторы, что использовать будем только это. В данный момент вот этот документ. [21]. Новая программа будет рассмотрена завтра [22]. Когда её опубликуют и можно будет менять планы. Гаев или официальный сайт не являются достоверными источниками и расказывают только о своих личных взглядах. Они подпадают под WP:NOR. Что до раздела в Москве, то нет необходимости копировать её из статьи о ММ. Там есть уже раздел. Статья о Москве и так уже прилична по размерам - по этому добавлять вещи которые дублируются в других статьях не стоит. Elk Salmon 10:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Если и правда завтра опубликуют, то я согласен, что можно и подождать. В то же время я не согласен, что заявления Гаева и то, что написано на сайте метро нарушает WP:NOR и WP:V. Мы не пишем, что это будет, мы пишем, что Гаев сказал это на интервью. В таком случае допустимы любые слухи, тем более, если они исходят от официального лица. Те планы, которые перечислены в таблице не только опубликованы, но и находятся на стадии интенсивного строительства. Я также планирую расширить секцию информацией о планируемом пассажирском движении по МК МЖД, четвертом автомобильном кольце, стадионе Спартак, который будет построен в Тушино и т.д.--Nixer 10:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Опубликуют не завтра. А с небольшой задержкой скорее всего в неделю-две. Если писать всю чушь когда либо сказаную гаевым и лужковым то и 7 статей не хватит ;). Так что лучше воздержаться. По МК МЖД пока тоже ничего не планируется. Это приоритет РЖД а не мосправительства, а они согласия не давали. Это возможно только после вывода всех заводов, когда у РЖД не останется выбора. Стадион тоже не одобрен (по крайней мере пока). Это давний план. Сейчас Тушино готовят к аукциону. Elk Salmon 10:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

По МК МЖД уже есть заделы на некоторых станциях метро. Понимаешь, есть проекты, о которых много говорят, и даже если нет пока официальной программы, о них стоит упомянуть. По стадону Спартак - я сам слышал по радио, что правительство Москвы приняло решение его строить (хотя мне самому больше бы понравилась идея аукциона).--Nixer 10:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Заделы были и под ветку на Лосиный Остров и под ветку в Строгино. Но все это не реализовано. На аукцион выставляется тушинское поле - будет или нет там стадиона зависит от того кто выйграет этот аукцион. Elk Salmon 11:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Про ветку на Лосиный остров я ничего не слышал в прессе. А тема МК МЖД интенсивно обсуждалась. К тому же, говорят, и в Сити будет станция. По Тушино порядка двух недель назад передавали, что решено строить стадион.--Nixer 11:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Ветка в Лосиный Остров было проектом семедесятых, как и в Строгино. Заделы сделали и даже лишнюю платформу на Полежаевской, но дальше дело не пошло. [23]. МК МЖД активно обсуждолось - а точнее 4 варианта развития событий - ничего не строить, апгрейд МК МЖД, строительство линии метро вдоль МК МЖД, строительство трамвайной линии вдоль МК МЖД. По Тушино ничего не решено. Готовят аукцион (официально ещё не объявлено). Хотя конечно часть могли и без него отдать. Elk Salmon 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

В любом случае, думаю, что секцию о будущем развитии метро в том или ином виде необходимо включить в статью. Кстати, не знаешь, есть какие-то планы относительно Измаиловского проспекта?--Nixer 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

size of MSU campus

Today, its campus is the largest university campus in the world.

I doubt that a reference to Stanford editor's note is a good source for claiming that MSU's campus is the largest. Quite a number of american schools appear to have largest campus to me. 151.199.54.37 03:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, cite seems not to work on talk page. 151.199.54.37 03:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

References

Copyrighted Photos

Many photos in this article are copyrighted. Please try to use free images for Wikipedia articles, instead of copyrighted images. An article on a major city like Moscow should not need to use any copyrighted images. --Mamin27 02:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the copyrighted photos: Image:Srv2.jpg Image:Trvn2.jpg Image:Moscowmetro-2005-2.png Image:Federation Tower1.jpg Image:Loc1.jpg Image:Novoleto.jpg

How would you imagine a non-copyrighted image of a building being constructed?--Nixer 21:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)