text:
Halberd

A halberd (also called halbard, halbert or Swiss voulge) is a two-handed polearm that came to prominent use from the 13th to 16th centuries. The halberd consists of an axe blade topped with a spike mounted on a long shaft. It can have a hook or thorn on the back side of the axe blade for grappling mounted combatants. The halberd was usually 1.5 to 1.8 m long.

The word halberd is cognate with the German word Hellebarde, deriving from Middle High German halm (handle) and barte (battleaxe) joined to form helmbarte. Troops that used the weapon were called halberdiers. The word has also been used to describe a weapon of the early Bronze Age in Western Europe. This consisted of a blade mounted on a pole at a right angle.

History

The halberd is first mentioned (as hallenbarte) in a work by 13th-century German poet Konrad von Würzburg. John of Winterthur described it as a new weapon used by the Swiss at the Battle of Morgarten of 1315. The halberd was inexpensive to produce and very versatile in battle. As the halberd was eventually refined, its point was more fully developed to allow it to better deal with spears and pikes (and make it able to push back approaching horsemen), as was the hook opposite the axe head, which could be used to pull horsemen to the ground. A Swiss peasant used a halberd to kill Charles the Bold, the Duke of Burgundy, at the Battle of Nancy, decisively ending the Burgundian Wars.

The halberd was the primary weapon of the early Swiss armies in the 14th and early 15th centuries. Later, the Swiss added the pike to better repel knightly attacks and roll over enemy infantry formations, with the halberd, hand-and-a-half sword, or the dagger known as the Schweizerdolch used for closer combat. The German Landsknechte, who imitated Swiss warfare methods, also used the pike, supplemented by the halberd—but their side arm of choice was a short sword called the Katzbalger.

As long as pikemen fought other pikemen, the halberd remained a useful supplemental weapon for push of pike, but when their position became more defensive, to protect the slow-loading arquebusiers and matchlock musketeers from sudden attacks by cavalry, the percentage of halberdiers in the pike units steadily decreased. By 1588, official Dutch infantry composition was down to 39% arquebuses, 34% pikes, 13% muskets, 9% halberds, and 2% one-handed swords. By 1600, troops armed exclusively with swords were no longer used and the halberd was only used by sergeants.

Researchers suspected that a halberd or a bill sliced through the back of King Richard III's skull at the Battle of Bosworth Field on 22 August 1485, leaving his brain visible before killing him during the battle, and were later able to confirm that it was a halberd.

While rarer than it had been from the late 15th to mid-16th centuries, the halberd was still used infrequently as an infantry weapon well into the mid-17th century. The armies of the Catholic League in 1625, for example, had halberdiers comprising 7% of infantry units, with musketeers comprising 58% and armored pikemen 35%. By 1627 this had changed to 65% muskets, 20% pikes, and 15% halberds. A near-contemporary depiction of the 1665 Battle of Montes Claros at Palace of the Marquises of Fronteira depicts a minority of the Portuguese and Spanish soldiers as armed with halberds. Antonio de Pereda's 1635 painting El Socorro a Génova depicting the Relief of Genoa has all the soldiers armed with halberds. The most consistent users of the halberd in the Thirty Years' War were German sergeants who would carry one as a sign of rank. While they could use them in melee combat, more often they were used for dressing the ranks by grasping the shaft in both hands and pushing it against several men simultaneously. They could also be used to push pikes or muskets up or down, especially to stop overexcited musketeers from firing prematurely.

The halberd has been used as a court bodyguard weapon for centuries, and is still the ceremonial weapon of the Swiss Guard in the Vatican and the Alabarderos (Halberdiers) Company of the Spanish Royal Guard. The halberd was one of the polearms sometimes carried by lower-ranking officers in European infantry units in the 16th through 18th centuries. In the British army, sergeants continued to carry halberds until 1793, when they were replaced by spontoons. The 18th-century halberd had, however, become simply a symbol of rank with no sharpened edge and insufficient strength to use as a weapon. It served as an instrument for ensuring that infantrymen in ranks stood correctly aligned with each other and that their muskets were aimed at the correct level.

The development of the halberd
The word helmbarte or variations thereof show up in German texts from the 13th century onwards. At that point, the halberd is not too distinct from other types of broad axes or bardiches used all over Europe. In the late 13th century the weapon starts to develop into a distinct weapon, with the top of the blade developing into a more acute thrusting point. This form of the halberd is errorenously sometimes called a voulge or a swiss voulge, but there is no evidence for the usage of these terms for this weapon historically. There were variations of these weapons with spikes on the back, though also plenty without. In the early 15th century the construction changes to incorporate sockets into the blade, instead of hoops as the previous designs had. With this development back spikes are directly integrated into the blade construction and become a universal part of the halberd design.

Similar and related polearms

 * Bardiche, a type of two-handed battle axe known in the 16th and 17th centuries in Eastern Europe
 * Bill, similar to a halberd but with a hooked blade form
 * Ge or dagger-axe, a Chinese weapon in use from the Shang dynasty (est. 1500 BC) that had a dagger-shaped blade mounted perpendicular to a spearhead
 * Fauchard, a curved blade atop a 2 m pole that was used in Europe between the 11th and 14th centuries
 * Guisarme, a medieval bladed weapon on the end of a long pole; later designs implemented a small reverse spike on the back of the blade
 * Glaive, a large blade, up to 45 cm long, on the end of a 2 m pole
 * Guandao, a Chinese polearm from the 3rd century AD that had a heavy curved blade with a spike at the back
 * Ji (戟), a Chinese polearm combining a spear and dagger-axe
 * Kamayari, a Japanese spear with blade offshoots
 * Lochaber axe, a Scottish weapon that had a heavy blade attached to a pole in a similar fashion to a voulge
 * Naginata, a Japanese weapon that had a 30 to 60 cm blade attached by a sword guard to a wooden shaft
 * Partisan, a large double-bladed spearhead mounted on a long shaft that had protrusions on either side for parrying sword thrusts
 * Poleaxe, a type of polearm with an axehead or hammerhead on the sides with either a spike or spearhead at the top and mounted on a long shaft. It was developed in the 14th century and remained in use until the 16th century to breach the plate armour worn by European knights and men-at-arms
 * Ranseur, a polearm consisting of a spearhead affixed with a cross hilt at its base derived from the earlier spetum
 * Spontoon, a 17th-century weapon that consisted of a large blade with two side blades mounted on a long 2 m pole, considered a more elaborate pike
 * Voulge, a crude single-edged blade bound to a wooden shaft
 * Tabarzin, a type of battle axe from Middle East.
 * War scythe, an improvised weapon that consisted of a blade from a scythe attached vertically to a shaft
 * Welsh hook, similar to a halberd and thought to originate from a forest-bill
 * Woldo, A Korean polearm that had a crescent-shaped blade mounted on a long shaft, similar in construction to the Chinese guandao, and primarily served as a symbol of the Royal Guard
 * Yue, a Chinese axe with long shaft.

title: Halberd


text:
Talk:Politics of Russia

What the Russian govt wants you to believe comment
The above is what Russian government would want you to believe. Actually Chechnya is independent country occupied by Russia, where Russian Army did atrocities not any less shocking than what Hitler's or Stalin's Armies did.''

''Russia is imperialist state dangerous to both own citizens and citizens of neighbour countries. Russia is in good relations with countries like North Korea and China - countries that don't care at all about rights of own citizens.''

I removed this, as it is not in line with the neutral point of view. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it needs to be rewritten in a more objective fashion appropriate for an encyclopedia. For example,

"The people of Chechnya consider their land to be an independant state under Russian occupation. There are many reports coming out of the region of atrocities committed by the Russian army."

And for the second paragraph:

"Russia maintains close relations with North Korea and China, both of which have been heavily criticized for their rejection of various human rights for their citizens."

I didn't leave either of these in on the Russia/Government page, however, as these seem to belong in separate articles. -- Stephen Gilbert

While comparision to Hitler/Stalin is quite subjective (but still true), Chechnya was independent country before Russian invasion.

Hi, I'm a citizen of Russia, my name is. Please listen to my humble opinion. People in the western world got used to various freedoms they struggled for so long. Indeed, the conception of open society is one of the main achievements of civilized humanity, a conception that works - that's why Perestroika occured in my country. There are no ideological standards of thinking, totalitarian taboos et cetera. However, while different points of view on the inner problems make western people at least argue with each other, they express _total_ solidarity speaking of outer world problems (having _a priori_ less information on this subject). It is strange to me that an independent and free-thinking western person doesn't put under question the information he/she gets from various news reports and analytical reviews (that are quite the same), well, he/she doesn't even care about it. Speaking particularly about situation in Chechnya, western society relies on the information it can't prove. I often watch world-wide channels, such as CNN, BBC, EuroNews and what I see are the reports made in a comfortable office building somewhere in London, or, perhaps, New-York. Surely, I know about the restrictions that russian government placed on the work of foreign journalists; but look, there are many independent sources (especially Internet-based) in Russia that provide quite an information (why don't you watch russian television?). As to Hitler/Stalin comparison, nobody compares Tony Blair[e?] to Stalin, and nobody talks about atrocities in Ireland (that's idiotic). What about basks in Spain?... ...Nevertheless, I never agreed with military operations in Chechnya; I prefer peaceful solutions, that do work.

The atrocity of Ireland was around the beginning (and so on till 1949 constitutionally)of the 20th century,by which time the world was overwhelmingly monarchical and authoritarian; Great Britain, to take it frankly, is much more democratic and tolerant than its much more tyrantical counterparts, with russia's imperial and later soviet regime involved in wars with its equally aggressive and ambitious japanese neighbor; modern day Northern Ireland after Good Friday Agreement(passed through successful referendums in UK and RI,Republic of Ireland), with polls suggesting no majority support of irish reunification or ulster independence, and each sovereign government granting and recognising dual-citizenship for its people. As for Basques or so on, I could not find possible memory of Spanish/French government starting a war in basque areas of either country. As for UK, there's even a recent Edinburgh Agreement providing special transfer of constitutional power to the devolved Scottish government to hold a Scottish independence referendum in 2014 for electorates to decide whether Scotland shall separate from UK or not. Being at a lower ranking in democracy index as Spain is to UK, the Catalonian Independence issue is never suppressed or blood-washed, although largely to Spain's elected central government's dismay. As for Tony Blair, he together with Bush are indeed terrible war criminals(honestly)regarding Iraq, but he apparently has much less power over his people than Stalin, proved directly from the fact than he dare not send a single secret guard to murder a single citizen, from whom he enjoyed terrible unpopularity due to the war affair and later came down from his office. I do think Putin is, say, more 'Stalinian' than Blair from many aspects. Here comes the point that it doesn't deeply matters if he personally, notionally or politically accepts Chechnyan independence or not, but rather how he deals with that: Sending an army? Starting a battle? Or brokering a peaceful talk around the table and perhaps, even better, an agreement towards a referendum? Ballots instead of Bullets? Those attitudes and solutions truly measure his identity as 'democratic leader' or 'dictatorial butcher'. As for the media problem, if you've truly watched BBC, CNN...a lot and you must have found that they recruit strong legions of journalists around the world and across Russia(to some Russian officials perhaps unfavorably). They indeed became lunatic at some times, due to various reasons; but being uncensored and uninterrupted made them out of the hands of (regardless of nationality) ever-power-greedy politicians. Luckier than their Russian brothers, huh? (By the way, suggesting 'why don't you watch russian television?' against allegedly western bias is a solid proof of a simple-to-guess reason why they can't be trusted.) BBC is not quite British as the name goes; it has branched all across the world with local journalists acting in report programmes; ditto many other western 'prejudiced' media. Actually looking at their programmes you can only find how stupid the UK PM is, how dirty US lobbyings can be, how many problems the west expose...more local bias than foreign, right? But that is what journalism is meant to be: to almost ruthlessly hold governments in office, inside the cage of law chained by democracy. And just what is 'western media'? Is NHK 'western'? Is KBS 'western'? Or is that any foreign-country-based media branded 'biased, uneducated, non-intelligent' a direct threat to someone's precious little palace?expensive villa?glorious office-hall?just what reason qualifies one to simplify an embarrassing exposure of reality as out-of-reach or conspiracy-in-mind? Just what is western, seriously? In this much more inredependent and intertwined era? Honestly, to my motherland, Russia is very 'western'(almost a common sense here). By the way, it is not really convincing trying to prove Putin not a dictator by suggesting a Blair as one; nor is it ever logistic speaking 'independent resources' as truthful by saying their 'western' counterparts not truthful. As we cannot say that because polar bear is not black yet a Malaysian one is, therefore polars are not bears. Bears are just bears, one of them not expelled from this group of classification by the others' 'bearly' features being more apparent.However, thanks for your contribution here all together.Спасибо!! 42.84.24.249 (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a citizen of Russia as well, i feel that Putin is a Dictator, he creates this 'war' in Chechnya to divert the citizen's attention. I feel the Russia people should overthow the current government because of it's brutal nature and it's poor human rights record towards Russians and the people of Chechnya!

 * Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. At present the alternative to Putin are not the democrats, liberals, or whatever they may want to call themselves. It is the Russian fascism in its various guises. Now, I am not doubting that to a large extent such a situation was, if not engineered, then certainly abetted big time by Putin and his KGB buddies. But this does not change Putin's role as the guy who is at present keeping a lid on things, including the nuclear bombs and what not.

 * As for Stalin/Hitler comparisons, well any foreign army is compared to them, nothing new here. At present Russian press is widely comparing American presence in Iraq to Nazi invasion of Russia. They are particularly keen on pointing out the alleged similarity between German and American helmets. There is definitely no place for such garbage in an encyclopedia article.

 * Chechnya claimed itself an independent country after seceding in a bloody war, and this secession was not recognized by anyone. In fact all participants of that secession qualify as rebels, murderers, and criminals under Russian law. Imagine what would have happened if, say, some parts of Montana were to try to secede from the US. They would not stay independent for long :). And as for widespread criticism of Russian reconquest of Chechnya at home and abroad, well they just made a big mess of things. With any luck they will sort it out sooner or later. Watcher 01:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I changed the definition of Rodina from Fatherland to Motherland for connotative/linguil reasons.

--TheRedAnthem 18:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) kappa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.132.205.180 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Intro
"The politics of Russia (the Russian Federation) take place in a framework of a federal presidential republic, whereby the President of Russia is both head of state and head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power is exercised by the government. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation."

This is incorrect. The Russian president is the Chief (Head) of State while the Russian premier, who is appointed by the President, serves as the Head of Government.

Proof:

"chief of state: President Vladimir Vladimirovich PUTIN (acting president 31 December 1999-6 May 2000, president since 7 May 2000) head of government: Premier Mikhail Yefimovich FRADKOV (since 5 March 2004); First Deputy Premier Dmitriy Anatolyevich MEDVEDEV (since 14 November 2005), Deputy Premiers Aleksandr Dmitriyevich ZHUKOV (since 9 March 2004) and Sergey Borisovich IVANOV (since 14 November 2005)" https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html#Govt

I was doing an assignment on Russia and thought I'd do my part and keep things straight. I didn't edit it, because I'm not sure how people would like it to be revised.

--Spenser. September 19, 2006

I am Russian and I entirely agree with Spenser. I'm editing this. - sredni vashtar

Rewrite?
I think this article is waaaay toooo looong. Most, if not all, of the historical information that is endlessly repeated here is already available at the appropriate places, namely articles on modern Russian history. On the other hand, the current political system in Russia is not sufficiently well described - most input on that dates from the Yeltsin era. This article should be rewritten to concentrate on today's politics rather that history of the last century. Sredni vashtar 19:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you feel capable to split the article in two (one about history, one about current state of affairs), can add more recent materials, and cross-reference the resulting two articles, just be bold and do it. The article is indeed way too long, and the way you propose to split it sounds very logical.  Go for it!  If anything goes wrong, it can always be fixed or reverted to existing version.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words
However, since that time Russians have continued to debate the future of their political system, with Western-style democracy and authoritarianism being two widely considered alternatives.

Time for a reality check. There is no debate. It's not like there's a bunch of politicans and academics and citizens having a good old chin wag about how to run Russia. It's simply a case that Russia has become essentially a dictatorship and looks like it's slowly turning fascist (political popularism to keep the masses happy plus intolerance and a lot of repression and injustice). This has happened because there is no real political process, no system of checks and balances, and over time Putin has consolidated political control in his hands, in a manner and with a result all too similar to what existed before. Russia has never really changed. Toby Douglass 11:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Your contribution may be considered true by some (perhaps, myself included). However, it's hardly NPOV. I think when you're talking about "sliding back" and such things, you are definitely making judgements without presenting the opposing view or possible benefits of such a "sliding back." Would you please reconsider? Red Plum 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Possible benefits of a State run press, a court system with a 99% conviction rate, where contract murder is an accepted part of the political process and there is no political freedom? making judgements without presenting the opposing view?  if someone can present an opposing view where there are benefits from such human right violations, they have lost the ability to critically judge matters.  Toby Douglass 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I removed the paragraph after reviewing the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Please check out NPOV Policy and Words to Avoid Manuals of Style article. Red Plum 20:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

 * NPOV is where material expresses a given point of view upon a subject. I argue that what was written is not NPOV, but *accurate*.  Russia IS a State run by machine politics, just, for example, as Chicago was in the 1960s.  There is nothing *debatable* about this.  Putin is not susceptable to being electorically removed.  People who get seriously involved in politics who might be a threat end up in jail with their billion dollar companies confiscated by the State.  What is non-NPOV about stating these facts and their implications?

 * This article, as it stands, is a failure. Anyone reading it would have absolutely *no idea* about the current state of play in Russian politics.  They would imagine Russia to be a reasonably functional multi-party democracy.  Toby Douglass 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

 * As it was, the paragraph you added was editorial in tone, and didn't actually state any facts. If you write up something that is neutral in tone, state those facts (specific examples) and provide sources, you'll make the article better. Red Plum 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is not a failure, I think it accurately show s Russia as it is, a multiparty democracy. Just because it doesn't have a liberal bias does not mean there isw anything wrong with the article QZXA2 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

voting figures
54.8% of registered voters voted in the referendum for Yeltsin's constitution. Of those, 58.4% voted in favour when asked "do you approve of the constitution of the Russian Federation?". By the existing constitution, over 50% of registered voters had to vote in favour of the constitution for it to pass. Yeltsin claimed a plebiscite was needed - meaning that only 50% of those who voted was needed. There was, and still is, considerable debate as to whether the official figures given were genuine. This view was further consolidated by the fact that the Central Election Committee declined to publish a detailed breakdown of results. Please include these points in the article. Respect

Clarification on Russia's status in break up of USSR
"Since gaining its independence with the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991, Russia (formally, the Russian Federation) has faced serious challenges in its efforts to forge a political system to follow nearly seventy-five years of Soviet rule"

The above is taken from the second paragraph - i'm just querying - maybe this is a bit pedantic but i can imagine it causing some confusion for some people maybe - but anyway - Did Russia 'gain independence' from the USSR or was it rather, the successor state to the USSR ie. loads of other states gained thier independence leaving Russia as the USSR's successor state?

clarifications would be appreciated Gazzelle 15:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Former KGB Putin wants to reconstitute USSR. As news becomes history we can modify the Article here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Election results don't tally
Election results for the 2004 Presidential election don't add up - anyone got sources to draw on to make them correct? Gazzelle 15:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Political history of Russia
New category created.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Important notice
The government section of the "Outline of Russia" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist.

Thank you.

Missing citations
The main part of the text has 0 inline citations. I would like to know from which source exactly does this text come from, and I'd also like to investigate whether it's a copyright violation. Please provide citations soon, or the text may be removed. Nanobear (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be mostly the exact copy of this, which I believe is in public domain, but needs attribution at the very least.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 15, 2011; 16:51 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article was mostly written by a banned user . This is a matter of concern. Biophys (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

potential NYT resource
At Presidency’s 11th Hour, Medvedev Proposes Systemic Change by ELLEN BARRY and MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ, published December 22, 2011, page A6 in print (Dec 23); excerpt ... 99.190.85.17 (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

potential NYT resources

 * Vast Rally in Moscow Is a Challenge to Putin’s Power by Ellen Barry and Michael Schwirtz published December 24, 2011
 * Young and Connected, ‘Office Plankton’ Protesters Surprise Russia by Ellen Barry published December 23, 2011 (page A4 in print)
 * A Kremlin Strategist Tries to Defuse Discontent and Undermine the Protesters’ Leaders by Andrew E. Kramer published December 23, 2011

99.190.86.5 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is something from WSJ,
 * Russia's Dubious Vote; Analysis of Parliamentary Results Points to Widespread Fraud by Gregory L. White and Rob Barry 28.December.2011
 * Moscow Says It Is Open to 'Dialogue'; Government Response Is Changing as Demonstrations Grow Larger and More Focused Against Prime Minister Putin 27.December.2011 by Gregory L. White and Alexander Kolyandr
 * 99.19.40.123 (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * wp:ALL CAPS above; and more ... Russian Liberals Growing Uneasy With Alliances by Michael Schwirtz, published January 28, 2012 99.35.12.74 (talk) 05:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resources
99.19.44.155 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * State Building in Putin’s Russia: Policing and Coercion After Communism by Brian D. Taylor, Reviewed by By Robert Legvold Foreign Affairs September/October 2011
 * A Warning Shot For Putin; Parliamentary Elections and the Reawakening of Russian Politics by Kathryn Stoner-Weiss Foreign Affairs December 8, 2011

Putin/Russia wants Crimea back
Headline-1: Russian Parliament Speaker: We Will Support Crimea if It Decides to Join Russia. QUOTE: "The speaker of Russia's upper house of parliament says Russian lawmakers will support Crimea's decision if the Ukrainian region decides in a referendum to join Russia." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.voanews.com/content/russian-parliament-speaker-we-will-support-crimea-if-it-decides-to-join-russia/1866372.html

Headline-2: Wall Street Journal, online: Russian State Gas Company Threatens to Cut Supply to Ukraine. QUOTE: "If the people of Crimea decide to join Russia in the referendum, we, as the upper house, will certainly support this decision," Valentina Matvienko said at a meeting in Moscow with Vladimir Konstantinov, the speaker of Crimea's regional parliament. She said the upper house would integrate Crimea as a region of Russia with the same powers as all the others. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC) — PS: Nice picture of Valentina Matvienko.
 * http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303369904579424540787917088?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303369904579424540787917088.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_hp_RightTopStories

Propaganda and Whitewash, not Wikipedia
A cursory overview of this entire article, and a detailed reading of several sections, by any international studies scholar, reveals that this article is in no way neutral. Though a few negatives have been allowed here and there, the article is pretty thoroughly scrubbed of nearly all negative commentary about Russia or its current regime.

This is one of the clearest examples of the weakness in Wikipedia, which allows anyone -- including the massive propaganda apparatus of the world's second-largest authoritarian state -- to edit, tamper with, and undermine, neutral, relevant, important and substantive content of Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia needs to develop a system for policing this interference with Wikipedia.

 * ~ Penlite (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. What changes do you propose would help improve the article? GABHello! 19:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

 * For starters, a commitment not to let Wikipedia be played, like a violin, by a major dictatorship and its notoriously vast cyber-tampering / cyber-propoganda operations (Tried lately to find a realistic bit on YouTube about Russia, or about any of the countries it seeks to control? Blatant propaganda everywhere (and some more sly) with the same "average guy" showing up in videos as a Russian, as a Ukranian, and elsewhere in the intended Russian sphere.) Do you really think they aren't up to the same mischief with the open-sourced "world's encyclopedia"?  A review of Wikipedia articles on Russia sure seems to show that.

 * This would then imply the need to organize, within the Wiki community, or outside it, a more rational system of review before publication (including before any deletions or alterations are allowed) -- that runs any edits through a multi-perspective panel of knowledgeable scholars (across the spectrum of bias, nationality, ethnicity), reasonably balanced (yes, even with some of Putin's posers), to review edits and give them a thumbs-up or thumbs-down, as a group.

 * To ameliorate any unreasonable censorship, rejected edits and texts could be posted separately, under, say, a new tab called "rejected edits" or "rejected content."

 * Obviously this is for very limited situations, only, mainly where there has been gross evidence of article tampering, flooding with propaganda, or "spinning" -- or the extremely high risk of such -- on a major sensitive topic.

 * Topic examples would include (obviously):
 * Any major authoritarian or semi-authoritarian state with a large propaganda apparatus noted for "stuffing the mailbox" or censoring unfavorable online content, at Wikipedia and elsewhere, and killing its critics, at home or abroad. This would obviously include Russia and China, and probably North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Egypt; and their "enemies" (e.g.: USA, Japan, South Korea, Israel, each other, etc.) Ask for guidance on this list from reputable international groups, such as Amnesty International, Transparency International, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, or even the U.S. State Department.
 * Any major corporation, organiziation or institution (especially commercial enterprises) with the resources and financial motive to tamper with Wikipedia articles about them, or any apparent substantial history of that.
 * Topic areas with fiercely competing interests -- military conflicts, major political parties & candidates, major corporations, labor unions, religions, ethnicities, major hot-button social and political issues (e.g., in the U.S.: racism, abortion, guns), etc. -- including some with powerful propaganda resources or popularity leading to "swamping" or unfair tampering with the Wiki articles.
 * There's a reason people groan when i say "I read it in Wikipedia." Wikipedia's failure to filter garbage, or willfully fradulent posts by unscrupulous powers, and allowing genuinely neutral material, even if important and well-sourced, to be erased by vested interests -- while getting hysterical over grammar, punctuation, formatting and technical protocol -- are very much at the heart of Wikipedia's global credibility problem.  (It's like the doctor who has a fit that you showed up at his office with a heart attack, because you didn't make a proper appointment.)
 * A more rational Wikipedia -- please.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 * By the way, if you're asking me for specific content recommendations for this article, why bother? A read of this Russia article, followed by scrutiny of the View History listings, seems to indicate, graphically, that someone is routinely scrubbing out just about everything contributed, that may not flatter Putin or Russia -- almost reflexively, and apparently sometimes almost instantly, and anonymously.  Add in all the vandalism listed (I've never seen another Wikipedia article with so many vandallism flags in its history), and it seems pretty pointless to bother posting anything substantive to this article.
 * No point in posting negative stuff about Russia and its regime; they'll simply kill it (and maybe the poster, too?).
 * No point in posting positive stuff about Russia and its regime: they've already got that covered.
 * No point in posting to this article, period.
 * ~ Penlite (talk) 05:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Politics of Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060702103322/http://www.ku.edu/%7Eherron/ to http://www.ku.edu/~herron/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

What are the rules in russia
Talk to me about it 173.217.168.155 (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Politics of Russia


text:
Action theory (philosophy)

Action theory or theory of action is an area in philosophy concerned with theories about the processes causing willful human bodily movements of a more or less complex kind. This area of thought involves epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, jurisprudence, and philosophy of mind, and has attracted the strong interest of philosophers ever since Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (Third Book). With the advent of psychology and later neuroscience, many theories of action are now subject to empirical testing.

Philosophical action theory, or the philosophy of action, should not be confused with sociological theories of social action, such as the action theory established by Talcott Parsons. Nor should it be confused with activity theory.

Overview
Basic action theory typically describes action as intentional behavior caused by an agent in a particular situation. The agent's desires and beliefs (e.g. a person wanting a glass of water and believing that the clear liquid in the cup in front of them is water) lead to bodily behavior (e.g. reaching across for the glass). In the simple theory (see Donald Davidson), the desire and belief jointly cause the action. Michael Bratman has raised problems for such a view and argued that we should take the concept of intention as basic and not analyzable into beliefs and desires.

Aristotle held that a thorough explanation must give an account of both the efficient cause, the agent, and the final cause, the intention.

In some theories a desire plus a belief about the means of satisfying that desire are always what is behind an action. Agents aim, in acting, to maximize the satisfaction of their desires. Such a theory of prospective rationality underlies much of economics and other social sciences within the more sophisticated framework of rational choice. However, many theories of action argue that rationality extends far beyond calculating the best means to achieve one's ends. For instance, a belief that I ought to do X, in some theories, can directly cause me to do X without my having to want to do X (i.e. have a desire to do X). Rationality, in such theories, also involves responding correctly to the reasons an agent perceives, not just acting on wants.

While action theorists generally employ the language of causality in their theories of what the nature of action is, the issue of what causal determination comes to has been central to controversies about the nature of free will.

Conceptual discussions also revolve around a precise definition of action in philosophy. Scholars may disagree on which bodily movements fall under this category, e.g. whether thinking should be analysed as action, and how complex actions involving several steps to be taken and diverse intended consequences are to be summarised or decomposed.

title: Action theory (philosophy)


text:
Talk:Action theory (philosophy)

Rework
I have reworked the Philosophy of action article, but I cannot move it, as necessary, to "Action theory". Please do so if you can. A merger with this Action (Philosophy) should not be undertaken any more. What I left in Action (Philosophy) concerns definitional issues which should not be deleted but are not of immediate concern to action theory.--Dhh28 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Action Theory
I think this article and Philosophy of Action should be merged to "Action Theory" which is what the field seems to be called based on the links from SEP. Yesterdog 05:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, who wrote this?

 * Agreed - the articles should be merged into something coherent. I'm not even sure if this does form a coherent term in philosophy, or if it has actually been borrowed from sociologist like Weber and Habermas (social action, social relation, communicative action, etc) --Tomsega (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup request
This Taoist style is good for an essay. but not for an encyclopedia. mikka (t) 23:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it?
what exactly do you mean? I do not think this is as bad as you put it. Knowing what a subject is is to be acquainted to the questions it raises. Obviously, this is a stub, much more needs to be done, but that's all. Velho 21:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the question series is kind of icky, because it obscures why the questions are being asked. It's not good for an essay either, because it doesn't address the nature of the questions or answer them.  It just lists them.  If anything, it's good for a lecture when you expect the students to figure out the importance of the questions on their own.  I got rid of them, which reveals a need for some references of people or schools of thought which define action in all these different ways. NickelShoe 20:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Beh, I'm taking down the sign myself, because I think the tone is fine now. Put it back up if you disagree.  NickelShoe 15:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Moved
This page used to be the location of the article now moved to action theory (philosophy) so that action theory (sociology) may gain a level pegging. --Tomsega (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

comment
i am a real amateur in VP and philosophy, and my language wants. but if the further comments would be regarded as meaningful and helpful by participants - i made my best. "Action (philosophy)" seems to be rather an essay, indeed. But to the content: Only by the way mentioning at the end of the article the peculiarity of examples of catching a cold, thought, intention, and their state of action -is inappropriate (no offense), when whole philosophies concern mind processes as action - for the mentioned example, catching a cold may be estimated as 'intentional' action, saying that the subject was weak, to be in a passive condition/ in state of tendency (same roots with intention!!) to catch a cold. And that weakness is intentional because the subject choose to be or not to be; to be strong, or to be weak. Philosophic discussion on this level are to be introduced in the very body of statement about action philosophy, is it not? When stating 'On the other hand, catching a cold is not considered an action because it is something which happens to a person, not something done by one. Generally an agent doesn't intend to catch a cold or engage in bodily movement to do so (though we might be able to conceive of such a case). Other events are less clearly defined as actions or not' - the author claims that the above example is definitely clear. But that is not the situation. The event is not clearly defined - the author then intended to introduce 'common' understanding of 'action'. --Ironic0n (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Merged again
I merged this article into Action theory (philosophy) a few months ago, and someone undid it. I've merged it again, because the material is still identical. It's a huge waste of time and effort to have two articles on the same thing, or even intimately related things, when any effort should be spent on best organizing what material there is. Sestibel (talk) 04:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

title: Talk:Action theory (philosophy)