Talk:United Russia

Opposing Political Party

what is their major opposing political party?

There is no real opposition in Russia. There are some little opposition paries: Kommunisicheskaya Partiay Rossiyskoy Federacii (KPRF, Kommunist Partie of the Russian Federation), Soyuz Pravyh Sil (SPS, Union of the Rights Powers), Yabloko, NBP (National-Bolshevik Partie) etc.

SPS is a joke, no longer considered a serious party by anyone.

It certainly seems strange to call LDPR one of UR's "main political rivals." It's a big party, but I think in order to be a "main political rival" both your size and your opposition should be notable. The latter is not true of LDPR.205.212.74.42 02:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion

LDPR is not an opposition. Thay are controled by UR, Yabloko was financed by Khodorkovsky, but now he is not able to give tham money(he is in prizon as he wanted to become a prezident), so now have no political power. 2 days ago SPS was destroyed by it's leader - Nikita belih.

UR is funny party)))) Their leader - Vladimir Putin, officially is not the member of that Party.

See Fair Russia, Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Civilian Power. ellol 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

LDPR was formed by KGB and later on FSB. It is full of their agents. It is anything but "Opposition". "In America, the Opposition harrasses the Government; In Russia, there is no Opposition!" Hehe--SergeiXXX (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Nationalism

• There's no evidence to claim the party is nationalist. Nationalism does stay for nation-state and single ethnicity. Which is very far from what is common for UR rhetorics and policies, with their many non-russian members (Mintimer Shaymiyev, Murtaza Rakhimov, Taymuraz Mamsurov, etc). Gryzlov uses the word "nationalism" as synonimous to chauvenism, almost like an insult.Garret Beaumain 15:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that some users constantly add nationalism to ideology without any sources. So my suggestion is that until someone finds a reliable research that UR has some nationalist elements in it, the only ideology should be centrism. DVoit (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Party organization

Any word on how they are organized? They just had their 8th Party Congress ([1]) ... They have their own party newspaper ... central committee ... central committee presidium ... the structure is very similar to the CPSU... 202.89.155.120 (talk) 10:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ideology

I have removed Anti-Neoliberalism from the ideology of the party. I do not think it is correct for the ruling party that has Alexei Kudrin who is a self-declared neo-liberal.

In my honest opinion United Russia is not an ideological party but a power grabbing group of administrators and businesspeople. They are united not to implement some ideologicaly-driven policy changes but just to push out the other power seeking groups Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The presence of a token member of the opposite ideology such as Alexei Kudrin Is part of the common tactic of Incorporation and cooptation. In studying comparative government you see this phenomenon in nearly every dominant regime: the Trotskyite Workers' Party (Brazil) who has been highly successful electorally selected a capitalist for the role of vice-president , And the United States Republican party frequently uses token democrats such as Zell Miller and Joseph Lieberman to project the image of multiparty consensus.

As for policies United Russia’s quasi socialist Keynesian policy of Nationalizing key industry sectors and restricting media ownership are certaly opposed to Neoliberal principles and have received the support of communist Mikhail Gorbachev who said "Putin is pursuing policies that benefit the majority of the Russian people," [2]. Undeniably the fact that Neoliberal factions such as the now defunct Union of Right Forces were strongly opposed to UR’s platforms and the fact that the modern remnants of the pro-western and Neoliberal parties under The Other Russia have become the most vehement critics of UR while the Communists have tacitly supported it’s policies goes to show that it is opposed to the Anatoly Chubais neoliberalism.

As for your opinion of United Russia being a Power seeking group it does have some validity , However the policies and ideology are what define a political party and movments such as Peronism. Additionally the goal of most political parties is “power grabbing; The United States Republican Party’s goals under Karl Rove were the creation of a permanent Republican majority, UR was simply more successful in that respectFreepsbane (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I remove "populism".

[3] say nothing on UR's policies.

[4] is a blog

[5] contradicts that UR is populist:

Disavowing a populist position calling for expropriation of the assets of the rich, Russia must protect its business class, who in return must “pay taxes and respect traditions and morals.”

And finally, the only to say something on this in one sentence is [6]. Sentence says, UR uses some elements of left parties agenda, and calls it "populism".

United Russia has essentially marginalized the liberal parties by adopting many elements of their economic agenda. At the same time, KPRF was undermined by the United Russia’s populist stand on some dear to the Communists issues such as prosecuting ‘oligarchs’, re-installing old Soviet symbols, and attempts to forge economic and political unions with former Soviet republics.

This is not what Wikipedia uses as sources.Garret Beaumain (talk) 22:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis and suggest you look at the context of the valid sources. [7] Notes that Putin the leader and icon of UR notes that "He has raised over 20 million Russians out of grinding poverty, improved education, health care and the pension system, (partially) nationalized critical industries,' lowered unemployment, increased manufacturing and exports, invigorated Russian markets, strengthened the ruble, raised the overall standard of living, reduced government corruption, jailed or exiled the venal oligarchs, and amassed capital reserves of $450 billion." a essential list of populist actions done in a anti-neoliberal Keynesian manner.

Your OR. Source does not claim this actions are populist. And, sorry, but "improved education, health care and the pension system, lowered unemployment..." - doesn't any government aims this? Every politician promises to do this, so every politician is a populist?Garret Beaumain (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You are intentionally ignoring the statements noting that UR has nationalized key industries; A neoliberal government avoids taking an active role in the economy.Freepsbane (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[8] is a Essay by, Álvaro Vargas Llosa a well known critic of the new left wing governments that have been elected into power. In his essay he condemns what he sees as the populist authoritarian stances of the UR comparing it to the now dominant Latin American left.

A person's blog. It is easy to find such essays for Republican party of USA, for example, that would call their policies "populist". Examples: BusinessweekTime magazine (and no blogs!)Garret Beaumain (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[9] Vladislav Surkov in a speech partly directed towards western observers would seem to disavow a populist stance. However he voices strong suport for the state nationalization of corporations and describes ‘’russia's enemies as oligarchic revanchists’’ Tellingly Surkov has compared Putin’s policies to the Social Democratic New Deal of Roosevelt [10]Freepsbane (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

And where the word "populist" there?Garret Beaumain (talk) 09:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-neoliberalism is esaily and neutrally can be described as conservatism, but "populism" is too a disputable term. Almost every politician was ever labelled as a populist by someone. It is not a program policy.Garret Beaumain (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The term conservatism is a misleading, vague and broad way to describe UR. The term conservatism in the west is acosiated with the policies of Thatcherism and Reganomics both supporters of neoliberalism. The term populism is not inherently POV and is used to describe many parties such as the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, That said if you are so adverse to using the term Keynesian or Anti-Neoliberalism could be used to describe the policies.Freepsbane (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anti-neoliberalism as a main ideology?

Regaring anti-neoliberalism as supposed official ideology of the party. Honestly speaking, I even didn't bother to read through all of the supposed 'sources', since simple google search gives 10 (!) hits for query '“United Russia” anti-neoliberalism' and 5 (!!) hits for '“United Russia” anti-neoliberal' (see).Needless to say, most of the hits were the very article here (!) or wiki clones. I didn't see any academic sources.IMHO a classical case of WP:SYNTH. 80.235.111.150 (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It certanly is not a case of synthesis, all of the listed sources note that United Russia’s policies have oposed economic liberalism. United Russia’s leaders themselves have given speaches asailing oligarchs and have enacted nationalisation policies. Anti Neo liberalism is more specific and avoids reader confusion with social liberalism and consecuently, Unless if you want to put down the more common google hits Iliberal/Anti liberal .Freepsbane (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Neither do Alex Bakharev, Miyokan, Garret Beaumain and apparently just every user other than you. Please stop putting your personal POV into the main infobox. Your sources do not have the term anti-neoliberalism which is not a widely used term anyway. Most google hits I got refer to Anti-Globalization or similar radical movements.

As to your sources.

1. Source 1 market oracle is hardly a definitive source. It's just one web site.
2. Source 2 Robertamsterdam.com seems to be a blog of a certain Robert Amsterdam.
3. Source 3 - Heritage Foundation [11] - an American conservative think-tank. Totally unsuitable for sourcing categorical judgments here. (perhaps one might want to use Pravda as a source on political parties, too?)
4. 4. An article in Russian newspaper Moskovskiye Novosti, where Gorbachev argues that Putin's policies “Putin's policies were consistent with [Gorbachev's]own social-democratic positions.” We might now also conclude that United Russia is a social democratic party, right?

All in all, none of your sources have anything close to analysis by a political scientists that would analyse the possible ideology of the United Russia party. Basically, the Internet is a bulky resource and anyone with a few time and internet access might find newpaper articles, blogs, commentary by political opponents etc. that would support or 'prove' whatever POV that the searcher would like to find. Even that Putin is the Antichrist and United Russia a satanic tool. Or whatever. But the point is, we must base an encyclopedia on neutral sources. If possible, on academic, impartial ones.

80.235.111.150 (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Until we either find a document of United Russia self-describing the party as Anti-Neoliberal or find an authoritative academic study that states this we cannot state United Russia to be anti-neoliberal. Besides Kudrin, a first Putin's deputy on economics is a self-described neoliberal, Illarionov, one of the most prominent Russian neoliberals was for a long time Putin's aide and so on. We have an article on Putinism, assuming United Russia is essntially Putin's party can we put Putinism as UR's ideology? There is also an article on Sovereign democracy many prominent United Russia's people selfdescribed their ideology as one maybe we could include this as an ideology? Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I was also thinking in this direction, i.e to add sovereign democracy, after some sources have been found to back up this. Also, 'populism' is an option, though the term might have some negative connotations. 80.235.111.150 (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to comprehend your point. Neither Kudrin nor Illarionov have ever been members of United Russia, and the latter has never pledged support to it. Colchicum (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect 80.235.111.150 one could look at your contributions and claim you have done nothing but POV pushing, so let’s not start throwing those accusations around. The fact remains that all of those sources you summarily rejected were from political scientists, yes the Heritage Foundation is Neoconservative bordering on imperialistic plataforms. Yet it still shows that the world’s Western style far Right forces believe UR is anti Free market, at the same time the left leaning Gorbachev gives a similar position, along with a centrist UK business rag. If Anti Neoliberal is in contention (although neoliberal describes Russia’s once powerful capitalist factions) then a new term that concisely describes United Russia’s Nationalisation/Anti liberal economic Social Justice actions. And yes I do agree sovereign democracy is a centerpiece of UR’s plataformFreepsbane (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If Anti-neoliberalism was such a widely used term, you shouldn't have trouble finding an academic source that would elaborate on this topic. Instead of obstinately re-adding those random web pages as sources (which you have been doing for months). As of now, one may wonder, whether the term itself has been crafted by you. I think that discussion on the theme of nationalisation, privatisation, populism etc would suit in the article text. But no speculation in the main infobox. Thanks. 80.235.111.150 (talk) 18:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

As for alleged POV pushing by me. I do have a dynamic IP right now so I am not responsible for what my predecessors have done somewhere. Regarding Freepsbane's wording like “quasi socialist Keynesian policy” (Keynesianism equalled with Socialism!), 'populist actions done in a anti-neoliberal Keynesian manner', claims that UR must be “anti-neoliberal” supported by arguments like 'but they are supported by the communist Gorbachev', 'but the neo-liberal SPS opposed Putin (so Putin must be anti-neoliberal)', 'Communists have tacitly supported it’s policies', don't prove anything but the level of Freepsbane's disputing style. This is definitely not indicative of academic discussion, but of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. EOD as of now. 80.235.111.150 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Don’t take my statements out of context. I never claimed that Keynesianism was the same as Socialism: I indicated that the Putin administration definitely employs Kensyan economic principles, and some observers claim UR’s nationalization policies are socialistic in nature. you yourself have yet to add a single “academic” source in your writings.

Furthermore anti neoliberal movements included within the neoliberal article as a anti page would be a POV fork. If a more general term such as anti Laissez-faire is fine with you then use it. As there are no problems with my sources, and they all state that UR is unfriendly to western style economic liberalism/capitalism.Freepsbane (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

“I indicated that the Putin administration definitely employs Kensyan economic principles″ - your own 'indications' are not enough. You'll need to have reliable sources. I suggest you find these, format the information neutrally and add it into the appropriate place in the article as others have done. There are surely plenty of sources that portray UR as an evil neo-liberal capitalist party [12] [13] that is continuing “Yeltser's” masonic policies etc. But not all such opinions are notable, or what?!80.235.111.150 (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed not all sources are notable, however I think converging opinions from well known Individuals such as the Neocons and Gorb are both notable and ironically synergistic. Freepsbane (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Continuing additions of unsourced POV text into infobox.

Though the account Freepsbane (talk · contribs) seems to have left editing after the last one of his reverts on October 16 [14], various IPs - first from Canada (76.102.245.63 (talk · contribs)), second from from Italy (87.8.151.67 (talk · contribs)) are carrying on the edit war in a similar manner.

Removal of sourced material and adding Socialism into infobox (perhaps he might try adding communism next time?) is already bordering on vandalism. Such unfounded changes should be undone by constructive users at the first sight. --80.235.111.150 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ideology/ Russia's political landscape

I agree that it is difficult to determine the ideology of such a party (as also indicated by the debates on the talk page here and the range of opinions to this question). Commentators agree that it is diffcult to say, what kind of ideology that organization - party of power - really adhreses to. But this is exactly why we should try to avoid POVish notions and all kinds of OR.
For example, I can only regard as counterproductive, if some users insist on introducing the field 'position' to the infobox. See above: here a user appeared who is convinced there's nothing right wing about this party, yet some keep on adding very arbitrary position = Social: Center-right Fiscal: Center-right to the infobox.
Such a thing definitely adds more to miscomprehension, than to knowledge. Such a simplistic classification may be used in case of the US political parties, but it really says nothing about Russian ones. If the UR were centre-right on both 'social' and 'fiscal' affairs (how exactly did one determine such a thing in Russian context?), then where are its foes like SPS or Kasparov located? I think it is still better to retain just the the notion centrism. This left-right spectrum is disputed in the Western political science, and much better models have been offered to map the Russian political parties. In 1990s, as one analyst writes

When discussing political orientation, the popular Western terminology of "the right" and "the left" is little suited to Russian realities.[...]

There is, however, a more fundamental objection to the use of the "left-right" terminology. The political landscape in Russia is not a straight line, but more like a triangle. One apex is the democrats, another the communists and the third, the patriots. While the democrats can be described as "right" Western-style, and the communists as "left", some of the patriots lean to the left and others to the right, and yet both belong in the same camp. The political forces in-between these apexes are, naturally, called "centrists". As current usage has it, democrats in Russia are those who advocate continued or resumed reform leading away from totalitarian socialism toward Western-style free-market democracy. The communists are made up of those groups who want to see a complete or partial restoration of the political and economic situation that existed prior to 1991. The patriots, nationalists and national-patriots are those who sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the free market economy, but in any case believe that restoring the great Russian state is more important than rehabilitating the economy. The patriots, for their part, are divided into ethnic patriots (ethnic nationalists) and imperial patriots (imperial nationalists). Ethno-nationalists see a future great Russian state in ethnic and racial-ethnic terms, while imperial patriots put the ethnic, racial and national characteristics of the state low on the list of their priorities or dismiss them altogether.

Until recently (about 1993) the "centrists" were those whose position was wishy-washy and who vacillated between the main opposing forces, leaning to the winning side. At present, the "center" is more stable and independent of the apexes of the political triangle: the "centrists" are those who want to consolidate the results achieved so far in the belief that reforms have by and large been completed, and who do not want a return to the pre-Gaidar past.

(See [15]). Despite changes since that time, the political landscape in Russia can fundamentally be summarized as such a triangle (there used to be a graph online, too, but I couldn't find it right now). I really doubt if adding position = Social: .... Fiscal: .... would enable to summarise useful information in the articles on Russian political parties. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 09:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I belive this is pure vandalism. Non-notable and non-reliable sources. Nanobear (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thats not really true anymore , ive given many sources that it is soKids4Fun/TALK 14:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is it so important for you insert this controversial catchphrase (invented by a blogger) into the lead? You even reverted my compromise version. It's certainly enough to state the current level of popularity. What do you think happened if, instead of "40% of Americans support the Democractic Party", I added "20% of Americans hate the Democratic Party" into the lead of Democratic Party (United States)? Your edit does not adhere to WP:NPOV - we're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a political blog or journal. Nanobear (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

What was wrong with my compromise version? Why do you just keep reverting? Nanobear (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Not only this is not vandalism, but this is a widespread expression and opinion in Russia promoted by Navalny and many others. Biophys (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is OK to start a proper criticism section, however, currently there's just an opinion of one commentator listed there. I agree with those, who argue that this opinion doesn't belong to the lead, at least for the time being. (For comparison many more people think too that Yeltsin headed a corrupt regime of crooks, but in such a wording it would be misplaced in the lead of the resp. article. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the criticism section. One half was uncited claims and anecdotes, another contained wrongly cited sources and labels, instead of serious criticism. What we need is neutral, well-referenced, serious criticism from experts. GreyHood ^Talk 22:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I've just checked the political party articles in the other countries, e.g. Republican Party (United States) or Democratic Party (United States) and I don't see any kind of criticism section or primitive propaganda bickering there. And that's good, no need to turn Wikipedia to political arena. GreyHood ^Talk 22:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that the slogan "The party of Crooks and Thieves" is so widespread by now it should be mentioned. Even Putin seem to connect the phrase with United Russia as can be seen from what happened in Novosibirsk recently [16]. Närking (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"Crooks and thieves"

Hi! My position on that is like this. The "crooks and thieves" meme was launched by A. Navalny, got traction in the blogosphere and spread into the real world. There was even a big opinion poll on that showing some serious percentage of the population are (1) aware and (2) agree. Now it is widely mentioned/discussed in secondary sources (see refs in the "Criticisms" section). Wikipedia, as a tertiary source, should mention it then. No options here. Just because: it is a notable fact. From what I understand about Mr Greyhood, he has a recurring motive of proving Russia is great. There is nothing bad about that, but it is not an excuse for erasing entire sections (with nice citations, BTW). Yours, Gritzko (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The spread of the meme to the real world is questionable, and even on internetz it is supported just by some bloggers, not everyone or the majority. Media like The Econonmist and The Guardian tend to give excessive attention to actions of the marginal Russian political opposition with dismal ratings.

You know better than the Economist, that's for sure. Given your solid background, please feel free to dismiss any media. Gritzko (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"A big opinion poll", at least the one that was cited, has shown no serious percentages, just a typical level of critical perception of the government found in Russia and in most societies. 14% said "definitely yes" to the slogan, and 19% said "likely yes", with 29% "likely no" and 18% "definitely no" (I do not know, who did misuse the source and inserted 64% support into the article). So this is not a majority view in Russia, and the percentage of those who supported the slogan roughly corresponds to the percentage of people who support other parties than the United Russia.

That is your interpretation. Gritzko (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no utmost need to mention anything found in secondary sources, even the most respectable ones. It is a matter of editorial consensus to choose what material is the most important and relevant to include into the article.

Basically you're saying you'll filter facts/publications the way you see fit. Gritzko (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The existing policies and practices should be taken into account. Per WP:NPOV and the examples of good political party articles, like the Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States), Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK), there is no place for low-level political slogans and no need for a separate criticism section at all. Wikipedia should not be used as political battleground. GreyHood ^Talk 09:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. You cannot avoid politics in an article on a political party. There is a fact, the fact is well-published, period. Your personal attitudes don't matter. Gritzko (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not my personal attitude (though personal attitudes, if reasonable and following guidelines, add to the editorial consensus). This is an established practice in good political party articles, it seems. You know, media write any kind of things about these political parties and their opponents may call them in various ways, but we don't bring all that to the articles. GreyHood ^Talk 10:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And please, do not insert your comments inside mine, it may bring confusion into the discussion. Also, please, present arguments in a more neutral manner, and do not misrepresent my position. When writing articles, we anyway do "filter facts/publications". But not just as I see fit in this case, but according to the guidelines, established practices and examples. GreyHood ^Talk 10:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say the news from Novosibirsk shows that the phrase is widespread in Russia and not only in western media as suggested above [17]. Närking (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This just shows again that the phrase is used by the political opposition. Which means minority view and, if we reproduce it here, failing WP:NPOV - we shouldn't take sides in political campaigning. GreyHood ^Talk 13:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It shows it's widely known in Russia wether you like it or not. And even Putin connected it with the party. Närking (talk) 13:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Putin? "Purportedly" and based on the news from an opposition site? Not really. GreyHood ^Talk 13:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And you should understand where it leads us. There are many other widely known memes and expressions smearing Putin. There are memes smearing Obama. Smearing Republicans and Democrats, and any other major politicians and political parties. Do such things belong to the articles about the living people or groups of living people? No. GreyHood ^Talk 13:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is Moscow Times an opposition site? And is United Russia a living person? Närking (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Moscow Times is just a sympathetic site. But the original source of the information is this which contains a huge banner with A Just Russia advertisment. United Russia is a group of living persons, thus WP:BLP is relevant. While the criticism of the entire organisation or its actions may be acceptable, the label meme "party of crooks and thieves" may be understood as an allegation that all members of United Russia are crooks and thieves. This involves a huge number of known living people and violates the basic approach of WP:BLP: Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.

I'm removing the current criticism section as failing WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and failing to follow the models of the good and neutral political party articles. GreyHood ^Talk 14:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

An article on a political organization is by no means a biography of a living person. WP:BLP is not applicable. Several political parties' articles do have criticism sections. Obviously some parties are more controversial than others, and United Russia belongs to them. If you read WP:NPOV, you will find that it does not forbid to include critical views. The opposite is true: it stipulates to take all views into account that have been published in reliable sources. Maybe you read something from these policies that is not actually meant by them. Regards --RJFF (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Wikipedia:BLP#Legal_persons_and_groups - WP:BLP does explicitly not apply to legal persons, as United Russia is. --RJFF (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP says This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.

Wikipedia:BLP#Legal_persons_and_groups says: The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. And here, I believe, we have a case. Once again, if a group or organization in the whole is criticized that's OK. But here the criticism dubs the members of the party "crooks and thieves", which refer in fact to particular living people, with an emphasis on people and not on organization. GreyHood ^Talk 16:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says not to take sides but to explain their positions fairly and neutrally. Fair and neutral representation would look like "X criticized Y for Z" and not like "X called the Y group of people 'crooks and thieves'", which is pure bickering, not criticism. It does not belong to encyclopedia.

Furthermore, we need to estimate how much is this 'criticism' relevant to the subject, and not give it WP:UNDUE weight. The author of the meme is a controversial political blogger, which doesn't represent any serious political party and has no reputation of an expert. His meme might be relevant to him, but on a scale of such a large party in a large country it is hardly important.

United Russia belonging to "more controversial parties" is a controversial statement. And even if it was so, I do not think that would be a reason to give it a different treatment compared to supposedly "less controversial parties". GreyHood ^Talk 16:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you'll bend any rule to get things done :) Look at this photo. It was shot in some town in Chuvashia. http://cheboksar.net/uploads/posts/2011-11/1320441905_dsc_6584-1.jpg As you might see, "crooks and thieves" became (1) widely known (2) a slogan of the opposition. So, your efforts to portray it as some-marginal-bloggers-insulting-bickering-on-the-internetz are pretty lame. The same applies to your exercises in creative reading of the rules. Just stop that now. Please. Gritzko (talk) 07:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

On one hand, Navalny's criticism seems notable, because it has been discussed in the media. On the other hand, it seems very questionable whether an article about a political party should include what the opposition thinks about the party. There's hardly any such material in articles about Western political parties. For example, Republican Party (United States) does not include any such criticism. On these grounds, I think it's clear that a separate criticism section is not appropriate. An article about a political party should discuss the party's history, it's platform, ideology, electorate, internal structure, etc. i.e. it should contain factual information, and not opinions about this party by opposition politicians. If adding views of opposition politicians were allowed, each party article would contain a huge amount of mudslinging and colourful phrases of criticism against the party (yes, there is enough of all that available in the media about every party). Navalny's criticism should go to the article about Navalny. This is the basic method used in articles about Western political parties. Nanobear (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

There are indeed articles with sections with criticism and controversies about other political parties. Just check PDS, Sweden Democrats, Democratic Left Alliance and sometimes it's included in other sections like at PiS. Närking (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

In some of these articles there are controversies sections which deal with specific accidents or issues concerning the party. There is nothing about political labels and opposition agitation there. I'm not sure about the Swedish sources, but it seems like criticism in these articles comes from the general media, not from opposition groups and media. For now I've removed such low-level "criticism" from the section, and renamed the section according to your recent examples. Also, BLP and NPOV issues of political labeling were not taken into account GreyHood ^Talk 16:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

You say it should only contain factual info. Then how comes you removed the factual part of the section as well? I mean jailings of mayors and electoral bribery? Not to say that it is generally a bad thing to erase an entire section based on your feeling how an article on a political party should look like. Gritzko (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as criticism comes from neutral observers and neutral media, and refers to specific and major (see WP:UNDUE) issues, that's OK. Still we do not need to create POV fork sections, and most of the relevant criticism could be moved to other sections. Seems like at least some of the recently added criticisms again come from opposition. I've placed NPOV tag and will look onto the sources more closely later. GreyHood ^Talk 16:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like all the recently added criticism is sourced to representatives of KPRF, A Just Russia and the Union of Social Democrats, all being opposition parties in Russia and participants of the upcoming elections. The first part of the criticism alludes to the mass anti-corruption campaign undertaken by the government in recent years, and why specifically a category of "elected city mayors" is singled out, I don't know, since many officials were sacked or legally persecuted in recent years, including those from United Russia.

You already overruled The Economist by your authoritative opinion (see above) and now you are overruling the Moscow Helsinki Group. Because, obviously, you know better. WHY DON'T YOU CITE YOURSELF THEN??!!! Your activities are harmful, you are pushing your POV and I see no possibility of assuming good faith on your part. Gritzko (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The second part of the criticism mentions accusations in abusing administrative resource, which is a typical thing to hear from Parliament outsiders in any country. If any accusations of such type have really major scale and are attested by truly independent observers, better add them to the sections about specific elections. The third part is again just a labeling by an opposition representative, and comparisons to the CPSU might be made in a more neutral manner and inserted to the Political platform section.

"If any accusations of such type have really major scale" really not major, really great and total, almost as at time of communizm. Read russian version for some samples under "Charges of violation of election legislation" --Negve (talk) 16:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Russian version there is a great collection of opposition claims from opposition sources, bloggers' opinions and minor incidents reported by newspapers. All this clearly fails a number of wikipolicies. It is not the type of things expected in the truly neutral political articles in the English Wikipedia: see the Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States), Labour Party (UK), Conservative Party (UK). The articles here have a higher standard of neutrality and encyclopedicity, and per WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:RECENTISM the present version of the criticism does not belong to the article. If you have criticism from neutral reliable sources, independent from any political parties, which discuss and analyze major issues and not separate minor accidents, you are welcome to insert them to this article. Otherwise there is no need to downgrade the English Wikipedia standards by bringing here questionable practices from the Russian wiki. GreyHood ^Talk 16:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If you mean that all russians are opposition sources then you are right. "Minor incidents" ? Watergate scandal is minor incident ? It was also reported by newspapers. Is Censorship on TV "minor incident" ? Is non-Freedom of the press "minor incident" ? --Negve (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For now I'll remove the section per WP:UNDUE (the controversies seem not to be of major scale) and WP:NPOV (we shouldn't take sides), following the examples of other political party articles which avoid propaganda from political opponents and recentist focus on upcoming elections. I'd welcome suggestion to incorporate major criticisms and serious analysis from independent sources into the relevant sections. GreyHood ^Talk 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

:))))))) Gritzko (talk) 05:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it is absolutely not encyclopedic to collect the criticism from political antagonists of the party. This belongs in newspapers, but not in an encyclopedia. --RJFF (talk) 12:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I will address that Gritzko (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The recent reverts lack any arguments and do not address the arguments presented above. This is not a normal way of editing. GreyHood ^Talk 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you read my replies at all? You dismissed a high-quality source (The Moscow Helsinki Group). You keep doing that again and again: offering YOUR own reinterpretations of obvious facts. But you should remember: YOU are an insignificant anonymous "on the internetz". Not Navalny, not The Economist, not MHG, but YOU. Gritzko (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have dismissed the source mainly because KPRF was involved at that conference.

I do read your replies and address your arguments. You don't address mine. Instead of addressing them you just write uncivil posts and make reverts without explanation. Should I regard your latest post as WP:PERSONAL ATTACK? GreyHood ^Talk 16:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Gritzko, please try to keep this discussion objective instead of getting personal. --RJFF (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have dismissed the source back because KPRF was not even mention in text. --Negve (talk) 17:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that you can read? In September 2011, the Moscow Helsinki Group head L.Alekseeva and a KPRF MP S.Levchenko ran a joint press-conference[28] to call public attention to what they described as a political repression campaign ("зачистки", cleansing) against elected city mayors who did not belong to United Russia. Do you see now that KPRF is mentioned? --RJFF (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I see it. But is any KPRF mention reason for political censorship ? --Negve (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not political censorship. It is just like this: every party gets criticised by their political opponents every day. But this is no encyclopedic content. The American Republicans criticise the Democrats every day. Do we therefore add a criticism section on the Democrat's article from here to moon? No! Because it is just not encyclopedic. Newspapers and news portals may publish this, but Wikipedia does not. You might want to read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --RJFF (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not article on American Republicans and Democrats. Americans know nothing about Russian's Putin's party and this Wikipedia's article has almost nothing with reality. It seems as article written by North Korea's Communists but not as article from Free Wikipedia. --Negve (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't take the thing with Republicans and Democrats literally. It was only an example to explain why not all criticism from political contestants can be included here. Btw, I do not understand your remarks on Americans and North Koreans. But presumably it is not important. --RJFF (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No there is no any real information about party that can be useful for wikipedia's reader's, as it is writed by North Korean's officials. You even can't find what is real ideology of UR. Just now on Russian TV one of UR's officials say "It is better to be member of crooks and thieves party, than be member of рarty rapists and murderers". Is it conservative or Russian conservatism ideology ? --Negve (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Please look at Corruption_perceptions_index and 153 number of Russia - geate success under Putin's party --Negve (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We do not do original research or synthesis on Wikipedia, like: 1. Russia ranks 153rd in a Corruption index 2. United Russia governs Russia 3. United Russia must be corrupt. Your personal perceptions or analysis are irrelevant. Only information that is verifiable by reliable sources counts. --RJFF (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course. "Жопа есть, а слова нет". --Negve (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You may call assholes assholes at home, in your blog, in chat forums, just not on Wikipedia. --RJFF (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Such words must not be used here; if someone uses them, that means he or she is mentally ill, cannot work with oneself. These words offend people needlessly. - 89.110.28.135 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you can't understand russian phrase, but you can understand realities of russian politics ? --Negve (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The level of discussion found in some recent posts is not really acceptable. We need to evaluate sources for the material in the article, and to judge how this material comply with a long range of WP politics: WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:RECENTISM, WP:SOAPBOX. If some people think that United Russia is exeptional and should be treated differently from other articles, they should present serious arguments for that. Remember, that we are trying to built high quality encyclopedic articles here, not degrade there quality by contentious material dubious from encyclopedic point of view. I suggest Negve and Gritzko not to accuse other editors in incompetence, avoid personal attacks and obscene language, and reach a consensus on the addition of material viewed as problematic before making reverts. Explain why United Russia should be treated differently from other major political parties, and prove that your additions do not violate the named policies. GreyHood ^Talk 22:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Now this article is low level encyclopedic article make me laugh. Stay with Chairmen Mao Putin without me. --Negve (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have similar impressions. It looks like the article was written by some UR PR folks. Indeed, some parody of encyclopedia. Gritzko (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

United Russia has started to gather votes for the elections [18]. Närking (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

General inadequacy of the article

By my current impression, the article at the moment is indeed written in North Korean style. The article does not reflect (1) rampant corruption among highest-level officials of the party and (2) the popular perception of UR as of "a party of crooks and thieves".

1. Here you might see a gallery of six top officials of the party known to be involved in high-profile corruption scandals (the gallery has hints). Actually, two of them were sacked for corruption. The article has no word "corruption" in it!!!

2. Here you might see the party leader V. Putin being booed at a 20,000 event. Here you might see Dmitry Kozak, a major party official, being "welcomed" at some event in Saint Petersburg. As you might see, the popular perception of the party is often quite negative. But if you believe this article, those videos must be fake!

Regarding those North Korean features, I put the blame on certain fanatically patriotic editors who simply erase any inconvenient facts from the article. Gritzko (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• The term "crooks and thieves" is a meme introduced by opposition bloggers and is not supported by the majority of population as polls have shown. Before trying to insert it to the United Russia article, I suggest you try to insert the term "rednecks" to the article Republican Party (U.S.) and see the reaction there.
• None of the party officials you speak about was charged or convicted in corruption, these are just allegations, in many cases hardly founded on anything substantial.
• Here is the explanation of the first booing incident. It is not clear who was the person booed at, Putin or Monson. And after that Putin was applauded. So this event doesn't show that "the popular perception of the party is often quite negative". The second booing event is also controversial. Anyway, the incidents are of little importance. When delivering some speech recently, Barack Obama was booed at, and there is nothing about that incident in Barack Obama article. Why? Because it was of minor, non-enduring importance.

So, do you think that the article Republican Party (U.S.) and the featured article Barack Obama are also "written in North Korean style"? GreyHood ^Talk 14:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I concur. Random recent events are absolutely not encyclopedic. --RJFF (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I provided those events as an illustration. My point is: the article is highly inadequate. In response to Greyhood: among six persons I mentioned the most innocent one is Mr. Resin. He is simply a life-long public servant parading around in Swiss watches worth $1mln. Obviously, that is a tip of an iceberg, but other guys have those tips way bigger. Gritzko (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Separate examples of dubious allegations prove nothing. Speaking on Resin, $1mln is not an impossible sum to earn legally for someone who works at the top position in the Moscow government. Morover, reach people like to give expensive presents to officials and friends. This doesn't necessarily mean corruption. Also, as far as I know the new anti-corruption legislation, prohibiting presents, is being implemented in Russia only now or in the near future. GreyHood ^Talk 16:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

as far as I know the new anti-corruption legislation as far as you don't know real russian corrution practics. Read this Stop the Untouchables. Justice for Sergei Magnitsky about Sergei Magnitsky and this Proceedings of the U.S. Justice Department on illegal charges of Daimler AG --Negve (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Post-election restart of debate :)

Greyhood just deleted material, but referred me here. Since he hasn't offered any new reasoning for deletion, I'll guess at what he dislikes. Reading the above, nothing at all has convinced me. Some is also outdated. Post-election, there are many sources to show this "thieves" phrase is notable and widely used. Even the Russian article on the party covers it. The section I added (without having seen this talk page), gave both negative views of the Party, and Putin's defence. Seeing that the rest of the article is pro-the party, I hardly think one small paragraph is giving undue weight. The alleged BLP issue is just a joke: this is a huge party, and has such power that it can take some minor criticism (an issue BLP allows for, in fact). Malick78 (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia have different practices from the English one, generally allowing much more POV and less political correctness. I've offered enough reasoning above, but the proponents of the dubious addition so far haven't bothered to discuss the policies, so thank you for finally starting discussing them.

• The phrase is used by marginal political opposition, not even by parties which placed second, third and fourth in the election. This says something about the WP:WEIGHT of the phrase. It is not about the weight of criticisms in general: there could be much serious, factual criticisms added to the article, discussing corruption etc., but we better avoid political labeling. For example, explain me please why there is no word "rednecks" in the article about Republican Party (United States).
• WP:BLP might be applicable because the term in question did not just criticize the party, which is normal, but alleges that the party consists of "crooks and thieves", which could be understood as if every single member is crook and thief. That's a bit of an overstretch and blames any particular person in the party, and in fact in Russia there was even an attempt to legally persecute the supposed author of the phrase for libel. GreyHood ^Talk 22:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• "explain me please why there is no word "rednecks"" - well, 'redneck' is a general term for a group of people with a certain style of behaviour or world view, not a term that was made up to describe the Republican Party. Our "thieves" phrase was coined specifically for United Russia. Hence, they are totally different usages. I can't see why you are comparing them.
• "could be understood as if every single member is crook and thief" - that's spurious. No real effect on an individual party member is likely. Moreover: "A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." Here, we have a large organisation, and good sources. So, no problem. Stop Wikilawyering, please (particularly, "4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions"). As the intro to BLP says, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". No harm to members of UR is likely from us reporting the existence of the phrase.Malick78 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm talking about this because the term has strong association with Republican party or their electorate, and there are plenty of Google hits on "redneck Republicans" and "Republican rednecks" and even a dictionary definition.
• I'm not doing wikilawyering, I just act according to my understanding of the policy. I may be wrong, but I'm open to hear your arguments. My arguments have been presented in discussions above, in particular here. Your last argument is indeed new, and I need time to think about it. Anyway, your recent addition looks more neutral than previous ones, and I like the idea of a Public perception section. It should be expanded, though, with the results of polls and possibly more authoritative opinions. GreyHood ^Talk 23:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't like blogs, but quote Urban Dictionary at us??? UrbD is edited by anyone with little oversight (I added a made up word there once and it was accepted, so I know their standards are low) and besides, the presence of a phrase doesn't prove frequency of usage. Moreover, as said before, the fact that a word is sometimes used in conjunction, doesn't mean that it was invented solely to describe that political party. The difference is huge. Also, do people write "Redneck Republicans" on money, as one of their few ways of protesting?? I don't think so.

My particular worry with you, Greyhood, is the amount of deleting you do coupled with the vagueness of the edit summaries. Sometimes, you simply apply policies wrongly (as with blogs). Please consider what you're doing more carefully, and reread policies twice before deleting. It's not fair on others to delete their work when you are in fact, too frequently, wrong. Thanks.Malick78 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Malick, I have not proposed to use Urban Dictionary as source in any article, so you may have done with less question marks.

I explain my editing summaries on the talk pages if needed and somehow in most cases I'm supported by other users. On this particular page before you have come, most opponent users haven't bothered to discuss policies at all. If I'm wrong in something, I expect to receive an explanation on why and how I'm wrong, not incivility and edit-warring without any substantial arguments. GreyHood ^Talk 16:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Greyhood, now you look like a plain @#$%^, sorry. "Crooks and thieves" is used by "marginal opposition", OK I believe you like I believe my mother. But on today's meeting in Moscow we saw ~0.5% of the city's population who will readily sign under that words. The reality is changing faster than you invent new excuses for your activities! Gritzko (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Again personal attack. You know, I never have reported anyone before, but if you continue this behaviour, I'll have no choice. To correct you, we have definitely seen ~0.2%, perhaps more, of Moscow population who protested the alleged frauds in election. How many of them support "Crooks and thieves" term is a different question, though likely a majority. Anyway, that's lower than the figures in the polls which have been conducted before. And finally, even if we suppose the term gained more substance and recognition now, this doesn't necessarily mean it deserved the same attention before and that I wasn't right then. Changing reality may bring more arguments to support one or another point of view, but this certainly doesn't excuse your incivility. GreyHood ^Talk 16:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you really think I am going to discuss with you all your theories about life, world and Wikipedia, like you are Marx and I am Engels? You personally misbehave and systematically erase facts that you personally consider somehow bad. I am attacking you as a person. I see nothing objective in your convoluted and illogical arguing. Those are your personal wishes and opinions, just that. Please try to abstain from your Holy War on Facts or I am reporting you. OK? Gritzko (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Chairmen of United Russia

Putin is not chairmen of United Russia, Putin is no even United Russia's member. --Negve (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, he is. See here (BBC) and here (Moscow Times). --RJFF (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he "formally" heads United Russia but is strangely not a member, just like Medvedev. [19]. Närking (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, he is not. "Изучайте матчасть" ;-) --Negve (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

"Centre-right"? Preposterous

The party is led by Vladimir Putin, and is by definition Putinist, considered to be an authoritarian ideology, linked to Neo-Stalinism. No centre-right party would erect statues of Stalin or hail the Soviet Union. Tataral (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst disagreeing with you on the supposed neo-Stalinist links (the party is capitalism-friendly and does not support communism in any way - which forms the core of Stalinism), I agree that just centrist would characterize the party better. As for hailing some aspects of the Soviet Union, even SPS or Yabloko politicians might do it, e.g. both take pride in the victory in what is called the Great Patriotic War in Russia.Estlandia (dialogue) 14:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand how Vladimir Putin's party could reasonably be called centrist, which is a term usually associated with for example liberal, green, always democratic, parties (whereas Putin's regime is the reason Russia is considered authoritarian in the Democracy Index, for example). We already have an article on Vladimir Putin's ideology (Putinism), which is clearly distinct from ideologies considered centrist in the rest of the world. I find it difficult to see how this party (which is perceived as authoritarian, see for example[20], [21]) could have anything in common with the parties usually referred to as centrist. Tataral (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we often don't understand how political classifications could reasonably be performed without simultaneously attaching labels in the range "plusplusgood" => plusgood" => "good" => "bad" => "plusbad" => "plusplusbad". Nevertheless, they could. ;) - 89.110.1.95 (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I would propose for example "a party associated with the policies of Vladimir Putin", or simply a "a Putinist party". I also think the lead should mention that the party is perceived as authoritarian by several sources. Tataral (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's a contradiction between the label 'centrist' and authoritarianism. For comparison, there have been far-right (Franco, Hitler), far-left (the USSR) and right-wing (Pinochet) dictatorships. Also, the Hong Kong pro-Beijing camp includes the Liberal Party (Hong Kong), which adheres to liberalism (sic!) whilst being broadly pro-PRC.
As for Putinism, most commentators still don't see it as a valid ideology and non-polemic articles on russian political parties do not characterize the United Russia's ideology as 'Putinism'.Estlandia (dialogue) 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If Putin is authoritarian and capitalist that is center-right to Right Wing, Example Taiwan pre-democracy or South Korea pre democracy. Saying that since it is related to Neo-Stalinism just for the sole reason that it is a dictatorship is just uneducated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.170.234 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

By Western standards Putin is a statist and an economic interventionist. Maybe by third world socialist standards he is a champion of the free market, but Russia continues to rank low in economic freedom under his rule. He is not centre-right. Centre-right suggests economic and political liberalism, neither of which are present in Russia. Putin and United Russia are best defined as centrist (given his party is catch-all) or right-wing (as in the corporatist nationalist strand of rightist thinking, which dominates the party and seems to be what Putin believes in). This example just shows the futility of having political positions in infoboxes as we move towards a world where "right" regimes like Iran and Russia are in the same international bloc as "left" regimes like Venezuela and Bolivia, and so I think the best course of action would be to remove the mention of position from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.225.203 (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The question of relative political positions has been discussed at length on multiple articles and noticeboards over the years. The option you're suggesting is only appropriate if all articles about political parties across the globe have that section of the infobox blanked. Wikipedia is not original research, therefore we're guided by what reliable sources have to say, while avoiding neologisms and op-ed extremism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources for both centrist and right-wing. Btw, many political parties already have that section blanked. See the pages for Australian political parties. --109.157.225.203 (talk) 22:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Putinism as a ideology

why did someone remove my "putinism" edit ? i inserted that in the united russia ideology infobox and now someone removed that , what do others think ? lets discuss our diffrent edits here Ocnerosti (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's main principle of verifiability you have to verify every edit and addition with neutral, independent, reliable sources. If you don't provide a source supporting your additions, the may get removed again. This is how Wikipedia works. Moreover Wikipedia adhers to a neutral point-of-view (NPOV). "Putinism" is not a neutral term to describe an ideology, but has a negative connotation and is always used to criticize the ideology, policies, and style of government of Putin. Therefore it is not fitting the ideology field of the infobox, where only a neutral, impartial categorization of the party's ideology can take place. --RJFF (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

"Ideology" and "platform" chapters

All information about the party's "ideology" belongs into the "platform" (see political platform) chapter. I have removed the "idealogy" chapter because it doesn't contain anything it is already in "platform" and explained there in more depth. Nanobear (talk) 22:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

International

United Russia is applied as a member of Centrist Democrat International and it has a reference. The person who continues to remove this is committing vandalism and I will report you if you continue it, this is a warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blondeguynative (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

This information belongs to the main body, not the infobox. And drop edit warring and ludicrous threats. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Once more: the fact it has applied is not for the infobox. The Estonian Centre Party applied for Liberal International membership and got rejected, the Socialist Party of Serbia applied for Socialist International membership numerous times, getting rejected always - we DO NOT add those parties' applications into the infobox as if they were members of the resp. international organizations. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

"The party of crooks and thieves"

The cited source (The Guardian) indeed says that the term was coined by Navalny, but it may be just an irresponsible remark from their part. Navalny did use the expression in 2011, contributing to the rise of popularity of this expression, but I am sure to have heard it years before 2011, so something goes wrong. - 92.100.174.88 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the grammatical article is indefinite rather than definite, no? I mean, nobody's saying it's the only party of crooks and thieves, whether it's the only one or one out of many is left in silence by this slogan. So, not "the", but "a" party of crooks and thieves; this issue is probably even worth noticing in the article (not everyone knows that Russian does not have grammatical articles). - 89.110.7.63 (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ideology dispute

The edit warring over this party's ideology needs to stop. I have yet to see a reliable source used to describe this party's ideological position. The entry stays blank until we have consensus otherwise. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My view: Putinism is not accepted as a separate ideology by most political scientists and hence has nothing to do in the infobox. Obviously, the raison d'etre of the party is supporting Putin's policies, however, this belongs to the main text and I think it is emphasized there well enough. --Phil070707 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your take on the matter. I take political ideologies in the infobox seriously on all articles, so have removed 'Putinism' as a political neologism. 'Putinism' is not a political ideology per se (unless someone is able to point to a copy of the Putinist manifesto). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You realise that Phil070707 has just been indef banned as a sock puppet. Are you seriously suggesting there exists a specific "catch-all" manifesto, let alone a Centrist manifesto an a Statist manifesto? Putinism is no less a political stance than say Gaullism or Peronism. Putism has been extensively covered in reliable sources, for example, see Putinism: The Slow Rise of a Radical Right Regime in Russia [22] or Putin and Putinism[23]. --Nug (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The validity of arguments does not depend on the fact that a user is banned. Unlike Gaullism and Peronism, Putinism is not yet established as a neutral term to describe a certain ideology, but is mostly used in an undefined and derogative way. Individual examples of "Putinism" used in the titles of more or less academic books do not make it established, nor do they give the term a generally accepted definition. This may happen in the future, just as it happened to Peronism and Gaullism (which probably started as derogative neologisms as well), but it has not yet. Do the authors of the books you cited produce any specific definition of Putinism? What does this ideology comprise, according to them? Do they not use it to describe a certain political style rather than an ideology? --RJFF (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Question of political position

Someone has added the 'political position' parameter to the infobox and has moved centrism to it from 'ideology'.

In the first instance, it's not a mandatory field and the references for it are dated. I've left it as is, but have added 'self-declared' as a modifier.

Personally, there are too many sources indicating irredentist, nationalist, conservative and other less-than-centrist tendencies to feel comfortable in portraying this as their political position. My preference would be to remove the parameter and move centrism back into the ideology parameter. Any thoughts on this? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. "Centrist" is at best uninformative, but probably misleading.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, as this was a bold move by an IP, I'll move it back to ideology for lack of better descriptors for a political position parameter. I'm not thrilled by the ideology section, either, but there are a lot of political parties from all around the world with spurious ideology descriptors. In the main, it's their own description of themselves and covers up a variety of sins (i.e., there are a lot of 'parties' who don't actually have any genuine political stance and a purely political/populist opportunists). Left, right and centrist have long since lost any quantifiable meaningful over an above being relative terms in comparison to other parties. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.minjust.ru/common/img/uploaded/docs/2011.02.01_Edinaya_Rossiya_perechen.doc
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/133117/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/0258a194-4025-4957-b8b6-8c9e0377d996/en/Russian_Analytical_Digest_102.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

http://www.minjust.ru/common/img/uploaded/docs/2011.02.01_Edinaya_Rossiya_perechen.doc

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/133117/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/0258a194-4025-4957-b8b6-8c9e0377d996/en/Russian_Analytical_Digest_102.pdf

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Correct x 1 + corrupted PDF replaced with working PDF found elsewhere x 1. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit protection

Too many invalid IP edits recently that had needed to be reverted, edit protection may be needed to prevent this. Mellk (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I've been watching this. First, it's a content issue and not vandalism, per se. Second, it's questionable if what we see is edit-warring. If it's not edit warring and not vandalism I doubt an admin would apply protection. Finally, if we put PC1 in place it would prevent the changes from being visible but we'd still have to refuse the reversions. We could ask for semi-protection (if the admin considers it) but some would question if it's worth forcing IPs off the page. The semi-protection would be temporary anyway. If a consensus forms to lock this article down, I would support it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I see, thanks. I just took a brief look where there were a significant number of edits by different IPs with many of them being reverted, with some edits which seemed like vandalism with for example, constant changes to the political position and ideology to "far-right" and "Putinist nationalism". These sort of edits, normally by IPs, seem disrupting. Mellk (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that the majority of changes are to the political position and ideology, I'm going to tag these for 'citation needed'. My preference, however, would be to remove these as WP:OR as has been done on other political parties where POV dominated over reliable sourcing. NPOV demands that something as important as the 'at a glance' nature of infoboxes does not reflect any personal perceptions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As changes have continued to be made with no sourcing, edit summaries or discussion here, I've gone WP:BOLD and removed all of the qualifiers for ideology and political position. When/if editors/contributors find reliable sources for these parameters in the infobox, they are welcome to add them (with attribution). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It seems that editors are still editing ideology and political position with no sourcing and the number of such edits is getting high. Mellk (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've been busy and haven't been able to check all of my notifications. The most bizarre part of it is that these drive-by editors are edit warring each other over unsourced content! Nothing has changed: ideological and political positions are WP:NOTOPINION and are not added unless they are reliably sourced. No source = no content entry. If any editors wish to dispute this, or have found sources, please bring arguments and sources to this section of the talk page, please. That's what article talk pages are for. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Партия власти

ru:Партия власти isn't interlinked, I don't know how to translete it into English.Xx236 (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's Party of power. I've added it to the 'See also' list. The article, itself, is in need of further development. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Big Tent of Conservatives , not nationalists, not of right-wingers

The RT aerticle states that the party defyned itself as conservative, not as right-wing. United Russia is a big tent of national-conservatives, which incluedes former communists. most united russian member avoid to be openly anti-communists and the party votead against recognizing the alledged crimes of the ussr. the oparty is a big tent not only of right-winger, but of nationalists, including more left inclined nationalists. many communists in russia (differently from most of the west) defyne themselves as socially conservative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.79.164.91 (talk • contribs) 12:23:19 (UTC)\

Indeed, there's no consensus to classify the party as right-wing. 'Big Tent' is the best thing we have. --Marek Słucki (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Come up with a source for that assertion. This issue has been edit-warred over for years. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

'Big tent' is sourced. Any other descriptors are original research, so there's no point in speculating on anyone's personal point of view as to what it is or isn't on an article talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@GrapefruitSculpin: Refer to the above or it's a case of WP:IDHT. How can you seriously argue a right-wing position while at the same time having quality sources list the 'ideologies' as "centrism" and "big tent politics" (Cheng 2016)? And who are the sources of the direct quotes of party officials (sic)? Sergey Mironov, who has never been a member of United Russia in the first place. The two people quoted in the other 2 sources fall well short of being "party officials", so is this some sort of a bad joke?

And as per WP:BRD, since the stable revision dating to 31 Mar 2017 has either excluded the position field or listed "big tent", onus is on those insisting on a right-of-center classification to demonstrate their case. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kyivpost.com/news/russia/detail/51743
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927103852/http://inotv.rt.com/2011-09-24/Putin-uveren-v-pobede-Edinoj to http://inotv.rt.com/2011-09-24/Putin-uveren-v-pobede-Edinoj
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.edinros.ru/news.html?id=112414

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United 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/20130927103856/http://inotv.rt.com/2011-09-24/Medvedev-vozglavit-spisok-Edinoj-Rossii to http://inotv.rt.com/2011-09-24/Medvedev-vozglavit-spisok-Edinoj-Rossii
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929015541/http://inotv.rt.com/2011-09-24/Medvedev-rekomendoval-Putina-v-prezidenti to http://inotv.rt.com/2011-09-24/Medvedev-rekomendoval-Putina-v-prezidenti
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111222154744/http://themoscownews.com/news/20080417/55324516.html to http://themoscownews.com/news/20080417/55324516.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.moledin.ru/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox 'ideology' and 'political position' entries

There has been a lot of blanking, restoring, and general protracted edit warring over the two fields over the last couple of months. Where edit summaries have been used, allusions are made to some sort of consensus on this talk page. Firstly, to only consensus ever reached is that any political positions or ideological stances must be reliably sourced. The positions added since any form of discussion took place briefly in 2015 and 2017 are all, in fact sourced, so this talk page should be used as it is intended. Any removal of sourced content must be discussed in order to deliberate over whether it is WP:DUE for the purposes of an infobox, and bearing in mind that an infobox serves as an 'at a glance' overview for the reader.

I've restored a reasonable, sourced version from May prior a mass elimination of sourced content was provided with a non-argument in an edit summary about some form about 'consensus'. The editor was following the history of unexplained blanking and reversion prior stepping in, and I understand that this was done in good faith, but no editors/users are in a position to guesstimate what 'consensus' is when content is sourced, and there is nothing to indicate an actual consensus agreed upon on the talk page, thank you. If any editors/users wish to table changes to any of the political descriptors, please bring your arguments (based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not "I don't like it/I like it arguments", thank you). I'd recommend that any issues with any single descriptor be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than trying to scrub the whole lot in one fell swoop. Cheers for your attention!

P.S. There is a likelihood that we'll come to similar conclusions as what is a reliable source and what is not, but can we please go through a formal process of discussion in order to establish whether consensus has changed or not. It may not be one of the more pleasurable aspects of editing, but transparency of process and re-establishing a position (or not) is part of the process of building articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Jeff6045: In my understanding, big tent and centrist do not describe ideologies, but rather positions on the political spectrum. The article Centrism clearly defines it as a "position", not an ideology. And "big tent" implies that a party includes a range of different ideologies or does not adher to a specific ideology. Therefore, it does not make sense to list "big tent" as an ideology. --RJFF (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@RJFF: Yes, but however in the articles about ANO 2011, Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) and DPS "big tent (catch-all)" is put in ideology section. Also, I think it is very odd to state the party's political spectrum as "centre to right-wing". Wouldn't it be better to just simply mentioning that the party has been observed as a centrist by some academic sources? For example, let's see the article about Centre Party (Norway). Even though the party has been observed as "populist" by international media (Bloomberg, FT, ABC News) it does not include "populism" in the ideology section. Instead it just simply mentions that the party has been described as populist since the leadership of Trygve Slagsvold Vedum. Jeff6045 (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jeff6045 and RJFF: What if we described the party as "Big tent" in the position section of the infobox and had a note explaining that the party has been described by multiple sources as centrist or right-wing? Ezhao02 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ezhao02: I agree with your footnote solution. --RJFF (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Left wing?

Can we considered United Russia left wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcisawesomeguy (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, they are conservatives. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

United Russia is not a left wing party but there are many Socialist Parties in Eastern Europe which are conservative, the two aren't necessarily opposing each other. Azaan Habib 17:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Conservatism

We now have sources for the party being both National conservative, Social conservative, Liberal conservative and Russian conservative, would it not be easier to just term the party as Conservative or Russian conservative? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I think we just need to write down the level of Russian conservatism, Russian nationalism, Statism, and Putinism in the infobox.--삭은사과 (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, too. Should we try changing it now? Ezhao02 (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I think national conservative and social conservative are important for understanding the ideology of the party. Of the two, social conservatism is more important since national conservatism is more or less implied when you have both conservatism and nationalism mentioned, while social conservatism helps distinguish the party’s character from more socially progressive conservative doctrines. Liberal conservatism seems more of a factional ideology for United Russia. However, at the very least, I would like to see more detail on this in the article body, maybe using the sources that were previously in infobox.--Jay942942 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I definitely agree that these things should be expanded in the article body. However, I don't believe that they should be in the infobox. Note that the "Conservatism in Russia" article to which "Russian conservatism" links in the infobox does describe the ideology as nationalist. 21:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Party leader in 2003 and 2021?

In the "electoral results" section, the second table indicates that the "leader" (which I assume means "party leader") was Gryzlov in 2003 and Shoigu in 2021. However, in the "structure" section, the table indicates that Gryzlov was not party leader before 2004 and that Shoigu was never leader. Is there an explanation for this apparent discrepancy? 74.71.65.108 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Wait, Is United Russia a ideologies neo-fascist party???

(I'm not talking about the United Russia Ideologies of neo-fascism) Rodionov Erel (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if I got you right, you are talking about the recent edits categorizing the party as neo-fascist. I've reverted them, and @Block Baby should be athering consensus before making this edit. Uness232 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Uness232 then add your explanations as to why this party is not neo-fascist. I have explained my opinion and I am ready to seek to defend it. What difference does it make whether this change is radical or not, if it is true and it is a reality. Because this situation looks like there are wrong ideologies, and I add the one that really exists and I am criticized for it because my changes are "radical." In time, you will get used to the truth, do not worry Block Baby (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Block Baby My argument is quite simple. I do not believe that there is any consensus among political scientists about Putin's ideology, but most would probably stop short of calling him a neo-fascist. Furthermore, all but one (and even that, I would think most would disagree with) of the articles you have provided seem to have a very broad and vague definition of fascism in mind, one that would include parties as diverse as UKIP, AKP and the CCP under its belt. One even mentions the 'red fascism' of the Bolsheviks, the recent usage of which has roots in horseshoe theory, usually considered an immensely oversimplified, if not plain wrong, theory of political science. Some of your sources do not even have the words 'fascism' or 'fascist' in them: they simply imply that Putin is a terrorist, which is another, unrelated discussion. Uness232 (talk) 18:47, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Neo-fascism ideology

The article describes united russia's attitude to putin as follows: united russia supports the policies of incumbent president vladimir putin; despite not being the official leader of United russia, putin operates as its de facto leader. And it is true, because the party votes for all laws passed by the president, its members support the internal and external vectors of his rule, what make it a kind of puppet of putin. Members of united russia control the government and parliament, so the party is directly related to all of the following. General components of fascism are the cult of personality - we observe the cult of personality of putin, because from the above, it is concluded that he controls almost all power in the country; militarism - we observe constant increase in military power of russia; totalitarianism - we see that people who disagree with the regime are arrested at rallies - everything has come to the point that eyewitnesses say that they are afraid to go to rallies to express their opinion - in totalitarianism there is a main figure (putin), dictatorship and terror (see below), imperialism - an example is the invasion of Ukraine; the idea of ​​unity, mobilization of nation and state against enemies. The main components of neo-fascism is terrorism - use or threat of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal. russia is bombing churches, schools, hospitals, other civilian facilities and infrastructure that are vulnerable in Ukraine. This is terrorism. russia also threatens nuclear weapons, which is also terrorism. Pressuring civilians in russia and Ukraine is violence, and it is also terrorism. And members of united russia are involved in all of this. Block Baby (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Block Baby: I disagree with you on two fronts: one concerns how Wikipedia works, the other concerns the content of your argument.

Firstly, please read WP:V and WP:Verifiability, not truth. We back up additions to Wikipedia through the scientific consensus of reliable sources, not minority viewpoints or our own opinions. It is totally normal for newer editors to fall into the misconception that it somehow does not work this way (see Talk:Ottoman Empire for me participating in this mistake as well), so to me, it's totally understandable at this point. That, however, does not change the fact that it is not appropriate for Wikipedia.

Also, I will point out that the characterization of fascism is not only not this simple, but is a very controversial subject. There are also other problems with your argument, which I will address below.

• [W]e observe the cult of personality of [P]utin, because from the above, it is concluded that he controls almost all power in the country;
  You seem to be confusing the concept of dictatorship or autocracy with that of the cult of personality. Cult of personalities are, simply put, the elevation of a leader's personal qualities to a kind of liturgical status, mandating their "worship" by the people of a country. See North Korea, Turkey and the Soviet Union as examples, although it should be noted that the extent of the practice is more extreme in its North Korean variant. Whether Putin has a cult of personality is not something that is supported by the facts you provide; you are simply supporting the fact that he's an authoritarian strongman.

• militarism - we observe constant increase in military power of russia
  This is not what militarism means, although technically one could make the argument that Russia has been a militarist state ever since late 19th century Russsian Empire.

• totalitarianism - we see that people who disagree with the regime are arrested at rallies - everything has come to the point that eyewitnesses say that they are afraid to go to rallies to express their opinion
  Totalitarianism != authoritarianism, they are fundementally different concepts. What you describe here is an authoritarian form of government.

• The main components of neo-fascism is terrorism - use or threat of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal. [R]ussia is bombing churches, schools, hospitals, other civilian facilities and infrastructure that are vulnerable in Ukraine. This is terrorism.
  That is indeed indefensible, but most would disagree that it's terrorism, or else most states would have engaged in terrorism over the last 20 years.

• As I have stated before, the qualities of fascism is a hard topic to even cover in a few paragraphs, and therefore fascism usually does not get put in infoboxes unless parties self-describe as such, even for cases where the party in question is much more extreme than Putin's UR (an example that comes to my mind is MHP). Uness232 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC) (signature added later)

You couldn’t deny militarism, terrorism, the idea of ​​unity, mobilization of nation and state against enemies, imperialism. You also acknowledged that the party is dictatorial, autocratic and authoritarian. As for "parties self-describe as such", they recognize most of the above. It would be appropriate to add the ideology russian fascism, it is fully relevant to the topic under discussion. Also, given the above, it would be possible to add other right-wing extreme ideologies that would fit. What ideologies would in your opinion would be suitable? Block Baby (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Block Baby: Sorry, but I am still not convinced. While UR definitely can be characterized by militarism, terrorism, the idea of ​​unity, mobilization of nation and state against enemies, imperialism, I would encourage you to find one political scientist that would argue, in any capacity, that these features are enough to classify them as fascist, especially as these features are arguably shared to some extent by all conservative parties (see Militarism in the United States). Also, I've never seen a UR member referring to themselves as proponents of militarism, terrorism,(...)imperialism.

I personally think that the ideology section in the infobox is fine as it is, although something of the sort of Illiberalism, Statism or Authoritarianism might be added if consensus prevails and sources are found. Otherwise, if there is a minority viewpoint which asserts that UR is fascist (among political scientists, of course, not in op-eds) feel free to add it into the article. Uness232 (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I happened to notice that the ideology list seems to be incomplete as from multiple other Wikipedia pages and sources it says "Putinism", is the primary ideology. There are also no relevant sources that correctly explain how the party is a big tent, as it supports Russian Imperialism and Statism, you can look on their own website ; https://er.ru/, these stances are nationalist and far-right in nature. Therefore the position must be labeled "far-right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by QIJN2428 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Far-right? What kind of far-right party would decide to raise minimum wages, preserve the jobs of people in the face of recession, and would help the farmers of its country? From the Western view, United Russia cannot be labelled as far-right because it still has supporters from all over the political spectrum. I have removed Putinism from the list in List of political parties in Russia because it remained unsourced. So no, we cannot label it far-right. Magellan Fan (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if a far-right party does do those things (militarist Japan comes to mind), for inclusion in Wikipedia, the claims would need reliable sources. @QIJN2428, the only source you provide is a statement by Putin in which he attaches far-right labels on Western Europe. He does not say anything of note about the policies of UR. Uness232 (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

"What kind of far-right party would decide to raise minimum wages, preserve the jobs of people in the face of recession, and would help the farmers of its country?" - empty rhetoric. Fascist-Nazi regimes actually have raised the living standards of some poor people in some populations (whilst making "unwanted" ethnicities starve to death), so this argument makes little sense. All things considered, Putin and hence his puppet party have gradually developed into fascists, as reflected by sources. This source claims they are pretty much a textbook cases of fascism.Knižnik (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Well this would be interesting, since we already have citations for centrist, centre-right, right-wing and dismissal of far-right label etc. But the editor who started this thread is just engaging in OR. And yes there will be people calling Putin fascist, but remember WP:DUE, this is clearly not close to a majority view. Mellk (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I wasn't necessarily pushing for some position to be included in the information box. I was just trying to discard some straw man arguments by one user. Now, Fascism by its nature is not strictly "far-right" or sth.: there were radically leftist (economically speaking) trends in the NSDAP, like the Strasser brothers: fascism tends to be "big tent", like United Russia is. Things have been changing rapidly, and i think the time is ripe for the connection "United Russia<-->Fascism" to be mentioned in the text of the article itself, albeit not in the box, yet.Knižnik (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Well fascism is defined as a far-right ideology, there is even an FAQ about this on the fascism article talk page. But anyway, do you have RS that calls United Russia a fascist party or with fascist elements? I saw you provided a link to one source but it does not explicitly refer to United Russia being fascist. Mellk (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

In general, I think it might be still too early for this. It is still evolving. For example Putin promoted multiculturalism and there was government crackdowns on ultra right groups in 2000s as they were opposed to the government. After 2012, there was shift to more hardcore conservative in certain areas and then complete rejection of liberal ideas. Maybe the picture will be clearer in the near future. Mellk (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for my late reply then. Your argument debunks mine, but remember, if fascism is about promoting racial supremacy, United Russia hasn't done anything that seems remotely hostile to the Tuvans, Chukchi, Mongolians, Jews, Chechens, Kazakhs, and so on and so forth. United Russia, several times in their propaganda, promoted the unity of all Russian peoples, with the Duma being a smorgasbord of ethnicities. Putin may be right-wing, but that doesn't necessarily mean the party itself is fascist. As much as it pains for you to hear it, United Russia isn't fascist, and painting it as fascist won't make your narrative any more true. Magellan Fan (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

One should define what is a 'party' in contemporary Russia. Xx236 (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

https://news.yahoo.com/yes-putin-russia-fascist-political-123906140.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAHcbWIlNcJKC2l07ekUvdU6Iz5VMJ7Dq14HJhT6pXGUqnz2RGUd3d6BOggmtyqtcQFSTOdKW-6MNcKyEwMOyNNRh0sZ_qxh-06gQtESCYC_i038En34TFWFLDSEPx0SS-3IDVolh2EgEkjGIwuaqm7cZe6Wlq_3JF7VGKXr_SQhy Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Putin’s party, United Russia, always wins, and oppositionists are routinely harassed or killed. Xx236 (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Putin and United Russia cannot be declared fascists. There's one fact you cannot argue with. They still show promote the old Soviet Union. Although they do not want it back, they still show support for it by promoting how the USSR was a symbol of Russian power, which is something a fascist wouldn't do. If Putin and United Russia were fascist, those said "fascists" would destroy any monument dedicated to the former Soviet Union, including destroying Lenin's mausoleum, Stalin's memorial, and any Soviet-era war memorial. There is also an obstacle blocking them, the Russian people. Majority of Russian people see the USSR as a symbol of Russian power, and any destruction of their memorials are considered a provocation against them. United Russia, despite how the West views it, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1092732/russia-political-party-ratings/ <-- In this link, it shows that, despite being below 50% approval rating, it is still very popular in Russia, which is why the people just vote for it. There is the Communist Party, but they are rarely harassed by United Russia mainly because to the people they're seen as the successor to the CPSU. Oh, and the oppositionists getting harassed or killed? By far, evidence suggests that vigilantes, not Russian agents, were responsible for most oppositionist harassments. A good example of this is Alexei Navalny. Shown here --> https://www.statista.com/statistics/1201958/attitude-toward-activity-of-alexei-navalny-by-age-russia/ <-- it shows that Navalny is very unpopular in Russia, and the protests that supported him barely had an effect. Considering how Gen Z views society, it's surprising majority of them are still against Navalny. To answer your answers, United Russia isn't fascist, Putin is (officially) an independent politician, and oppositionists are harassed because of the Russian people, not because of the Russian government. The Russian government just doesn't care about opposition because they know they can't do anything. Magellan Fan (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

And just to tell you, your view is, unfortunately, just a minority in this talk page. Magellan Fan (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• United Russia Flag.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The timing of the UR ideology

The note "United Russia does not have a coherent ideology..." quotes several references. I do not know if the sources are representative, but they suggest that the party radicalizes with the time, so such information is needed. The subject is too serious for such a note, such simplification. Xx236 (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The party is frequently described as "Party of Power" https://bti-project.org/en/reports/country-report/RUS

Eurasianism is important https://impakter.com/deadly-ideology-putin-eurasianism/ Xx236 (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Merging statism and authoritarianism

Should statism and authoritarianism be merged? Or should there be a general simplification to make the ideological standings of the party simpler or shorter 176.72.35.230 (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest rolling back to the previous version that did not include this clutter of ideologies that are backed up by WP:PRIMARY sources or are completely WP:OR. Vacant0 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Adding "Fascism" in the Ideology section

I think "Fascism" (atleast labeled as "Alleged") would be correct. 2A02:3030:81A:A517:1:0:14C3:9198 (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I think "expansionism" is a more fair word, but i do see where you are coming from. Bedrockbob (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Russian Imperialism

its blatant and sourced {{ref>https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/beyond-putin-russian-imperialism-is-the-no-1-threat-to-global-security/</ref> 82.14.227.184 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This article doesn't even mention United Russia. — Czello 21:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Its more putin whom is the head. 82.14.227.184 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Putin isn't (although formerly he was) a member of United Russia, although the party supports his policies. A y d o h 8 ( t a l k ) 03:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Fake "citations" need to be called out and deprecated

Article claims that "The party has promoted explicitly conservative policies in social, cultural and political matters, both at home and abroad. Putin has attacked globalism and economic liberalism as well as scientific and technological progress.[63][64]" while citing 63) an opinion piece (what about NPV?) explicitly hostile to "the regime" and 64) an article that is not even remotely connected to the ideas of technology or science, and in which no explicit mention is made of either topic.

Discuss. 47.208.97.233 (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, Is this article about "the party" or "Putin"? Is Putin the leader of the party? The article in question seems to indicate that the party leader is V. Vasilyev. Putin is not listed as a leader, or even a founding member of the party, so why is it that "Putin" is conflated with "The party"? 47.208.97.233 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

European People's Party affiliation?

Designating YeR as affiliated with EPP seems highly questionable at least. YeR attended an EPP party congress according to the linked source. The second source claims the party was "was accepted into the "European People's Party"", for which no other source can be found and which seems more like a misinterpretation/translation as it reports about the same congress that YeR representatives attended. Nonetheless, YeR was never member of the party itself, and at least from what I can tell from other articles at first glance of parties without formal europarty membership (such as French Renaissance - via Renew Europe "affiliated" with ALDE, and Renaissance attended an ALDE congress as well, but has formally no europarty affiliation), such loose contacts without any formal membership aren't mentioned in any party infobox. The attendance at the EPP congress can be added to the international relations section, but unless anyone objects, I would remove it from the infobox. --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It’s far right

It’s has many far right elements Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Please cite some reliable sources backing up your claims. Thanks, A09|(talk) 20:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Language

You use phrases such as dictator. Whether the author likes it or not, VP has the majority vote. There should be no bias in language or political bias in what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia of fact. Opinions are not true statements. Phrases such as inconsistent policies again are measured by what or whom? Are US policies consistent? UK immigration policy? Keep bias opinions out of what is claiming to be factual information., 79.140.150.245 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

We use whatever wording sources use. Per the Vladimir Putin article, "dictator" is an accurate word to use. — Czello ^(music) 14:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Membership

Can editors kindly stop calling my edit "vandalism" or "disruptive". How the hell can you trust a RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT figure that claims more than 2 million members? Look at the facts. Russia's biggest party is Russia of the Future of the late Alexy Navalny. THEY only have 100,000 members by their own admission. If it was true that Putin's party had 20 times more members, then that's like saying he had 20 times more votes at the recent election. Putin's entire support base comes from pension age ex-communists who long for a Soviet Union 2.0, and even those old people are privileged. either they worked for the politbureau or they had high ranking positions before Russia's Soviet Empire collapsed in 1991. All young Russians oppose the Ukraine war, and support the party of Navalny. You all realise if we trust Russian sources, the next thing people will want RT to be classed reliable, and then the face of Wikipedia will change forever. because whatever free press in the west says is the case, Russia says the opposite. Russia doesn't even admit it is at war, it calls it a special military operation. Putin doesn't even tell his own people how Russia has all but lost the war against Ukraine, has suffered mutinies, defectors to Ukraine, and ran out of tanks with only one left in the whole of Russia for the World War 2 victory celebrations.--Will come will see (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Your belief that Russia of the Future is the largest party in Russia is incorrect and belongs in an encyclopedia just as little as your other generalizations and opinions. Cookieo131 (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You called this figure disinformation without citing a source. If you have only 86 edits, I would suggest to familiarize yourself with the policies first. Mellk (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You're citing a Russian government source which fails all reliability criteria. I don't know how small Putin's regime is, which is why I say "unknown". In this case, I don't have to prove disinformation. It's your job to show that 2 million figure is real. --Will come will see (talk) 08:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Political position

Can we change it's position to "Centre-right to right-wing". The currently sources describe the party like that. Altough historically it had been described as a centrist party. Hidolo (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Hidolo I would rate it the same way. 82.82.158.68 (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)