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)

Conservatism? Right-wing!? Is this a joke?

Are you kidding me? I used to live in Russia, and spent a large portion of my life there (eleven years). Let me tell you, United Russia's ideology is NOT conservatism! It is most certainly not a right-wing party!. The party is largely comprised of former communists and/or members of the Soviet Communist Party turned "democrat". This is a joke! There is nothing right-wing about this party. It is an anti-personal freedom, anti-free market, anti-small government, anti-everything-the-west-stands-for party. If you want to define right-wing as promoting traditional values (as opposed to economic liberalism), even then you couldn't call UR right-wing! This is absurd! Absurd!

--Gneek (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2010 (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)

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)