Talk:United Russia

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opposing Political Party 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  My opinion 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nationalism 

message: Any word on how they are organized? They just had their 8th Party Congress () ... 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)
thread_title:  Party organization 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: Though the account  seems to have left editing after the last one of his reverts on October 16 , various IPs - first from Canada (), second from from Italy () 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)
thread_title:  Continuing additions of unsourced POV text into infobox.  

message: 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 ). 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)
thread_title:  Ideology/ Russia's political landscape 

message: I belive this is pure vandalism. Non-notable and non-reliable sources. Nanobear (talk) 06:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats not really true anymore , ive given many sources that it is soKids4Fun/TALK 14:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  What was wrong with my compromise version? Why do you just keep reverting? Nanobear (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 . Närking (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Putin is not chairmen of United Russia, Putin is no even United Russia's member. --Negve (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, he is. See here (BBC) and here (Moscow Times). --RJFF (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he "formally" heads United Russia but is strangely not a member, just like Medvedev. . Närking (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

text: No, he is not. "Изучайте матчасть" ;-) --Negve (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chairmen of United Russia 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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, ) could have anything in common with the parties usually referred to as centrist. Tataral (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Centre-right"? Preposterous 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Putinism as a ideology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Ideology" and "platform" chapters 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  International 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "The party of crooks and thieves" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  or Putin and Putinism. --Nug (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ideology dispute 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. "Centrist" is at best uninformative, but probably misleading.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:46, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question of political position 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United Russia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
http://www.minjust.ru/common/img/uploaded/docs/2011.02.01_Edinaya_Rossiya_perechen.doc
http://kms1.isn.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/133117/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/0258a194-4025-4957-b8b6-8c9e0377d996/en/Russian_Analytical_Digest_102.pdf
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edit protection 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: '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)
thread_title:  Big Tent of Conservatives , not nationalists, not of right-wingers 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I agree with your footnote solution. --RJFF (talk) 11:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 'ideology' and 'political position' entries 

message: Can we considered United Russia left wing?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcisawesomeguy (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, they are conservatives. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Left wing? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Party leader in 2003 and 2021? 

message: (I'm not talking about the United Russia Ideologies of neo-fascism) Rodionov Erel (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
thread_title:  Wait, Is United Russia a ideologies neo-fascist party??? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merging statism and authoritarianism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adding "Fascism" in the Ideology section 

message: its blatant and sourced {{ref>https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/beyond-putin-russian-imperialism-is-the-no-1-threat-to-global-security/</ref>https://www.ft.com/content/05bdabc8-e027-4600-a20e-aaad1d6c2f2dhttps://www.ft.com/content/05bdabc8-e027-4600-a20e-aaad1d6c2f2dhttps://lens.monash.edu/@politics-society/2022/09/21/1385101/russias-invasion-of-ukraine-is-about-imperialism-not-natohttps://www.ox.ac.uk/news/features/analysis-putins-imperial-ambitions-and-ukraines-300-year-road-statehood 82.14.227.184 (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This article doesn't even mention United Russia. — Czello 21:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Its more putin whom is the head. 82.14.227.184 (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Russian Imperialism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fake "citations" need to be called out and deprecated 

message: 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)
thread_title:  European People's Party affiliation? 

message: It’s has many far right elements Usydydjwhxyxhx (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please cite some reliable sources backing up your claims. Thanks, A09|(talk) 20:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  It’s far right  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Language  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Membership