Talk:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia

message: Seeing recent reverts here, I quickly checked a couple of sources used by the recently blocked user Caretaker John. For example that source (WaPo article) does support the statements and more, e.g. that " Zhirinovsky was a "reserve" KGB captain who created the LDP in 1990 at the behest of his bosses" according to Sobchak, and this not just an opinion by Sobchak. I did not check more (that's a lot of sources), but from what I can see (all of info included by "John" is actually well known), there is no urgent need to revert everything John did. But one must check sources used by "John" prior to restoring any content they included. On another page at least some of the sources did not really check out, or at least one needs to spend significant time to check these sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be some content that is fine to re-use however it should be kept in mind that the user is a troll who has been at it for many months now (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordimalo/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordimalo). Their other sock Beanom attempted to restore the edits and was behind some serious vandalism just yesterday. It is also clear that they will not stop their behaviour. So I would advise to be careful when restoring any of their edits and to read the sources carefully. Mellk (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are familiar with these subjects, does such info, for example, looks  incorrect to you? And if you know that was correct information, then why revert it? The in-line references do say it too. . My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have time to check each source, so I'll look at two. The Moscow Times writes "...some analysts have linked their appearance to a Kremlin strategy to divide opposition support..." and Meduza writes "Critics were quick to point out that the Putin administration is often involved in building up these spoiler parties in an apparent effort to split the opposition vote ahead of the 2021 State Duma elections." Of course new pro-Kremlin parties pop up some times (and with election year the Kremlin is increasing repression, propaganda and work of spin-doctors), but I think there is issue with the wording. "It is believed that the Kremlin was involved in the creation of the party..." – to me it seems like weasel words, no? And these sources did not write that some critics/analysts claimed they were created by the Kremlin, but rather they pointed out the Kremlin strategy. The section name was also renamed to "Founding and Kremlin involvement" to imply that it is accepted as fact that this party in particular was indeed created by the Kremlin. Earlier I did take a look at other edits of Caretaker John and did find misrepresentation of what is said in the sources, so this and combined with their long history of severe misbehaviour, I do not see a reason to believe that they are making any edits in good faith. With that, and as I also do not have time to check every edit properly, I reverted on grounds of ban evasion. Mellk (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, the reverts on the ground of ban evasion were fine. But this could be just rephrased, and the text was careful enough ("It is speculated that such new parties ..."). We both know that these parties have indeed been created from the approval by Kremlin to divide opposition, would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to re-add this and improve it so that it is in line with what the sources say, then feel free to do so, I think it would be helpful. But I think "it is speculated" could be improved by saying who is actually speculating this. And while we may be confident about what we think happened in certain cases, it should reflect the sources and be supported. For example there is no doubt about who gave the order to poison a certain opposition leader and who carried out this order, however the news sources they still write something like "allegedly" and "accused" and of course this still needs to be reflected when citing. I'm sure you are very much aware of this though. Now, with Green Alternative (Russia) perhaps only some rephrasing and small changes were needed, yes, maybe this was also the case with a few other articles, however as I said, I would not have the time or interest to check each edit and determine what kind of changes would be needed. Hopefully you understand me there.  Mellk (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: I totally agree that LDPR is 'Far-right', not 'Right-wing to far-right'. However, the LDPR is not regarded as a complete fascist party. It is understood that there is considerable controversy over whether LDPR is fascist.--Storm598 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It is often regarded as ultranationalist, therefore I think "far-right" should be used here, but "fascist" is now rarely used to describe the party or its ideology, and current sourcing is weak. The reference to page 56 of the 1996 article by Kholodovsky does not state that the party is fascist, but rather it refers to "patrons of fascists within" law enforcement and the armed forces as well as LDPR that "are participating in the dangerous process of laying the foundations for the emergence of such a regime". The 2008 article by Umland states that "'fascism' is an apt description not only for particular documents produced by the LDPR but also, possibly, for Zhirinovsky’s worldview and for the basic doctrine of his party". And this already shows that such a label is disputed. One can just simply search for articles about LDPR and see that "fascist" or "fascism" is rarely used to describe the party, if they will ever even see such a label used, (I've already kindly provided numerous recent examples from RS that I quickly gathered from a search) so putting "fascism" in the infobox as if it is a majority viewpoint is not the way to do this. This would be much more complicated if it were the 1990s, but it is not the 90s anymore. Mellk (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with your position. I think it was very common to see all kinds of sources referring to the LDPR as "fascist" in the 1990s, but in the past decade they have overwhelmingly only been described as ultranationalist in both scholarly publications and popular media. I support removing "fascism" from the infobox. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Really this should be removed on the basis that it is weakly sourced. Mellk (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I think at the very least the neo-fascist views by Zhirinovsky should be mentioned in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that may be fair. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

text: i strongly object. The Shenfield article doesn’t just say fascists are one faction on the radical end of the party, it says “in the middle are individuals who, like zhironovsky himself, expound a mixture of national liberal and fascist ideas”. That says to me that the majority of members from across the party, including the leader and founder, espouse a mixture of ‘national liberal’ and fascist views. So the term fascism can definitely be used to describe the party’s ideology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.2.255 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, this again? Mellk (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally not obvious. Mellk (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

text: Just to be clear, you think that this should be removed from the infobox? Mellk (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Your choice, keep reverting and I'll take it to admins. Your bullish manner of editing and return to edit warring is disruptive. End of story. Bacondrum 22:59, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I only reverted a blocked user, which is a clear exemption. You are being disruptive and ignoring anything I have to say, after ignoring the issues I pointed out with the sourcing and other editors who disputed this inclusion. There was never any consensus to include this and the content is clearly disputed, but you still continually restore it and claim otherwise. With as many blocks as you have, I would not suggest to involve an admin because there would be a high chance of a boomerang. I will suggest to you to stop edit warring because you don't have any excuse to keep reinstating this sockpuppet's contribution. Mellk (talk) 06:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't actually stop you from doing anything, but I have given you fair warning that I will take it to admins if the constant reverting keeps up, I've opened an rfc which I encourage you to participate in and I've held back on going to the admins despite god knows how many reversions, because I'd really rather we just talked it out. I'd suggest the RfC below is a suitable place to discuss the claim and sourcing for it, but as I said, I can't actually stop you reverting yet again. Bacondrum 06:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What I was trying to say, is that I reverted the banned user which is an exemption to edit warring, so there would be no reason to waste an admin's time over that, I did not revert you and have no plans to do so because it would be pointless. I am just very much tired of this and having to deal with the other troll. You've opened a RfC, but it does not say anything about the infobox, which is what the dispute has been about, so I am confused. Mellk (talk) 07:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, removing the NPOV dispute tag is very much unacceptable, there is quite clearly an ongoing dispute. It tells you the conditions in when you can remove it. This is not a good look for you at all and linking the previous case at AN3 when there was no action taken does not help you.  Mellk (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology and Political Position