This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of United Russia was copied or moved into Political parties in Russia with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving United Russia was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 December 2007. |
A news item involving United Russia was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 December 2011. |
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Единая Россия from the Russian Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
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.
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)
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)
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 respect Freepsbane ( 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.
[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.
[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)
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)
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)
80.235.111.150 ( talk) 08:03, 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 plataform Freepsbane ( talk) 18:09, 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)
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)
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)
I belive this is pure vandalism. Non-notable and non-reliable sources. Nanobear ( talk) 06:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Putin is not chairmen of United Russia, Putin is no even United Russia's member. -- Negve ( talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
If Putin is authoritarian and capitalist that is center-right to Right Wing, Example Taiwan pre-democracy or South Korea pre democracy. Saying that since it is related to Neo-Stalinism just for the sole reason that it is a dictatorship is just uneducated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.170.234 ( talk) 21:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
United Russia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
http://www.minjust.ru/common/img/uploaded/docs/2011.02.01_Edinaya_Rossiya_perechen.doc
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
ru:Партия власти isn't interlinked, I don't know how to translete it into English. Xx236 ( talk) 05:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
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)\
@
GrapefruitSculpin: Refer to the above or it's a case of
WP:IDHT. How can you seriously argue a right-wing position while at the same time having quality sources list the 'ideologies' as
"centrism" and "
big tent politics" (Cheng 2016)? And who are the sources of the direct quotes of party officials (sic)
?
Sergey Mironov, who has never been a member of United Russia in the first place. The two people quoted in the other 2 sources fall well short of being "party officials", so is this some sort of a bad joke?
And as per WP:BRD, since the stable revision dating to 31 Mar 2017 has either excluded the position field or listed "big tent", onus is on those insisting on a right-of-center classification to demonstrate their case. CaradhrasAiguo ( talk) 03:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.moledin.ru/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There has been a lot of blanking, restoring, and general protracted edit warring over the two fields over the last couple of months. Where edit summaries have been used, allusions are made to some sort of consensus on this talk page. Firstly, to only consensus ever reached is that any political positions or ideological stances must be reliably sourced. The positions added since any form of discussion took place briefly in 2015 and 2017 are all, in fact sourced, so this talk page should be used as it is intended. Any removal of sourced content must be discussed in order to deliberate over whether it is WP:DUE for the purposes of an infobox, and bearing in mind that an infobox serves as an 'at a glance' overview for the reader.
I've restored a reasonable, sourced version from May prior a mass elimination of sourced content was provided with a non-argument in an edit summary about some form about 'consensus'. The editor was following the history of unexplained blanking and reversion prior stepping in, and I understand that this was done in good faith, but no editors/users are in a position to guesstimate what 'consensus' is when content is sourced, and there is nothing to indicate an actual consensus agreed upon on the talk page, thank you. If any editors/users wish to table changes to any of the political descriptors, please bring your arguments (based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not " I don't like it/I like it arguments", thank you). I'd recommend that any issues with any single descriptor be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than trying to scrub the whole lot in one fell swoop. Cheers for your attention!
P.S. There is a likelihood that we'll come to similar conclusions as what is a reliable source and what is not, but can we please go through a formal process of discussion in order to establish whether consensus has changed or not. It may not be one of the more pleasurable aspects of editing, but transparency of process and re-establishing a position (or not) is part of the process of building articles. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Jeff6045: In my understanding, big tent and centrist do not describe ideologies, but rather positions on the political spectrum. The article Centrism clearly defines it as a "position", not an ideology. And "big tent" implies that a party includes a range of different ideologies or does not adher to a specific ideology. Therefore, it does not make sense to list "big tent" as an ideology. -- RJFF ( talk) 13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@ RJFF: Yes, but however in the articles about ANO 2011, Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) and DPS "big tent (catch-all)" is put in ideology section. Also, I think it is very odd to state the party's political spectrum as "centre to right-wing". Wouldn't it be better to just simply mentioning that the party has been observed as a centrist by some academic sources? For example, let's see the article about Centre Party (Norway). Even though the party has been observed as "populist" by international media (Bloomberg, FT, ABC News) it does not include "populism" in the ideology section. Instead it just simply mentions that the party has been described as populist since the leadership of Trygve Slagsvold Vedum. Jeff6045 ( talk) 13:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we considered United Russia left wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcisawesomeguy ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
(I'm not talking about the United Russia Ideologies of neo-fascism)
Rodionov Erel (
talk)
16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The article describes united russia's attitude to putin as follows: united russia supports the policies of incumbent president vladimir putin; despite not being the official leader of United russia, putin operates as its de facto leader. And it is true, because the party votes for all laws passed by the president, its members support the internal and external vectors of his rule, what make it a kind of puppet of putin. Members of united russia control the government and parliament, so the party is directly related to all of the following. General components of fascism are the cult of personality - we observe the cult of personality of putin, because from the above, it is concluded that he controls almost all power in the country; militarism - we observe constant increase in military power of russia; totalitarianism - we see that people who disagree with the regime are arrested at rallies - everything has come to the point that eyewitnesses say that they are afraid to go to rallies to express their opinion - in totalitarianism there is a main figure (putin), dictatorship and terror (see below), imperialism - an example is the invasion of Ukraine; the idea of unity, mobilization of nation and state against enemies. The main components of neo-fascism is terrorism - use or threat of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal. russia is bombing churches, schools, hospitals, other civilian facilities and infrastructure that are vulnerable in Ukraine. This is terrorism. russia also threatens nuclear weapons, which is also terrorism. Pressuring civilians in russia and Ukraine is violence, and it is also terrorism. And members of united russia are involved in all of this. Block Baby ( talk) 20:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
[W]e observe the cult of personality of [P]utin, because from the above, it is concluded that he controls almost all power in the country;
militarism - we observe constant increase in military power of russia
totalitarianism - we see that people who disagree with the regime are arrested at rallies - everything has come to the point that eyewitnesses say that they are afraid to go to rallies to express their opinion
The main components of neo-fascism is terrorism - use or threat of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal. [R]ussia is bombing churches, schools, hospitals, other civilian facilities and infrastructure that are vulnerable in Ukraine. This is terrorism.
You couldn’t deny militarism, terrorism, the idea of unity, mobilization of nation and state against enemies, imperialism. You also acknowledged that the party is dictatorial, autocratic and authoritarian. As for "parties self-describe as such", they recognize most of the above. It would be appropriate to add the ideology russian fascism, it is fully relevant to the topic under discussion. Also, given the above, it would be possible to add other right-wing extreme ideologies that would fit. What ideologies would in your opinion would be suitable? Block Baby ( talk) 12:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
militarism, terrorism, the idea of unity, mobilization of nation and state against enemies, imperialism, I would encourage you to find one political scientist that would argue, in any capacity, that these features are enough to classify them as fascist, especially as these features are arguably shared to some extent by all conservative parties (see Militarism in the United States). Also, I've never seen a UR member referring to themselves as proponents of
militarism, terrorism,(...)imperialism.
Hello! I happened to notice that the ideology list seems to be incomplete as from multiple other Wikipedia pages and sources it says "Putinism", is the primary ideology. There are also no relevant sources that correctly explain how the party is a big tent, as it supports Russian Imperialism and Statism, you can look on their own website ; https://er.ru/, these stances are nationalist and far-right in nature. Therefore the position must be labeled "far-right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by QIJN2428 ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
Should statism and authoritarianism be merged? Or should there be a general simplification to make the ideological standings of the party simpler or shorter 176.72.35.230 ( talk) 15:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I think "Fascism" (atleast labeled as "Alleged") would be correct. 2A02:3030:81A:A517:1:0:14C3:9198 ( talk) 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
its blatant and sourced {{ref> https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/beyond-putin-russian-imperialism-is-the-no-1-threat-to-global-security/</ref> [1] [2] [3] [4] 82.14.227.184 ( talk) 20:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
Designating YeR as affiliated with EPP seems highly questionable at least. YeR attended an EPP party congress according to the linked source. The second source claims the party was "was accepted into the "European People's Party"", for which no other source can be found and which seems more like a misinterpretation/translation as it reports about the same congress that YeR representatives attended. Nonetheless, YeR was never member of the party itself, and at least from what I can tell from other articles at first glance of parties without formal europarty membership (such as French Renaissance - via Renew Europe "affiliated" with ALDE, and Renaissance attended an ALDE congress as well, but has formally no europarty affiliation), such loose contacts without any formal membership aren't mentioned in any party infobox. The attendance at the EPP congress can be added to the international relations section, but unless anyone objects, I would remove it from the infobox. -- Jamaika-Koalition ( talk) 21:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
It’s has many far right elements Usydydjwhxyxhx ( talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Can we change it's position to "Centre-right to right-wing". The currently sources describe the party like that. Altough historically it had been described as a centrist party. Hidolo ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Text and/or other creative content from this version of United Russia was copied or moved into Political parties in Russia with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving United Russia was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 December 2007. |
A news item involving United Russia was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 December 2011. |
This article was edited to contain a total or partial translation of Единая Россия from the Russian Wikipedia. Consult the history of the original page to see a list of its authors. |
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.
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)
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)
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 respect Freepsbane ( 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.
[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.
[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)
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)
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)
80.235.111.150 ( talk) 08:03, 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 plataform Freepsbane ( talk) 18:09, 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)
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)
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)
I belive this is pure vandalism. Non-notable and non-reliable sources. Nanobear ( talk) 06:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Putin is not chairmen of United Russia, Putin is no even United Russia's member. -- Negve ( talk) 18:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
If Putin is authoritarian and capitalist that is center-right to Right Wing, Example Taiwan pre-democracy or South Korea pre democracy. Saying that since it is related to Neo-Stalinism just for the sole reason that it is a dictatorship is just uneducated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.170.234 ( talk) 21:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
United Russia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
http://www.minjust.ru/common/img/uploaded/docs/2011.02.01_Edinaya_Rossiya_perechen.doc
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
ru:Партия власти isn't interlinked, I don't know how to translete it into English. Xx236 ( talk) 05:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
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)\
@
GrapefruitSculpin: Refer to the above or it's a case of
WP:IDHT. How can you seriously argue a right-wing position while at the same time having quality sources list the 'ideologies' as
"centrism" and "
big tent politics" (Cheng 2016)? And who are the sources of the direct quotes of party officials (sic)
?
Sergey Mironov, who has never been a member of United Russia in the first place. The two people quoted in the other 2 sources fall well short of being "party officials", so is this some sort of a bad joke?
And as per WP:BRD, since the stable revision dating to 31 Mar 2017 has either excluded the position field or listed "big tent", onus is on those insisting on a right-of-center classification to demonstrate their case. CaradhrasAiguo ( talk) 03:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.moledin.ru/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
There has been a lot of blanking, restoring, and general protracted edit warring over the two fields over the last couple of months. Where edit summaries have been used, allusions are made to some sort of consensus on this talk page. Firstly, to only consensus ever reached is that any political positions or ideological stances must be reliably sourced. The positions added since any form of discussion took place briefly in 2015 and 2017 are all, in fact sourced, so this talk page should be used as it is intended. Any removal of sourced content must be discussed in order to deliberate over whether it is WP:DUE for the purposes of an infobox, and bearing in mind that an infobox serves as an 'at a glance' overview for the reader.
I've restored a reasonable, sourced version from May prior a mass elimination of sourced content was provided with a non-argument in an edit summary about some form about 'consensus'. The editor was following the history of unexplained blanking and reversion prior stepping in, and I understand that this was done in good faith, but no editors/users are in a position to guesstimate what 'consensus' is when content is sourced, and there is nothing to indicate an actual consensus agreed upon on the talk page, thank you. If any editors/users wish to table changes to any of the political descriptors, please bring your arguments (based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, not " I don't like it/I like it arguments", thank you). I'd recommend that any issues with any single descriptor be dealt with on a case by case basis rather than trying to scrub the whole lot in one fell swoop. Cheers for your attention!
P.S. There is a likelihood that we'll come to similar conclusions as what is a reliable source and what is not, but can we please go through a formal process of discussion in order to establish whether consensus has changed or not. It may not be one of the more pleasurable aspects of editing, but transparency of process and re-establishing a position (or not) is part of the process of building articles. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:20, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Jeff6045: In my understanding, big tent and centrist do not describe ideologies, but rather positions on the political spectrum. The article Centrism clearly defines it as a "position", not an ideology. And "big tent" implies that a party includes a range of different ideologies or does not adher to a specific ideology. Therefore, it does not make sense to list "big tent" as an ideology. -- RJFF ( talk) 13:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
@ RJFF: Yes, but however in the articles about ANO 2011, Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) and DPS "big tent (catch-all)" is put in ideology section. Also, I think it is very odd to state the party's political spectrum as "centre to right-wing". Wouldn't it be better to just simply mentioning that the party has been observed as a centrist by some academic sources? For example, let's see the article about Centre Party (Norway). Even though the party has been observed as "populist" by international media (Bloomberg, FT, ABC News) it does not include "populism" in the ideology section. Instead it just simply mentions that the party has been described as populist since the leadership of Trygve Slagsvold Vedum. Jeff6045 ( talk) 13:47, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we considered United Russia left wing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcisawesomeguy ( talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
(I'm not talking about the United Russia Ideologies of neo-fascism)
Rodionov Erel (
talk)
16:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The article describes united russia's attitude to putin as follows: united russia supports the policies of incumbent president vladimir putin; despite not being the official leader of United russia, putin operates as its de facto leader. And it is true, because the party votes for all laws passed by the president, its members support the internal and external vectors of his rule, what make it a kind of puppet of putin. Members of united russia control the government and parliament, so the party is directly related to all of the following. General components of fascism are the cult of personality - we observe the cult of personality of putin, because from the above, it is concluded that he controls almost all power in the country; militarism - we observe constant increase in military power of russia; totalitarianism - we see that people who disagree with the regime are arrested at rallies - everything has come to the point that eyewitnesses say that they are afraid to go to rallies to express their opinion - in totalitarianism there is a main figure (putin), dictatorship and terror (see below), imperialism - an example is the invasion of Ukraine; the idea of unity, mobilization of nation and state against enemies. The main components of neo-fascism is terrorism - use or threat of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal. russia is bombing churches, schools, hospitals, other civilian facilities and infrastructure that are vulnerable in Ukraine. This is terrorism. russia also threatens nuclear weapons, which is also terrorism. Pressuring civilians in russia and Ukraine is violence, and it is also terrorism. And members of united russia are involved in all of this. Block Baby ( talk) 20:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
[W]e observe the cult of personality of [P]utin, because from the above, it is concluded that he controls almost all power in the country;
militarism - we observe constant increase in military power of russia
totalitarianism - we see that people who disagree with the regime are arrested at rallies - everything has come to the point that eyewitnesses say that they are afraid to go to rallies to express their opinion
The main components of neo-fascism is terrorism - use or threat of violence to achieve a political, religious or ideological goal. [R]ussia is bombing churches, schools, hospitals, other civilian facilities and infrastructure that are vulnerable in Ukraine. This is terrorism.
You couldn’t deny militarism, terrorism, the idea of unity, mobilization of nation and state against enemies, imperialism. You also acknowledged that the party is dictatorial, autocratic and authoritarian. As for "parties self-describe as such", they recognize most of the above. It would be appropriate to add the ideology russian fascism, it is fully relevant to the topic under discussion. Also, given the above, it would be possible to add other right-wing extreme ideologies that would fit. What ideologies would in your opinion would be suitable? Block Baby ( talk) 12:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
militarism, terrorism, the idea of unity, mobilization of nation and state against enemies, imperialism, I would encourage you to find one political scientist that would argue, in any capacity, that these features are enough to classify them as fascist, especially as these features are arguably shared to some extent by all conservative parties (see Militarism in the United States). Also, I've never seen a UR member referring to themselves as proponents of
militarism, terrorism,(...)imperialism.
Hello! I happened to notice that the ideology list seems to be incomplete as from multiple other Wikipedia pages and sources it says "Putinism", is the primary ideology. There are also no relevant sources that correctly explain how the party is a big tent, as it supports Russian Imperialism and Statism, you can look on their own website ; https://er.ru/, these stances are nationalist and far-right in nature. Therefore the position must be labeled "far-right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by QIJN2428 ( talk • contribs) 01:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
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)
Should statism and authoritarianism be merged? Or should there be a general simplification to make the ideological standings of the party simpler or shorter 176.72.35.230 ( talk) 15:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I think "Fascism" (atleast labeled as "Alleged") would be correct. 2A02:3030:81A:A517:1:0:14C3:9198 ( talk) 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
its blatant and sourced {{ref> https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/beyond-putin-russian-imperialism-is-the-no-1-threat-to-global-security/</ref> [1] [2] [3] [4] 82.14.227.184 ( talk) 20:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
References
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)
Designating YeR as affiliated with EPP seems highly questionable at least. YeR attended an EPP party congress according to the linked source. The second source claims the party was "was accepted into the "European People's Party"", for which no other source can be found and which seems more like a misinterpretation/translation as it reports about the same congress that YeR representatives attended. Nonetheless, YeR was never member of the party itself, and at least from what I can tell from other articles at first glance of parties without formal europarty membership (such as French Renaissance - via Renew Europe "affiliated" with ALDE, and Renaissance attended an ALDE congress as well, but has formally no europarty affiliation), such loose contacts without any formal membership aren't mentioned in any party infobox. The attendance at the EPP congress can be added to the international relations section, but unless anyone objects, I would remove it from the infobox. -- Jamaika-Koalition ( talk) 21:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
It’s has many far right elements Usydydjwhxyxhx ( talk) 19:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
Can we change it's position to "Centre-right to right-wing". The currently sources describe the party like that. Altough historically it had been described as a centrist party. Hidolo ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)