토론:통합 러시아

이 문서는 다음 위키프로젝트의 범위 안에 있습니다.

	이 문서는 러시아 관련 문서를 체계적으로 다루기 위한 위키프로젝트 러시아의 범위 안에 있습니다. 이 프로젝트에 참여하고 싶으시다면 프로젝트 문서를 방문해 주세요. 프로젝트의 목표와 편집 지침을 확인하거나 토론에 의견을 제시할 수 있습니다.
미평가	이 문서에 대한 문서 품질이 아직 평가되지 않았습니다.
최고	이 문서는 프로젝트 내에서 최고로 중요하게 여겨집니다.

	이 문서는 정치 관련 문서를 체계적으로 다루기 위한 위키프로젝트 정치의 범위 안에 있습니다. 이 프로젝트에 참여하고 싶으시다면 프로젝트 문서를 방문해 주세요. 프로젝트의 목표와 편집 지침을 확인하거나 토론에 의견을 제시할 수 있습니다.
미평가	이 문서에 대한 문서 품질이 아직 평가되지 않았습니다.
높음	이 문서는 프로젝트 내에서 중요하게 여겨집니다.

누가 통합 러시아당 로고 좀 추가해 주셨으면 합니다[편집]

안녕하세요, blueberryhill1804입니다. 제가 통합러시아당 로고를 넣었는데, 자꾸 로고 표시가 안되네요.. 200px라고만 뜨고요. 통합 러시아당 로고 좀 추가해 주시면 감사하겠습니다. Blueberryhill1804 (토론) 2015년 8월 11일 (화) 16:24 (KST)blueberryhill1804[답변]

정치적 스펙트럼[편집]

통합 러시아는 여러 정치 스펙트럼을 가진 정치인들을 포괄하는 포괄정당입니다. 따라서 정치 스펙트럼을 중도우파~우익으로 표시한 것은 적절하지 않다고 보입니다. 영어판의 관련 토론도 인용합니다. --117.53.77.84 (토론) 2015년 10월 18일 (일) 16:36 (KST)[답변]

=="Centre-right"? Preposterous==

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

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

I don't understand how Vladimir Putin's party could reasonably be called centrist, which is a term usually associated with for example liberal, green, always democratic, parties (whereas Putin's regime is the reason Russia is considered authoritarian in the Democracy Index, for example). We already have an article on Vladimir Putin's ideology (Putinism), which is clearly distinct from ideologies considered centrist in the rest of the world. I find it difficult to see how this party (which is perceived as authoritarian, see for example[1], [2]) could have anything in common with the parties usually referred to as centrist. Tataral (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Question of political position==

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

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

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

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

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

어차피 이념/정치노선 부분에 중도주의가 명시되어 있으니 아예 영어 위키백과처럼 정치적 스펙트럼 부분을 없앴으면 합니다. --Fnvedgnve (토론) 2015년 10월 18일 (일) 17:46 (KST)[답변]