Talk:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia

Edit warring

@Caretaker John: Since you seem to believe that WP:CON does not apply to you, where in the article does it say that LDPR "was intentionally set up by the KGB at the end of the Soviet Union to act as a false opposition party which corralled right-wing voters" where this is apparently "maintained" by a "high-ranking former member of the Politburo"? You are claiming that this "just summarises what's ALREADY said in the article" (in your own words). Mellk (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Thinking WP:CON "doesn't apply to me" has nothing to do with this particular debate as the content we're both alluding to has, as I've said several times, been a long standing part of the article and a consensus for its inclusion has already been formed, I merely summarised it a bit in the lead. In answer to your question, it already states in the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia#Alleged creation as false opposition party section (you can check for yourself):

According to former Politburo member Alexander Yakovlev, the new party was a joint project of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) leadership and the KGB. He described how KGB director Vladimir Kryuchkov presented the project of the puppet party at a meeting with Gorbachev and informed him about his selection of leaders and the mechanism of funding. Former KGB General Philipp Bobkov described the organization as "Zubatov's pseudo-party under KGB control that directs interests and sentiments of certain social groups".

Even if you want to change the wording slightly, a summary of that would still say pretty much the same thing. Caretaker John (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mellk (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: You added to the lede (which I deem to be OR), I removed it, however you insisted on edit warring and undid my reverts. What you added to the lede is not a "long standing part of the article", there was no consensus to include what what you added to the lede. You did not seek consensus to have the edit you made in the lede included. You did not summarise what was in the article, where in the article does it say that "it is believed" that LDPR is a "false opposition party" that "corralled right-wing voters". Where is right-wing voters being coralled ever mentioned? You made that conclusion yourself and it is not supported by sources. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: Again, you're making the same kind of edits that I disputed. You've been a user for just a single day. Mellk (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk: well I'm sorry if you have been led to believe that the number of days someone has been an editor for determines what can and can't be in an article. I won't be intimidated by you, thank you. Let's have a look at the reliable source evidence and see how it should be most appropriately worded:

• "In 1991 the LDRP ended the Communist Party's monopoly by becoming the first of the new parties to be legally registered. Its credentials as a genuine opposition party have been questioned – ex-Politburo member Alexander Yakovlev claimed the party was instigated by the KGB"; https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2014/545703/EPRS_ATA(2014)545703_REV1_EN.pdf (source already used in article)
• "At that time, Zhirinovsky was still a willing tool of the changing masters of the Kremlin. In 1991 the Russian intelligence service, the KGB, played a major role in the establishment of the LDPR, which Zhirinovsky has led ever since. The artificial party was launched by the Communist rulers of the day in an effort to channel the votes of the disadvantaged and the disappointed"; https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/zhirinovsky-s-follies-nuclear-threats-and-busty-ladies-in-the-race-for-second-place-in-russia-a-538403.html
• "The latest volley against Zhirinovsky came from the respected reformist mayor of St. Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak, who alleged in a recent interview with a Russian newspaper that Zhirinovsky was a "reserve" KGB captain who created the LDP in 1990 at the behest of his bosses." "There are three undeniable facts: First, intelligence reports claim that the KGB was busily looking for agents to form political parties once it was clear then-President Mikhail Gorbachev was going to allow multiple parties. Second, the LDP became the first party to register with the Soviet Justice Ministry, although Zhirinovsky had few supporters at the time and lacked the 5,000 signatures that the law required. These laws were waived for Zhirinovsky. Third, within months, several key supporters in the LDP leadership quit the party, claiming Zhirinovsky was a KGB agent. A 1991 letter to Russia's procurator general, Vladimir Bogachev, who leads a party that split from the LDP, also accused Zhirinovsky of KGB ties". "According to the CIA profile, past and present KGB/Russian espionage officials have helped the LDP with money, organizational support, party workers and even the beginnings of an internal "security service."; https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1994/01/31/shadows-from-zhirinovskys-past/e6b8e45a-43e3-4438-80d1-28084166e6e1/
• , Yakovlev's book states that KGB director Vladimir Kryuchkov presented the project of the puppet party at a meeting with Gorbachev and informed him about his selection of leaders and the mechanism of funding. Former KGB General Philipp Bobkov described the organization as "Zubatov's pseudo-party under KGB control that directs interests and sentiments of certain social groups"
• "It was allegedly established as a false opposition party by the KGB, to corral ultra right-wing voters, according to a former high-ranking Soviet official"; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vFOSh77Mc8(YouTube videos are fine if they are published by verified, reliable news organisations, as they inherit their reliablity)

What is so confusing about this? The sources make clear it was created as an artificial, puppet party by the KGB and CPSU. Bearing in mind this was already stated in the article before I started editing it today, I don't see what the problem is. Caretaker John (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk: how do these sources not corroborate this line in the lead: "It is believed that the party was intentionally set up by the KGB at the end of the Soviet Union to act as a false opposition party, as maintained by a high-ranking former member of the Politburo." Caretaker John (talk) 21:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: As I've already told you, you are treating allegations as fact. Your own video you used says "it was allegedly established as a false opposition party" (referring to said allegation) but you decided to remove "allegedly" since it fits the POV you're trying to push. "Its credentials as a genuine opposition party have been questioned" does not mean it is saying "it's a fake opposition party", and notice how it says "claimed" when referring to said allegation? "...Anatoly Sobchak, who alleged..." is quite obviously referring to an allegation. Not to mention the usage of primary sources here. The only one confused here is you. Mellk (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk: well no, I'm just trying to provide a balanced summary. Okay so you want the word alleged in there, that's fine, lets try and see if we can agree on a balanced text. I propose for the intro we write:

It is alleged that the party was intentionally set up by the KGB at the end of the Soviet Union to act as an artificial opposition party, as maintained by a high-ranking former member of the Politburo.

And then for the "creation" section, under a title of something like "Alleged KGB and CSPU foundation", we write:

According to former Politburo member Alexander Yakovlev, the new party was a joint project of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) leadership and the KGB. He described how KGB director Vladimir Kryuchkov presented the project of the puppet party at a meeting with Gorbachev and informed him about his selection of leaders and the mechanism of funding. Former KGB General Philipp Bobkov described the organization as "Zubatov's pseudo-party under KGB control that directs interests and sentiments of certain social groups.

Similar to as it was before. Do you have any particular objections to this wording, and if so, could you explain why and state what you think the wording should be?

@Caretaker John: What you added to the lede is undue. Creating a separate subsection called "Involvement of CPSU and KGB in founding as a puppet party" or whatever is not appropriate. The paragraph you proposed is simply the old paragraph. I reworded it because I took at look at the book and what it said was not in line with what was actually said. Mellk (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, lets remove the separate title Involvement of CPSU and KGB in founding as a puppet party" then and just put it under creation. I don't understand how you can say to include that line in theis undue, a lead should summarise the article. Are you saying that allegations that the party was an artificial creation by the KGB are not notable? Caretaker John (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: The lede summarises the most important parts (MOS:LEAD). I don't consider this particular allegation (an old one) important enough to include in the lede, especially since it is only referring to the creation of the Liberal Democratic Party of the Soviet Union, a predecessor party from over 30 years ago. It's fine to mention its general loyality to the Kremlin as this has always been the case with the party. Mellk (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk: there, I've attempted to neutralise the text and made clear they are allegations, adding a couple of reliable sources. Well I just am going to have to disagree with you there, the two parties are essentially the same in all but name (just that it got renamed after the end of the USSR). It may well be an old allegation but if its true it obviously still has very serious ramifications in the present day, especially as Zhirinovsky is still in charge. It's not like the lead is overly long anyway so I must insist it remains, I'd advise you to come to terms with the line in the intro if you are interested in the neutrality of the article. Caretaker John (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: It is the main successor to the LDPSU but it doesn't change the fact that the Soviet Union dissolved, that the KGB and the CPSU seized to exist, and that a new, genuine multi-party political system was introduced by the time the LDP of Russia was created. The CPRF is basically a continuation of the CPSU, but it would be silly to include everything from the old party to the new party. It also doesn't matter if you disagree with me, you did not get consensus to include this. Mellk (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

"Fascism"

@Caretaker John: Since I expect another edit war without consensus, I must remind you of WP:UNDUE, an important part of WP:NPOV. Just because you find RS that say one thing, doesn't mean you can treat it as the majority viewpoint. I gave you the example of National Rally. I can find RS that describe it as fascist or neo-fascist (including in Britannica), that does not mean I can simply add fascism. LDPR is seldom described as fascist in RS, otherwise it would've had fascism long ago. Mellk (talk) 23:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Moreover, you are making edits not accurately reflecting what is said in the source. The Britannica article for example does not explicitly describe LDPR as being a fascist party, you just assumed this. It said that LDPR was a rival moment in the extreme-right (overtaking Pamyat), while it refers to Zhirinovsky as a fascist, not LDPR. With Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies and Movements, from what I can see, it debates on Zhirinovsky's views (and it focuses on Zhirinovsky), with Shenfield summing up: "I have argued that Zhirinovsky is a highly opportunistic populist politician, but one with a definite, albeit less than fully coherent, ideological orientation. The basic structure of his ideology is liberal, tending in some respects in the direction of what in the West would be called 'social democracy'. However, not only is this liberalism of an old-fashioned national and imperial kind, but it is severely infected in certain areas with ideas originating in a fascist or semi-fascist milieu. The result is a nationalist and imperialist ideology of a composite liberal-fascist character". Can you tell me where exactly it describes LDPR as fascist? Since you didn't include any quotes or page numbers. Mellk (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mellk: do you have access to academic journals, e.g. through JSTOR? Caretaker John (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: Yes. I don't see the mentioned book as available on JSTOR, so I don't understand the relevance of that question? Mellk (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Good, then you will know that there are multiple reliable, academic sources that have been published over a wide range of time that have asserted that Zhirinovsky and his party are of fascist ideology - many of which are focused studies of the party’s ideology itself.

Let’s look at the sources that Wikipedia gives the highest endorsement of: academic, peer-reviewed studies. Perhaps the best one of all is: "Zhirinovsky's Last Thrust to the South and the Definition of Fascism" by the long-respected historian of Russia Andreas Umland, published in 2008 in Russian Politics & Law: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2753/RUP1061-1940460402. The study focuses on Zhironovsky's founding ideals for the party, and in his conclusion on pages 38-39, he writes:

It cannot be doubted that the central ideological elements in some of Zhirinovsky’s most important works have both clearly ultranationalist and unambiguously palingenetic features. Consequently, the qualifier “fascist” (as understood by Griffin) is applicable to them—at least with respect to the period at which these documents were drafted and published.

And his final words are:

the category “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.

But this is by far not the only academic source that comes to this conclusion. You've also got Andreas Umland's 2010 article "The Fascism of Vladimir Zhirinovskii: Political Religion and the Rise of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia in the Early 1990s", published in Religion Compass, which states at the very start "This paper applies the concept of generic fascism to post-Soviet Russia’s leading extremely right-wing, so-called Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia founded in 1989, and, since then, under the leadership of Vladimir Zhirinovskii". It concludes on page 767: "In the light of its specificity, Zhirinovskii’s case can be used to introduce a new variety of palingenetic ultra-national-ism, i.e. to formulate a new sub-species of generic fascism that might be labelled ‘revolu-tionary ethno-imperialism’". Then, you've got Umland's article "Zhirinovskii as a Fascist: Palingenetic Ultra-Nationalism and the Emergence of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia in 1992-93" in Forum für osteuropäische Ideen -und Zeitgeschichte, published in 2010. It states:

The aim of this paper is to challenge the ruling of the Tver Inter Municipal Court, and to argue that it is possible and useful to classify the central thrust of Zhirinovskii's major political writing at that point – his book The Last Dash to the South (Zhirinovskii 1993) – as a fascist doctrine. Indeed, as should emerge below, other labelling such as "patriotic," "imperialist," "conservative," "nationalist" or "expansionist" would, with reference to Zhirinovskii’s blueprint outlined in his major book, be either insufficient or misleading. Only "fascism" seems to be a concept which adequately captures, from a comparative point of view, the core impetus of the political agenda exposed in The Last Dash to the South (Zhirinovskii 1993).

And he maintains that Zhirinovsky's party follows these ideological "blueprints".

Additionally, there are two joint studies by political scientist Steffen Kailitz and Umland, which are "Why fascists took over the Reichstag but have not captured the Kremlin: a comparison of Weimar Germany and post-Soviet Russia" published in Cambridge Nationalities Papers, 2017; and "Why the Fascists Won't Take Over the Kremlin (for Now): A Comparison of Democracy's Breakdown and Fascism's Rise in Weimar Germany and Post-Soviet Russia", published in SSRN Electronic Journal, 2009. In the former, it is asserted on page 210:

While often laughed at, the LDPR is not only a fascist, but also the only fascist actor worthy of detailed consideration in Russia.

The latter states on page 27: "One could also mention that the major Russian fascist party, the LDPR, was, among others, different from the NSDAP in that Zhirinovskii has been – for a variety of reasons – acting (or forced to act) more opportunistically than Hitler who, at times, was remarkably stubborn in defending his idiosyncratic political stance and confrontational public behavior."

You've also got Andreas Umland's article "Zhirinovsky in the First Russian Republic: A Chronology of Events 1991–1993", published in Slavic Military Studies in 2006, which points out that the party itself published openly fascist literature, such as (page 208) in 1992 with the "printing of first number of the openly pro-fascist newspaper Sokol Zhirinovskogo".

Outside of Umland and Kailitz, there are multiple other academics who maintain the LDPR has, at least partly, fascist ideology. Some examples are as follows:

• An excellent overview of the factions inside the LDPR is given in Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements by Stephen Shenfield, 2001. An example of his conclusions is on page 100-101:

The information available on the ideological positions of LDPR figures is far from complete, but the general character of the intra-party ideological spectrum is clear enough. At one end of a continuum, we find groups and individuals with unmistakably fascist views and connections, who strive to turn the LDPR into a more consistently fascist organization. At the other end of the continuum, there are groups and individuals whose views fully correspond to the doctrine of “national liberalism”. In the middle are individuals who, like Zhirinovsky himself, expound a mixture of national-liberal and fascist ideas.

• Another good overview is provided in the book Zhirinovsky Russian Fascism And The Making Of A Dictator by Russians Vladimir Solovyov and Elena Klepikova, published 1995.
• "Social and Sociopsychological Prerequisites of Fascism", K. G. Kholodkovskii, Russian Politics & Law, 1996. On page 51: "In Russia, Nazi or fascist organizations of varying sorts, still marginal, and patrons of fascists within the armed forces, including lawenforcement organizations, as well as the “parliamentary” and “loyal to the Constitution” LDPR [Liberal Democratic Party of Russia] are participating in the dangerous process of laying the foundations for the emergence of such a regime".
• In “New Contours of Russian Fascization” by Petr Kaznacheev, published 1999 in Russian Politics & Law, he labels the party on page 51-52 as “a pro-fascist party”.
• Yuri Korgunuyuk, “Populist tactics and populist rhetoric in political parties of Post-Soviet Russia”, Sociedade e Cultura, Vol. 13, 2010. On page 234: “Many researchers classify the LDPR as nationalists. We can agree with this, given that the party adheres to rigid conservative and imperialist positions. But it is also necessary to take into account that nationalists are understood in present-day Russia as proponents of ethnic nationalism and racism first of all. Parties of such orientation are called ‘right extremists’, ‘fascist’, and ‘neo-fascist’ in Western democracies.”
• James A. Janack, “Vladimir Zhirinovsky: the clown prince of Russia Citation metadata”. Controversia, Vol. 3, 2005. Describes in his intro on page 13 how the LDPR is “led by neo-fascist Vladimir Volfovich Zhirinovsky”.

So we have a number of respected academics who provide reliable sources that, at least in part, ascribe the term fascism to the ideologies of the LDPR. To state that this is a tiny, minority view really does not stand up to proper historical analysis, not least because these descriptions of the party as fascist have also been repeated by reliable news media sources, or been given recognition in them. Examples include:

• https://www.irishtimes.com/news/yeltsin-in-message-of-support-to-neo-fascist-1.146552
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Russia: “several fascist groups emerged in Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991… One of these movements was the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia”.
• https://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/17/opinion/abroad-at-home-when-you-appease-fascism.html
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vFOSh77Mc8
• https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/fascist-threat-or-court-jester-1335944.html
• https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2013/10/27/chechen-ldpr-breaks-with-national-organization-over-zhirinovsky-comments-a28970

Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and should not be cited for facts, but since you want to do this in the case of the National Rally, I would bring your attention to the fact that the lead on the Political positions of Vladimir Zhirinovsky article makes clear that his views have been accused of being fascist. Same with the Vladimir Zhironovsky article.

The WP:Undue policy states: “Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” “Articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.” It also states “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.” It also provides a guideline for how to define undue weight, stating:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

As a result, the following points are relevant:

• 1) To exclude the position of ‘fascism’, as applied by some to the party, from the list of ideologies on the Wiki article for the LDPR would be to not fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published in reliable sources.
• 2) Whilst this viewpoint may be considered by some users to be a minority viewpoint, that does not mean it should be excluded altogether, as the policy merley states that such viewpoints should not be given as much of a description as more widely help viewpoints – it does not state that they should be ignored or excluded altogether.
• 3) To determine proper weight, we consider a viewpoint’s prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. Well, you as an editor have insisted the content should be removed simply with the justification that, in your opinion, “he is rarely called fascist”, a claim which you have not supported any evidence for, meaning that your claim should not be given prominence considering it is apparently just the view of ‘Wikipedia editors or the general public’.
• 4) A way of telling if a viewpoint is held by a significant minority is by being able to easily name prominent adherents, and that is easily possible in this case as the most prominent adherents are clearly the political scientists Andreas Umland and Steffen Kailitz.

So, in review, here is my response to your previous points and actions:

• “This is a minority viewpoint and most sources don't describe the party as fascist”. Perhaps so, but as has been shown, it is a significant enough minority to be recognised, with the undue policy specifically outlining that all significant viewpoints should be accounted for, including those of a significant minority, and certainly does NOT state that all minority viewpoints should be ignored and excluded.
• Starting a talk page discussion in the same section as our previous discussion on a completely different matter is completely inappropriate and is a case of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, since you are assuming that, as you alleged in previous edits, I am adding undue content in the same way.
• “Just because you find RS that say one thing, doesn't mean you can treat it as the majority viewpoint” – I never actually said that it was a ‘majority’ viewpoint, I said that there is enough reliable sources that ascribe the term fascism to at least some factions of the party. This has been shown to be the case with the academic sources I’ve provided, so furthermore, I haven’t just found one reliable source saying one thing.
• “I gave you the example of National Rally” – other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and Wikipedia guidelines state that they should not be used to verify facts on other articles. The National Rally is a completely different party, in a completely different country (France), in a completely different culture and area of the world. We’re talking about the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia here, not the National Rally, and we’re analysing THIS party.
• “The Britannica article for example does not explicitly describe LDPR as being a fascist party, you just assumed this”. No I didn’t, the page, which is titled Fascism – Russia, starts off by saying “several fascist groups emerged in Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991” and then asserts that “One of these movements was the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia”.”
• “It refers to Zhirinovsky as a fascist, not LDPR”, as I have shown in these academic sources, Zhirinovsky – the party founder and leader since 1989 and the incumbent – and the ideological views of the LDPR have been discussed interchangeably, since the party is seen as a political vehicle for Zhironovsky. Furthermore, as we have seen, both the party and Zhironovsky have been described as fascist in reliable sources
• “With Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies and Movements, from what I can see, it debates on Zhirinovsky's views… Can you tell me where exactly it describes LDPR as fascist?” Yes, I’ve given you two pages now where he gives an overview of all the factions inside the party in the devoted chapter on the Liberal democratic Party of Russia, in which he states there are fascist and non fascist parts.

As a result, it is clear that the term ‘fascism’ should be included on the list of ideologies ascribed to the party. Such a claim would be based on multiple academic sources, which is more than can be said for some of the already existing ideological positions listed in the summary box. I do look forward to you explaining why we should completely ignore and exclude all these academic sources. Caretaker John (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Mellk (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: I never said this should be ignored, I very clearly said that it shouldn't be treated as a majority viewpoint. Okay, you gave Umland and Kailitz as examples of academics who consider the party fascist. But some of your examples aren't supporting this idea. Characterising the party as fascist in the infobox because there are fascists "at one end of a continuum" is a bit silly — do you think it would make sense to also include national liberalism because "at the other end of the continuum, there are groups and individuals whose views fully correspond to the doctrine of 'national liberalism.'? Ideology should reflect the general ideology of the party, not certain factions or elements. This is a strange argument. With Populist Tactics and Populist Rhetoric in Political Parties of Post-Soviet Russia, it states: "Many researchers classify the LDPR as nationalists. We can agree with this, given that the party adheres to rigid conservative and imperialist positions". Rather than describing the party as fascist, it says that such parties are "called" fascist in "Western democracies". Not the same thing as considering the party to be fascist. With Vladimir Zhirinovsky: The Clown Prince of Russia, your quote says that it is "led by neo-fascist" Zhirinovsky rather than explicitly describing LDPR as neo-fascist. Yes, you say that the party is a "political vehicle" of his views, but this is more original research rather than following what a source says.

With the Britannica page you brought up again, I don't see how it refers to LDPR as a fascist group, it seems like you are making this assumption. You also need to get the context rather than jumping from the first sentence to the fourth paragraph: "Although Pamyat had a near monopoly on the extreme right in 1987–88, by 1991 it had been overtaken by rival movements. One of these movements was the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia (Liberalno-Demokraticheskaya Partiya Rossi; LDPR), led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky." As it says, this is referring to rival moments in the "extreme right". In other Britannica articles, it is referred to as ultranationalist with no mention of fascism. In regards to this example (which doesn't explicitly refer to LDPR as fascist), this is an opinion piece and would likely not be considered a reliable source for factual information, per WP:RSEDITORIAL. Again, this also doesn't describe LDPR as fascist. I don't see how giving the idea "recognition" makes this any better. Same with this, it just quotes the Chechen LDPR which is referring to Zhirinovsky. Donald Trump for example had a lot of the same "fascist" debate and labelling, that doesn't help.

So your evidence doesn't support the idea that this is a majority viewpoint, not even close. As you are the one trying to add this to the article, it should be you to prove that this is a significant viewpoint. What you added, which I reverted, was overall weakly supported by the sources you included. And to add to my point, there are plenty of other RS that simply refer to the party as nationalist/ultranationalist and do not label it as fascist. For example, BBC News says that the party has "generally been careful not to cross the line into openly nationalist rhetoric" and calls it ultra-nationalist rather than something like fascist. More importantly, it also states that the party's and Zhirinovsky's views have changed over the years, so this is something that should be also be considered. Same with the NYT, The Guardian (and again and again), the FT, The Moscow Times and so on. Just a few quick examples. I can give heaps more examples if you really want.

I know you didn't claim it was a majority viewpoint, but as I explicitly said, to me you treated it as one. Also, I referred to National Rally not as a RS but as an example for WP:UNDUE (as I very clearly said). Since to me you seemed to be unfamiliar with the policy. I'm not sure what how you thought otherwise.

And again, I am not saying that the characterisation of LDPR as fascist is a niche viewpoint that should be ignored, I never said that and I clearly said that it should not be treated as a majority viewpoint. I believe it is a minority viewpoint where it wouldn't make sense to add fascism to the infobox as if it is the majority viewpoint. As you just quoted: "Articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". Per WP:UNDUE, simply adding fascism to the infobox is giving it the same weight as the other examples (though Euroscepticism and Pan-Slavism are very weakly sourced and should probably be removed). However, since there are enough RS that describe it as such, it may be possible to briefly mention this in the lede that the party has been described as fascist or neo-fascist, or add to the policies section. Mellk (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

By saying that we should exclude the term from the ideology section, you are effectively saying that it should be ignored. The issue at hand is whether fascism can be ascribed to the party's ideology, so no, it would not suffice to include it in the 'policy' section as we are talking about an ideology here not a policy position. Fascism is not a policy position, it is an ideology. The lead is there to summarise the article as a whole, there would be no point of including it in the lead and not in the article. If it is worthy of being in the lead then it is worthy of being mentioned in the article as a whole.

Please avoid making assumptions and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. By saying "I know you didn't claim it was a majority viewpoint, but as I explicitly said, to me you treated it as one.", you are openly admitting to assuming my position. I never claimed it was majority viewpoint. It is the same with your comment "since to me you seemed to be unfamiliar with the policy." Another assumption. This is added to the fact that you started this thread within the last conversation we had about a completely different matter about the historical events of the founding of the party, showing you are assuming that I am adding the content in the same fashion or for the same reasons. Another assumption. Assumptions about editors should be avoided and are something for which you may apologise for.

In response to "characterising the party as fascist in the infobox because there are fascists "at one end of a continuum" is a bit silly", well no, because the summary box/info box is there to provide a summary of all the significant ideological positions associated with the party. You bring up the example of Trump, well notably if you look at the Republican Party (United States) article, it outlines ideologies in the summary box which are not necessarily the majority viewpoint, for example Right-libertarianism and Right-wing populism. These ideological positions are not only ascribed to the party by just a significant minority (the main ideological position associated with the party is conservatism), but these positions are a minority in the party itself and yet are still noted. Most of the Republican Party is not made up of right-libertarians, and yet it is noted. Moreover, the Republican party article summary box gives an overview of significant ideological factions inside the party, showing that the ideological summary is there to give an overview of all significant ideological factions and positions represented in a party. It's the same with the Democratic Party (United States) article. Significant factions are noted, even if they are not the majority viewpoint or make up the majority of the party. Therefore, to claim it is "silly" to note the existence of a significant fascist faction in the LDPR is bizarre and misguided.

In response to your arguments about the sources only saying Zhirinovsky is a fascist and not the party (despite the fact that you yourself admit that the characterisation of the LDPR as a party as fascist is not "a niche viewpoint" that should be ignored): well, as I said before, the party is seen as a political vehicle of his views. No, this is clearly not an "original research" point of view, as demonstrated by the very first source I provided to you, which concludes that on its final page that "the category “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". This shows that the party is seen to follow Zhirinovsky's political doctrines. The same with the article "Zhirinovskii as a Fascist: Palingenetic Ultra-Nationalism and the Emergence of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia in 1992-93", which overtly asserts that the LDPR follows Zhirinovsky's "ideological blueprints". To suggest that it is "original research" to state that the party follows Zhirinovsky's views is bizzare - the lead of the LDPR Wiki article already states that "Its ideology has been described as being based on Zhirinovsky's ideas of "imperial reconquest" and on an authoritarian and expansionist vision of a Greater Russia"!.

With your argument on Populist Tactics and Populist Rhetoric in Political Parties of Post-Soviet Russia, you say that by saying such parties are "called" fascist in "Western democracies" it is not the same thing as considering the party to be fascist. Yes correct not necessarily, but this source provides us with the very useful information that the party is particularly widely seen as fascist in the West. Considering my argument that the view of the party as fascist is a significant minority, this source demonstrates that it certainly is a significant minority, if a large amount (or possibly a majority) of those in the West ascribe it that ideology.

So, in review, it is wrong for you to state that it wouldn't make sense to add fascism to the infobox. As we have seen, the view is that of a significant minority, something which I think you and I are close to agreeing on, but that, moreover, infoboxes are there to provide an overview of all significant ideologies associated with the party in question, including significant factions within the party. Caretaker John (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: No, I never said it should be ignored. You added it to the infobox, I removed it from the infobox, that does not mean I wish for any mention of fascism or neofascism to be completely absent from the article. The article is not just the infobox. Not a good argument. You again try to claim that I want fascism to be completely ignored. This is not the case and also very ironic considering what you wrote about "assumptions". The policies section very clearly includes ideology, though it should probably be renamed to "political positions". I even said it could be possible to mention descriptions of fascism elsewhere in the article, yet you try and say that I wish for it to be ignored. I also never made any personal attacks against you, I referred to your edit as treating fascism as a majority viewpoint for ideology, even acknowledging that you never claimed it to be such.

You have not shown that fascism is widely considered to be a significant ideological position or even a notable faction in the party. For example, the source you used only characterises it as a position "at one end of a coninuum", with the other end being national liberalism. Can I describe LDPR as a national liberal party then? Libertarians and populists in the Republican Party are notable factions in the party, not positions at the extreme end of a party. I have provided a variety of reliable news sources (including very recent ones) that describe the party and Zhirinovsky as nationalist or ultranationalist, rather than some kind of fascist. In terms of "the party is particularly widely seen as fascist in the West", a population's perception means nothing here. And as the BBC noted, Zhirinovsky's views have changed over the years, so it would be better to use more recent descriptions. So per WP:NPOV, seeing that the party is seldom described as fascist, it would be best to reflect this. So feel free to mention that the party and Zhirinovsky have been described as fascist in somewhere like the ideology section, but I would oppose adding it to the infobox as if it is a major ideological position and as if most sources consider it to be a fascist party. This is undue weight. Mellk (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a bizarre argument to state that any mention of fascism should be excluded from the infobox, but that it should be included in the body of the article. The infobox is there to provide a summary of the article's contents, so if fascism can be included in the body or even in the lead as you argue (!) then it can and should be in the infobox. The claims that the party has fascist ideology are not just thrown around by a few opponents of the LDPR - like you might expect in the case of the National Rally - it has been ascribed to that ideology by a significant amount of academics: political scientists such as Andreas Umland and Steffen Kailitz and other academics such as Vladimir Solovyov, Elena Klepikova and K. G. Kholodkovskii. These academics assert that the party's main ideology is fascism, so to say that I have "failed" to show that fascism is "even a notable faction in the party" is very odd.

In answer to "can I describe LDPR as a national liberal party then?", well yes, if you provided enough sources to demonstrate that a significant minority or majority describe it in those terms. My overriding point is not that there is just a fascist faction in the party, but that there is clearly enough good, academic sources and academics who describe the whole party as such so as to represent a significant minority of authors. On top of this, as Shenfield has shown, there is at least a faction in the party that is unmistakably fascist, and, as he argues, Zhirinovsky himself - the party founder and long-time (and current) leader - espouses unmistakably fascist views. To say that I have failed to show that fascism is even a notable faction in the party when the academics are in consensus that the leader himself has ascribed to fascist views is also very odd.

I think possibly the most odd thing about your response is your statement "Libertarians and populists in the Republican Party are notable factions in the party, not positions at the extreme end of a party." You say that as if fascism is at the extreme end of the ultranationalist, far-right LDPR, which is based on Zhirinovsky based on Zhirinovsky's ideas of "imperial reconquest" and on an authoritarian and expansionist vision of a Greater Russia. The party is already on the extreme right, so to say that we shouldn't include fascism as it must only be 'on the extreme end of the party' is nonsense. Shenfield doesn't say the fascist faction is an isolated, tiny extremist group, he just says that it's on the other side of the party to the national liberal faction.

A very odd response from you overall. Caretaker John (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: The infobox does not summarise the article, it summarises certain key information. You can find out more at Help:Infobox. Ideology in the infobox should reflect major ideological positions in the party, adding something that does not reflect this is otherwise very misleading. For example Conservative Party (UK) includes the broad ideology of the party, which includes conservatism, not minor positions. For example in the lede, it states that there are influential factions of social conservatives and Eurosceptics. Does that mean we can simply add social conservatism and Euroscepticism in ideology in the infobox, as if they are major positions? No, which is why they are not present there. You yourself provided sources that contradict the idea that fascism is a central ideology of the party, and I've also provided plenty of RS that do not charactise the party as fascist. This says it all. Mellk (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

From what I've read and watched about Zhirinovsky, he's very aggressive in his nationalism. He's openly criticised and insulted other ethnic groups, and constantly praises and promotes Russian ethnicity above all others and pushes thus ideology through his LDPR party. It's up to you whether you want to put Fascism or not though. Gorrrillla5 21:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Zhirinovsky and LDPR are widely characterised as ultranationalist, and he has a history of anti-Semitic and racist remarks, however fascism is a specific ideology and not synonymous with any far-right persons/groups, despite potentially having some shared beliefs. It all depends on RS, and LDPR is seldom described as such, as I've explained. Mellk (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You say that Mellk but you haven't provided any academic sources from people like political scientists that analyse the ideology of the party or discount the idea that it is a fascist party. You've just given stuff from the media. The strongest sources we have so far, peer-reviewed academic studies, have shown on multiple occasions the party is in part or wholly described as of fascist ideology, and political scientists like Andreas Umland and Steffen Kailitz are strong examples. Academic studies trump news sources on Wikipedia, you can find out more at Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Yes the infobox summarises key information. Are you saying the fact that political scientists have ascribed the term fascism to the party is not key information? Caretaker John (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Caretaker John: It must be you to prove that it is a majority viewpoint, since you are trying to add this. Like I already said, some of the sources you provided contradicted with what you said. Besides, I already provided plenty of sources that are very reliable, and much more recent than what you provided. I've already provided you with the example of the UK Conservative Party article. Mellk (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention that there are plenty of scholarly sources already referenced in the article that write about LDPR in detail, yet do not describe it as fascist. Mellk (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• The sourcing is clear, they have been described as fascist by number of reliable sources, we reflect this fact in the lede section of the article and the sourcing is well and truly sufficient for such a claim. I'm reinstating it as due and well sourced. A quick search of Jstor reveals an interminable list of academic sources that make the claim - we should improve the refs (if you have the time Caretaker John, otherwise I might do it when I have time), the claim is well supported. Bacondrum 23:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Sorry, but to me this seems to go against WP:NPOV to include this in the infobox. Moreover, the sources in the lede are dated 2003, 1999 and 1994, this kind of material is outdated, and as the BBC noted more recently (without describing the party as fascist), Zhirinovsky's views have changed over the years, where his rhetoric was much more xenophobic during the 1990s. I also already established that 2/3 sources in the infobox do not explicitly call the party fascist, so I would not call this well sourced. Mellk (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe page 23 is cited. It does not call LDPR fascist. Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century is also cited, I do not see where LDPR is described as a fascist party. Can someone provide a quote then? Mellk (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, these weren't recently added, "also been described as fascist" was added without any sourcing, so I have removed this for now. Mellk (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

And is someone able to prove that Russian Political Parties Directory is a real source? I have seen it cited in other LDPR-related articles yet I can't find anything that shows its existence as a RS. Mellk (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

You're one revert away from receiving a block for edit warring, I'd stop now if I were you. You're on your own here, other editors disagree, you need to stop. Bacondrum 04:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum: Care to explain? The last revert (that was not a self revert) I made was a few days ago, so I do not see how I am "one revert away" from getting blocked for edit warring. I did not make 3 reverts in the past 24h, as you have claimed. I also reverted your edit because the "well sourced" inclusion of fascism only contained one source that actually supported this, which was the Irish Times article from 1998. Mellk (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Mellk (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with John and others. If EB calls this party "neo-fascist", so should we [1]:

Most neofascists denied that they were “fascists,” and Zhirinovsky was no exception. ... “I’ll be ruthless. I will close down the newspapers one after another. I may have to shoot 100,000 people, but the other 300 million will live peacefully. You want to call it Russian fascism, fine.”

Of course everyone knows this is just a "fake party" created to make the ruling FSB party looking very good by comparison. Still described as neo-fascist in RS. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: EB describes Zhirinovsky as neo-fascist in this article, not LDPR though. I would say it is fair for Zhirinovsky's article, but not here. In other EB articles (this and this), it does not use such a description. I would find it questionable to say that the central ideology of the party is fascism, as if those from LDPR such as Furgal are fascists of some sort. Mellk (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Regardless Mellk needs to stop edit warring, and WP:BLUDGEONing the debate (to be fair Caretaker John has been too, but he is not edit warring against consensus). Mellk is starting to look suspiciously like a WP:SEALION to me at this point. Bacondrum 04:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Considering that existing RS (apart from the few that were just added) do not use fascism to describe the party, and that fascism is overall seldom used in RS to describe the party (please, just look at recent news articles, as I have so kindly provided as examples), I do not see how I am "starting to look suspiciously" like one. I do not oppose removing any potential mention of fascism in the article, and have made this clear numerous times, but I oppose treating it as if it is widely described as such in RS. Mellk (talk) 11:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. I've just added what I think are the best sources for the labelling of the party as fascist to the article. These are:

• Umland, "Zhirinovsky's Last Thrust to the South and the Definition of Fascism", Russian Politics & Law, Vol. 46, pp. 38-39
• Kailitz and Umland, "Why fascists took over the Reichstag but have not captured the Kremlin: a comparison of Weimar Germany and post-Soviet Russia", Nationalities Papers, Vol. 45, p. 210
• K.G. Kolodkovskii, "Social and Sociopsychological Prerequisites of Fascism", Russian Politics & Law, Vol. 34, p. 51

Then that gives us three academics who describe the party as fascist, and also sources which cover a large time period (1996-2017) and that includes a study from as recently as 2017.

Apologies for infringing on the bludgeoning rules. I wasn't aware of those guidelines. Caretaker John (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• I definitely agree with John. Most sources do claim it, and for a good reason: this party and Zhirinovsky are inseparable. The party was created specifically for Z. and he "owns" it. While this is mostly a "puppet" party right now, it was a serious political force in 1990 under Yeltsin, and could easily win the presidential elections. It is indeed one of major political parties in Russia, and therefore its ideology is important. My very best wishes (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yep, those are the sort of rock solid academic sources I was talking about. Nice work Caretaker John Bacondrum 21:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Going through articles about LDPR through JSTOR quickly, I do not see fascism ever used to describe the party. As I said, fascism/fascist is seldom used in RS. Some examples:
  • Media and Political Persuasion: Evidence from Russia. The American Economic Review Vol. 101, No. 7 (DECEMBER 2011), pp. 3253-3285
  • Strong Partisans, Weak Parties? Party Organizations and the Development of Mass Partisanship in Russia. Comparative Politics Vol. 38, No. 2 (Jan., 2006), pp. 209-228
  • Ballot-Box Vigilantism? Ethnic Population Shifts and Xenophobic Voting in Post-Soviet Russia. Political Behavior Vol. 28, No. 3 (Sep., 2006), pp. 211-240
  • Government and Opposition Vol. 32, No. 4, The Repositioning of Opposition (AUTUMN 1997), pp. 598-613
  • Crimea vs. Donbas: How Putin Won Russian Nationalist Support—and Lost it Again. Slavic Review Vol. 75, No. 3 (FALL 2016), pp. 702-725 (24 pages)

So I guess no one wishes to respond? It seems Bacondrum would rather continually revert any changes to this even though, how they would say it, they've seen a number of editors disagree. Mellk (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example that argues against the fascist label from In the Name of the Nation: Nationalism and Politics in Contemporary Russia. Mellk (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That cite makes it clear that other academics do label them as fascist. Don't make demands it'll get you nowhere, no one is obliged to respond to you, I have a busy life off wikipedia. These three academic sources describe them as facsist:

• Umland, "Zhirinovsky's Last Thrust to the South and the Definition of Fascism", Russian Politics & Law, Vol. 46, pp. 38-39
• Kailitz and Umland, "Why fascists took over the Reichstag but have not captured the Kremlin: a comparison of Weimar Germany and post-Soviet Russia", Nationalities Papers, Vol. 45, p. 210
• K.G. Kolodkovskii, "Social and Sociopsychological Prerequisites of Fascism", Russian Politics & Law, Vol. 34, p. 51

Absence from other papers is irrelevant, the one paper you've produced that contests the claim acknowledges the label is applied to them by other academics: "the label “fascist” that is sometimes applied to them". Bacondrum 23:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying that no one has labelled them as fascist, but it is not often labelled as such. The source clearly says that the label is "sometimes" applied to them, not often or widely, and it also disputes this label. So I don't think it would be correct to include this in the infobox as if this is a widely agreed label. If you search for RS about the party (where I provided news sources as examples), you will very rarely find the word "fascist" or "fascism" used. It is fair to say that the party has been described as such (in the lede), but this is not a majority viewpoint. Mellk (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

It also acknowledges that the label is also used with the Communist Party for example. Mellk (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I should also point out that many of the instances of the party being labelled as fascist are usually from around the 1990s, when Zhirinovsky had very much an extremist rhetoric, however nowadays it is not the same. The 2001 article by Stephen Shenfield also described the party as having a fascist faction rather than this being the central ideology of the party, with national liberalism being the faction at the other end (as mentioned earlier). To add to this, the source by Kholodovsky from 1996 that is used says: "In Russia, Nazi or fascist organizations of varying sorts, still marginal, and patrons of fascists within the armed forces, including lawenforcement organizations, as well as the “parliamentary” and “loyal to the Constitution” LDPR [Liberal Democratic Party of Russia] are participating in the dangerous process of laying the foundations for the emergence of such a regime" – this does not say LDPR is a fascist party but rather there were fascists within the party. The 2008 source by Umland says: "the category '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" – saying that fascism is "possibly" a doctrine of the party is weak. So 1/3 of the sources does not actually describe the party as fascist and another says that fascism is "possibly" a doctrine of the party. This is very weak sourcing. Mellk (talk) 01:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Bacondrum:, could you explain why User:Mellk is edit warring against the consensus reached here? 157.231.131.2 (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Caretaker John, or Gordimalo, I should say, you're banned from editing and currently evading your ban. Your input doesn't count. Mellk (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

And to be clear, there is no consensus for this inclusion. Mellk (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent changes

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)

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)

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. [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, sure. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

• Valid claims in reliable sources should not be removed simply because the editor that added them was acting in bad faith, the editors actions do not make the claims unverifiable or render them unreliable. Reliable sources and verifiable claims remain such regardless of who added them. It's a stupid argument. Bacondrum 22:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Ideology and Political Position

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)

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)

@Mellk: 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)

@Zloyvolsheb: Really this should be removed on the basis that it is weakly sourced. Mellk (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

I think that may be fair. Mellk (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

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)

Oh, this again? Mellk (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Totally not obvious. Mellk (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Storm598: Just to be clear, you think that this should be removed from the infobox? Mellk (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Mellk, stop edit warring over this, you now have a history with this particular content, I'm certain it will end badly for you if this goes to the admins again. I'd suggest an starting an RfC - this currant debate is obviously at an impasse and you are not letting it go, the WP:STATUSQUO Stands until you reach a consensus to change, which you have not done as of yet. Bacondrum 03:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Bacondrum: That was not edit warring. And I reverted a banned IP, which was a troll evading his ban anyway, so, get it right please. I will remind you to read WP:3RR again, and what the exemptions are, because you are still not familiar with it. And don't try and bring the admins into this again, you did this before, when you assumed bad faith and falsely accused me of lying (when I reverted the sockpuppet), so don't waste an admin's time again, please. Per WP:ONUS, there is no consensus to include this, there are quite obviously more users who disagree with this inclusion than those who agreed (obviously minus the troll), so you really shouldn't be edit warring over this and this needs to be omitted for the time being until there is consensus to include it. Mellk (talk) 04:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus to use the wording "has also been described as fascist" in the lead, but no consensus whether to add "fascist" to the infobox. Overall, most participants in the discussion acknowledge that Zhirinovsky and his party have been described as fascist, but there's dispute over how common this characterization is in reliable sources and therefore whether "fascist" should be stated without qualification in the infobox. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Is this claim in the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia article that the party "has also been described as fascist" due and are the citations for said claim sufficient (see third paragraph of lede for citations and context):

• A - Yes
• B - No

Thanks. Bacondrum 22:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• A - Yes. The party's leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky is widely described in reliable sources as a fascist, as is the party. The current sources are journal articles and quite explicit in referring to LDPR and it's leader as fascist. I had a look at Jstor and TandD and the list of journal articles that make this claim seems inexhaustible. Bacondrum 22:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• B - No, current sourcing is very weak and this has already been pointed in Talk:Liberal Democratic Party of Russia#Ideology and Political Position and before when I said: 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". So one source from the 1990s does not call the party fascist or having fascist ideology, the other two sources are by Umland, with one saying that fascism is "possibly" a basic doctrine of the party. So the claim that the party is "widely described in reliable sources" as fascist is very much incorrect. Actually checking what RS say paints a very different picture. The BBC said it "can broadly be described as populist" and has described it as "ultra-nationalist" or "nationalist", describing its leader as "blending populist and nationalist rhetoric, anti-Western invective and a brash, confrontational style". The NYT described it as a "a right-wing nationalist group" and its leader as a "nationalist firebrand" or an "ultranationalist". RFE/RL described it as a "nationalist outfit" or simply "nationalist" (again). NPR described the party as "nationalist" and the leader as a "nationalist firebrand". Reuters described the party as "ultra-nationalist" or "nationalist". And so on. It's very clear that the party being described as "fascist" is not a majority viewpoint, not even close, rather a small minority viewpoint. So inserting this in the infobox violates WP:NPOV. Mellk (talk) 07:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It should also be made clear that it is the last 3 references at the end of that sentence that are used to claim fascism, the first 3 are not. Just another false way of pretending that this is well sourced. Mellk (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, this RfC says nothing about the infobox, which is what the dispute has been about. Bacondrum, you are fully aware that this is about the infobox, so why is this RfC not about it? Mellk (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It follows that if the claim and sources in the lede are considered verifiable by other editors then the claim being placed in the infobox fair, but we can debate that once the validity of the claim itself is decided. I'm going to preemptively ask that you don't WP:BLUDGEON the respondents to this RfC, please. Cheers. Bacondrum 08:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to kindly ask you to restore the NPOV dispute tag. Mellk (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can see you are the only one disputing it, so no. Bacondrum 10:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Except I am not, perhaps look at the previous section, which you commented on. Did you miss the comments by Storm598 and Zloyvolsheb (who specifically referred to the infobox)? Adding a tag in a "pointy manner" is not a reason to remove the tag. You are only making things worse for yourself. Mellk (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This RfC also doesn't answer where this statement should appear. In the lead? In the body of the article somewhere? Mellk (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• A for lead; separate discussion for infobox. While User:Mellk has pointed to some problems with the sourcing, the wording "has also been described as fascist" requires less due weight than actually describing the party as fascist in Wikivoice. Even with some of the sources removed, the remaining sources are are still sufficient to justify a brief note that some scholars see the party as fascist. --DaysonZhang (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• B for infobox; A for lead – Mellk's explanation above is genuine and I agree with it. I looked into more sources that claim LDPR as fascist/neo-fascist and I wasn't able to find any, sources that I've found either dispute the "fascist" claim or they either describe LDPR as anti-liberal, anti-democratic and/or ultranationalist. Mellk also stated problems with sourcing, and because of that and lack of sources, I cannot support the addition of "fascism" in the infobox. In my opinion, the sources for fascism alongside the text can stay in the lead or they can be moved down in the political positions section. Vacant0 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
• A for lead, no opinion on infobox. This is because LDPR is a party of one leader (Z.) and created to specifically serve this one leader whose views were unequivocally described as fascist. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
• A for lead, very weak A for infobox. Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that The National Front in France, led until 2011 by Jean-Marie Le Pen and later by his daughter, Marine Le Pen, and the Liberal-Democratic Party in Russia, led from 1991 by Vladimir Zhirinovsky, are often cited as neofascist. Another entry in Britannica further explains on the topic.

Now, I will start with English books and media: this 1994 book from the Institute for National Strategic Studies mentions that Zhirinovsky was indeed called a fascist multiple times - it can be extrapolated on his party as he is undeniably the face and the heart of it - without him, LDPR would not exist as we know it. A 2010 research paper directly references to the party as fascist; another 2001/2016 book says that the party is likely a fascist one; it also mentions that at least some local members, but also ones at the top of the hierarchy, were openly fascists. The Irish Times in their 1998 article also referred to them as being fascist in the title.

As for Russian media, a lot of such rhetoric existed in 1990s: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/67809, even going so far that the then PM of Russia (Egor Gaidar) called Zhirinovsky a fascist (which triggered a libel lawsuit, Zhirinovsky won it), but it also existed in 2000s: https://ria.ru/20060209/43453634.html, https://www.rbc.ru/politics/13/08/2002/5703b4ed9a7947783a5a3f29, and it sort of persists until today: https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2361032, https://ria.ru/20131205/982127979.html

While there are some works that say Zhirinovsky (and LDPR) are not fascist, but merely "center-right", such as this one, I found it was a minority of research papers. Unlike typically fascist parties, however, Zhirinovsky denies himself being fascist, but that is very probably because after WWII, USSR conflated the Nazis with fascists (and now, speaking of "fascists", people will often mean Hitler and Co.), so it would be electorally unpopular for him to portray himself as what could be read as a Nazi. It is also worth mentioning that he was accused by the "real" fascists of being a mere imposter.

Absolutely mention in the lead; as for the infobox, I enter my very weak "yes" for the label, but I would be cautious because he is more of a borderline case.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.