Talk:Russia

Dictatorship in infobox?

Why should the government be dictatorship in the infobox? China and even North Korea don't have it there either. Not all sources refer to the state in this way, it is more accurate authoritarian government. If you ask for example ChatGPT, you will get the same answer: "Russia is often labeled authoritarian state rather than classic dictatorship because they still maintain some institutional structures, elections, or party systems". "A classic dictatorship usually implies almost no meaningful institutional pluralism, while an electoral authoritarian regime still preserves formal institutions such as: elections, political parties, parliament, constitutional structures, even if critics argue they are heavily controlled or non-competitive." This topic simply cannot be described in an infobox title, but it can be further analyzed in the text of the article. Therefore, I would leave it to authoritarian government, which is what the general broad consensus is on. In China article, there is also only Unitary communist state, it can be further analyzed in the text of the article.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

For the "authoritarian" claim, the article cites Freedom House, an American think tank heavily funded by the US State Department that represents an official Western institutional viewpoint rather than objective academic consensus, and a research article that is now over a decade old. For the "dictatorship" label, the Fischer article explicitly notes that this shift is recent and highly dynamic, stating that the 2022 invasion catapulted Russia from hard autocracy into dictatorship. Krzywdzinski explicitly calls it an authoritarian dictatorship, but this is reflective of a single analyst's opinion.

If we look at how we treat other states universally described by Western political metrics as highly repressive, China's and North Korea's infoboxes simply read "Unitary communist state". We should prioritize the formal/constitutional structure of the government in the infobox; the debates about the nature of a state's governance should be limited to the main text where they can be properly contextualized. Therefore, the infobox for Russia should stick strictly to its formal structure: "Federal semi-presidential republic". Paprikaiser (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The modern system of Russia is characterized by its highly informal institutions and way of conduct, of which cannot be reduced to the "federal semi-presidential republic" label. Simply put, dictatorships almost never exist explicitly. Following the logic that Russia should stick simply to "federal semi-presidential republic" in the infobox, so should every country with a de facto dictatorship.

Infoboxes are quick references, and are just as important as main text. In this vein, it would be dishonest to place Russia in the same category as Austria in terms of political structure. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

China and North Korea articles are examples of what not to do to further educate our readers. It is equivalent to labeling every democracy a democracy over being precise with what type of democratic structure. Almost impossible to deal with the meat puppets in China related articles just look at the superpower article.Moxy🍁 21:13, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Paprikaiser, yes, so do you agree with removing the word dictatorship? Regarding your suggestion for "Federal semi-presidential republic", I think authoritarian government should remain there, but you can suggest it in a separate paragraph.Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23 Or maybe just "dictatorship" CracksInTheFloor (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

What do you mean? Yes, just remove dictatorship, the reasons are listed above sufficiently. Do you also agree?Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23 No, don't CracksInTheFloor (talk) 11:21, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

CracksInTheFloor, what do you mean "No, don't". Answer the reasons given here. I'll repeat it for you. "Russia is often labeled authoritarian state rather than classic dictatorship because they still maintain some institutional structures, elections, or party systems". "A classic dictatorship usually implies almost no meaningful institutional pluralism, while an electoral authoritarian regime still preserves formal institutions such as: elections, political parties, parliament, constitutional structures, even if critics argue they are heavily controlled or non-competitive." This topic simply cannot be described in an infobox title, but it can be further analyzed in the text of the article. This topic simply cannot be described in an infobox title, but it can be further analyzed in the text of the article. Therefore, I would leave it to authoritarian government, which is what the general broad consensus is on.

And as Paprikaiser wrote: "We should prioritize the formal/constitutional structure of the government in the infobox; the debates about the nature of a state's governance should be limited to the main text where they can be properly contextualized."

I would agree that there should stay there. authoritarian government, so that it does not remain in the same category as, for example, Austria, as you correctly noted.Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23 There is no meaningful pluralism in Russia. The systemic opposition is there by design. Read what I argue above. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

External videos
"Understanding Dictatorships: Types and Mechanisms of Authoritarian Rule" –Johan Hellström - Professor - Umeå University. (2:45)

Basics = Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian, and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, and personalist dictatorships.Moxy🍁 13:25, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

The debate over whether to include "dictatorship" or "authoritarian" in the infobox is resolved by looking at WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The policy explicitly states: An infobox is unsuitable for nuance or detail [...] If information cannot be simply stated in an infobox without explanation or qualification, it probably doesn't belong in the infobox. The government_type field of the infobox is designed to hold the de jure constitutional architecture of a state, not an evaluation of its operations. For a perfect example of this, look at the article for the United States. The body explicitly states that the US was the most prominent liberal democracy for much of the 20th and early 21st centuries, but has undergone significant democratic backsliding and a shift toward a hybrid regime and notes an ongoing academic debate over whether it is now an electoral autocracy or illiberal democracy. Yet, because an infobox cannot handle that level of complex nuance without extensive qualification, the US infobox remains strictly limited to its formal structure: "Federal presidential republic".

We must maintain consistency here. Notice that within this article's body, the word "dictatorship" is never used in wikivoice; it is strictly and properly attributed (Some political scientists have characterised...). If a term is too contested to be stated as an objective fact in the body, forcing it into the infobox as an un-attributed, absolute truth is highly inappropriate, creates a double standard, and directly violates WP:NPOV. I agree with Jirka.h23 that "dictatorship" must be removed.

Regarding the authoritarian framing: even the sentence describing the state as a "consolidated authoritarian regime" in wikivoice is directly undermined by the nuances in its own citations. Source 293 explicitly rejects a uniform, monolithically consolidated label, focusing instead on Russia's massive internal heterogeneity and noting the survival of "democratic enclaves despite Russia's authoritarian resurgence". Source 296 openly admits that scholars are navigating a fluid, shifting "parade of terminology" rather than a settled baseline definition. I have already mentioned the issues with the sources used in the infobox, so I will not repeat myself. In short: a debate among experts cannot be cleanly flattened into an infobox without explanation or qualification. The infobox should stick strictly to the formal structure of the government.

If there is a consensus that a qualitative modifier must remain, then we could use "Authoritarian federal semi-presidential republic". Otherwise, we should remove the qualifiers entirely and leave the analysis to the body, exactly as is done on the United States article, the China and North Korea ones, etc. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser Then this has to be done for every nation with a dictatorship. South Vietnam would be no longer be named a military junta in the infobox. And every nation would be its de jure title.

There are certain ground facts (no matter whatever terminology bickering goes on) that cannot be ignored in an infobox. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

A military junta is an institutional, de jure structure of governance, not a qualitative label. It is perfectly appropriate for an infobox because it describes the actual structure of the government type.

Suggesting that this means every nation would have to be reduced strictly to its de jure title ignores the fact that this standard is already applied, as demonstrated by the major examples I cited above (and others like Turkey). Appealing to "ground facts" to dismiss the nuances of the cited academic sources borders on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If the body does not use the label in wikivoice, forcing it as an uncontested fact in the infobox is a direct violation of policy. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser Is this a good faith argument? Most (if not all) military juntas exist as de facto entities. There are very complicated cases.

Is a dictatorship a qualitative label? How? You bring up Turkey and the United States, but those are genuinely contested.

Ground facts are heavily documented by existing academic sources. There is a general academic consensus surrounding it, the question now is over specific details.

The standard is certainly not universally applied. In fact, if it was, you would probably be accused of vandalism. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You say there is a "general academic consensus" for the dictatorship label, but the actual sources cited in this very article directly contradict that, as I have already demonstrated. The core of the issue is that an infobox cannot present a label as an absolute, uncontested truth when the body does not use it in wikivoice. Flattening a debated academic typology into a contentious label on an infobox is a textbook violation of WP:NPOV. Questioning my good faith does not change that. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

There is wide scholarly consensus that Russia functions as a dictatorship, the debate (as outlined in the article) is its primary classification of governing style as in it's authoritarianism, personalist autocracy, or totalitarian. Moxy🍁 22:55, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

There is a broad expert consensus that Russia is authoritarian. That part is not especially controversial in mainstream political science today. Where terminology becomes less unanimous is the stronger word “dictatorship.” Most major democracy and governance indices classify Russia as authoritarian and autocratic. Examples include: Freedom House, Economist Intelligence Unit, V-Dem Institute and academic work on authoritarian regimes. Scholars prefer more precise categories such as: “electoral authoritarianism,” “competitive authoritarianism” or simply “authoritarian regime.” They avoid “dictatorship” because that word often implied: openly abolished elections, one-party rule, martial repression without legal façade or totalitarian systems like North Korea under the Kim Jong Un.Jirka.h23 (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser 20:26, 18 May 2026 (UTC): Very well written, I agree overall. We should use "Authoritarian federal semi-presidential republic". This complex topic cannot be contained in a keyword-based infobox, and if so, then only in the most general and scientifically acceptable form possible. I agree with your suggestion. Or we should remove the qualifiers entirely and leave the analysis to the body, like in other articles. Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

My first option would be to remove all qualifiers, but I am ok with this compromise. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

These changes should be applied to Belarus and Azerbaijan if you want to be consistent. There are plenty other cases, I am sure. Changes should be applied.

The dictatorship label was completely fine before, although "authoritarian" and "dictatorship" are not terms that heavily distinguish from one another in a modern context. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

The existence of inconsistent formatting on other pages does not serve as a license to bypass WP:NPOV and WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE here. I am perfectly fine with revisiting other articles, precisely because I value consistency across the project. If you want to open a discussion on either of those talk pages and tag me, I would be happy to participate. And if you have a compelling, policy-based reason or high-quality sources that demonstrate why we should override standard infobox guidelines and ignore the nuances of the article text here, please present them. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser You had specific reasons to change the Russian infobox; if you value consistency across the project, feel free to change the infoboxes for Belarus and Azerbaijan. Otherwise, to have Russia portrayed in a milder fashion compared to Belarus and Azerbaijan may constitute its own neutrality violation. Simply put, Russia is being evaluated with different standards.

It would be best if there was a link to the Politics section in the infobox government. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Russia is not being evaluated with different standards; as demonstrated by the multiple examples I provided earlier, the exact same policy-based rule is now being applied here. Speculating that I have "specific reasons" to alter this specific page borders on a failure to assume good faith. My sole motivation, as I've already made clear, is ensuring policy compliance.

Improvements to other articles must be discussed on their respective talk pages, and the infobox already contains a direct link to the Politics of Russia article, so it seems that there is nothing else to debate here. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

I do oppose having the word Authoritarian being in front of the |government_type = infobox, mainly because that it doesn't quite fit well with the rest of the federal semi-presidential republic stuff, acting like something similar to this image.

I apologse for using such a humourous image in a serious discussion like this, but I also think that it addresses my claim of the unnaturalness of the current placement of Authoritarian. I would suggest instead Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian regime to balance between those who believe Russia is a dictatorship and those who believe that Russia is an authoritarian government if possible. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian regime sounds good. Next, we should also change other articles such as China or North Korea. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I do agree for China, having it as Unitary communist state under an authoritarian regime, but for North Korea, I think it's important to also write that it's hereditary as well (Unitary commmunist state under a hereditary authoritarian regime) GuesanLoyalist (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@GuesanLoyalist DPRK should be labeled as being under a totalitarian regime (almost all contemporary literature describes the DPRK as a totalitarian state; with Russia recently and China it's more complicated). It wouldn't be setting an agenda to do this. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we should take this talk/discussion to instead Talk:North Korea and Talk:China if possible. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree, North Korea should be labeled as: Personalist dictatorship or totalitarian dictatorship (with dynastic succession) and China as: One-party dictatorship. But that discussion does not belong here, but in the respective talk pages. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23 No "dictatorship" label for China if Russia doesn't have it. A dictatorship refers to how power is concentrated, not whether or not they have more than one legal party. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 07:35, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

This has already been discussed here, read my post again 01:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC). Anyway, we can discuss that in the China or North Korea talk page. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Jirka.h23 China was never discussed on that day. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, you're right. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate GuesanLoyalist's point about the phrasing flowing more naturally if the formal structure comes first. However, the word "regime" is frequently used as a pejorative synonym for "dictatorship" so using it doesn't feel like a genuine step towards a neutral compromise. It still carries that same loaded, non-encyclopedic tone that we should avoid. For a middle ground, I propose "Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian system".

I will also repeat a previous point I made regarding changes to other pages: those should be discussed on their respective talk pages. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser A regime refers to a mode of governance, not necessarily a dictatorship.

"Authoritarian system" sounds vague and ineffective. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wiktionary explicitly states that when regime is used to describe a form of government, it is usually meant as a pejorative intended to brand that state as illegitimate. Wikipedia's own article on the term echoes this, noting that in common parlance it carries a pejorative valence. And because the word itself denotes an authoritarian government in everyday usage, the phrase "authoritarian regime" feels redundant. That is precisely why we originally went with "Authoritarian federal semi-presidential republic". Paprikaiser (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser A regime denotes the institutions and bodies particular to any state. While the term is used pejoratively in common language to refer to authoritarian/totalitarian regimes (which, shouldn't be a concern unless you have some kind of fear of tarnishing Russia's image), the meaning of the world does not necessarily ascribe to that notion in a formal context. America has its own regime peculiar to it, and so does every state. Regime is closer in meaning to "state".

On another note. You have already edited the page without seeking a consensus on the talk page; you weren't actually the person to start the talk page, either. CracksInTheFloor (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written for a general audience, which is why our WP:NPOV policy requires us to avoid words that carry a heavy pejorative valence in common usage, regardless of their potential academic use. I have already explained the common usage of the term. I also ask that you to WP:AGF regarding my motivations. And you do not need to ping me in every reply; I am subscribed to the discussion and will receive notifications regardless.

As for the comment on my edits, I did not introduce a new description. I simply restored the version that held consensus before it was unilaterally altered without discussion. A compromise was reached last month, and any further updates should be discussed here first. Paprikaiser (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Excuse me for the WP:COMPARE but there are some cases were WP:NPOV gets overrided, like with the Gaza genocide (I'm not going to debate on what's happening in Gaza constitutes a genocide) instead of something more neutral like Allegations of genocide in Gaza. One of the reasons supporting this article change was because of various reliable sources saying so.

So if we get enough reliable sources that says that Russia is authoritarian, then we should recognise Russia as authoritarian then. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

But I am not asking for "authoritarian" as a descriptor to be removed. Paprikaiser (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry, but adding Authoritarian at the front of the |government type = still won't quite cut it. What about Federal semi-presidential republic under an authoritarian government as a compromise, then? Since a government isn't inherently bad, it should comply with WP:NPOV then. GuesanLoyalist (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

@Paprikaiser: It's fine with me. Do you agree with the Guess Loyalist proposal? Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the proposal. Thank you! Paprikaiser (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Flag of Russia

Recent update is wrong, wasn't sufficiently discussed. Flag of countries use primary flag name format, undefined colours doesn't copy and paste Pantone format color shade into format used here which is commonly RGB. Primary file flag of Russia is correct and shall be used. ThecentreCZ (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Extended protected edit on 5 July 2026

Please change extended protected to semi-protected. ~2026-38176-37 (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting administrator, or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting administrator is not active or has declined the request. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)