Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hcobb (talk | contribs) at 12:37, 11 August 2021 (BBC tablet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Military history: Russian & Soviet B‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force

Russia B‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

This article was nominated for deletion on August 18 2015. The result of the discussion was delete.

old AfD

Note that this article is about a different topic than the article that was deleted by the same name in the AfD. Ethanbas 06:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Allegiances

I removed the allies / opponents parts of the infobox because it should be clear as day that mercenary groups are not subject to such concepts since they are paid to support or oppose whomever their employer tells them to. Likewise, if they really are a PMC, we are using the wrong infobox since they are not a "faction" in the war, just contractors for one of the real factions. The articles other PMC groups for example use the company-type infobox instead. Eik Corell (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources would be needed to confirm that they are not considered allies or opponents because they are mercenaries. As such, multiple sources have confirmed them fighting side-by-side with the RAF, DPR/LPR and SAA, against ISIL, Nusra/HTS and FSA. So I agree with @Ethanbas:. Also, by all accounts, they are not a typical PMC company, since most sources imply they are actually an extension of the Russian MoD/GRU. EkoGraf (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Russian intelligence service helping a Ukrainian intelligence service?

I was a bit puzzled by the edit summary of this edit Axxxion. Is their a reason why a Russian intelligence service would help a Ukrainian intelligence service that I have missed? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, i think we are not supposed to do such discussions here. I allow myself to make such comments, but it is probably against the Rules, in fact. Naturally, i have no knowledge on the subject apart from what can be read in the public domain. That said, I do have personal (empirical) knowledge of how things get done in Russia, generally. The whole story about Wagner is obviously quite fishy, especially given the fact that this so called company is being kind of promoted by a bizarre personality that goes by the name of Ruslan Leviev (″a Moscow-based military researcher with Conflict Intelligence Team″). ″Leviev″ (apparently not his real name) is obviously of the same subclass of kgb stooges who is permitted to make statements that sound like anti-government, but in reality camouflage, or distract from, certain facts that have to be concealed in earnest. An old practice, useful especially for using such agents for major ″hit″ ops like killing Dzhokhar Dudayev (pace Konstantin Borovoi). Besides, it stands to reason to assume that Ukraine (and its security apparatus) remains thoroughly infiltrated by Moscow.Axxxion (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Whatever personal doubts or opinions that you or me might have regarding Wagner is irrelevant. We write per the sources. And at the moment, a number of reliable sources have written about the existence of Wagner. So lets stick to that please. EkoGraf (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite a few sources say exactly the opposite: See bottom of the first section.Axxxion (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion I saw them and you are missing the fact that none of the sources you added are really established as ether reliable/verifiable or mainstream. Despite this, as a compromise, I attempted to dedicate a whole section to that (which you reverted). Instead you pushed the significance of these obscure sources as being more important/reliable than that of those such as the Wall Street Journal, The Telegraph, Reuters, etc. EkoGraf (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf. You make me laugh: Radio Liberty is established by the U.S. government, which is being somewhat marginalised recently, but still within the mainstream of human gangsterism, I would suppose. You are welcome to add. But the most prolific source on this PMC is Fontanka.ru and no serious RussWP article will allow this source, universally dismissed as ″gutter press″. I personally disagree with that. Any info, especially from such sources as Fontanka, is of utmost interest, as it is usually part of Russ gov propaganda efforts, pretty much like any other public info.Axxxion (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it is wise to do subsectioning of the first section, at least along the lines you have suggested: it implies that there is an actual organisation, and some doubt that. The reality is pretty much the opposite. Thus far, there is no serious proof that such organisation does exist, in the first place.Axxxion (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion there is no serious proof that such organisation does exist, so again you are ignoring what the Washington Journal, Reuters, The Telegraph and others have been reporting? As for Radio Liberty, its anti-Kremlin stance is well known so it does not make them fully reliable in this case. EkoGraf (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Between, I would like to clarify, that I have no problem with including the doubts expressed by those sources in the article, but not to make so much an emphasis on the doubts regarding the existence of the company such as you have since the sources that have expressed the doubt are, as I said, not mainstream or verifiable in this case. While, more reliable mainstream sources in fact wrote about Wagner. Between, several of my edits that you canceled were not a matter of irrelevant minutiae as you put it, but rather the rearrangement of some of the sentences/paragraphs, for which your cancellation was not explained. EkoGraf (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You are really being funny: hard to find anything more anti-Russian than WSJ (i assume that is what you meant) that i have been reading since early 90s. EkoGraf, I believe you are confusing words and reality. For instance, there is such word as mermaid and you can find millions of mentions of it in all sort of sources; but does it exist? No one denies there is a group of people that present themselves as ChVK Wagner; but where is any hard evidence such entity really exists? If we assume it is a PMC, then it cannot exist: PMCs are not allowed by law in Russia. All companies in Russia are registered and information about them is available on the net: e.g. on the birank.com , or ergul.nalog.ru websites. All evidence (strictly anecdotal, as there is nothing else) suggests it is just the Russian MoD that has been outsourcing some contractor hirings. Ironically, the only official document that mentions ″PMC Wagner″ is the Designation of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. And it is indicative that this designation elicited ridicule on the part of the nationalistic vz.ru, whose article essentially states that the U.S. are sanctioning a thing that does not exist.Axxxion (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

P,S. Talking of WSJ, in terms of its location on the political spectrum: it is an American analogue of Russian Zavtra newspaper.Axxxion (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of your personal opinion on WSJ, its considered a reliable source by Misplaced Pages. If you got a problem with it, please follow WP procedure to request a discussion on its reliability or deem it unreliable. As for everything else you said, its again your personal opinion of the matter, which you are entitled to, but which is considered unsourced original research (see WP:SYNTHESIS) and isn't allowed. PS Please tone down your sarcasm, I am not trying to be funny at all or confusing words and reality, its not per WP:CIVIL or Assuming good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

First off, my opinion of WSJ was voiced in response to you having voiced your opinion of Radio Liberty. Second, I have no problem with this or that outlet being pro or anti whatever. Second, much more importantly, you completely miss the point, or perhaps fail to make yourself clear: What exactly would you like to see in the article? It does not deny or confirm existence of this company, it says exactly what sources (not just news outlets), taken in bulk, say (or do not say): there is talk that there is smth referred to as ChVK Wagner. What exactly it is, no one really knows, because there is no legal info on the matter (you hopefully understand that the difference between groups of persons and companies lie in the fact that companies are legal entities, ergo any company must have publicly available legal track record).Axxxion (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

As you have begun discussion of the sources′ characteristics: I actually believe that Radio Liberty is a comparatively good source for Russia–related topics, because other important US media are targeting Americans, who by and large are ignorant of anything concerning Russia (or anything else in fact, outside their local baseball team subjects), hence their (these media outlets′) standards are inevitably low (even deliberately so, as you cannot talk serious and complicated stuff to peeps who do not know first thing on the matter). But again, we need to look specifically at what type of a source it is: often it is an interview, for instance, of a friend of a friend who heard a thing or two on the grapevine.Axxxion (talk) 15:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Problems

Axxxion I would please ask that you do not do massive reverts of my edits like you just did. Now, lets see what the problem is. First, you asked what the source is for OSM. The source is right there, citing the sentence. The Wall Street Journal clearly states their formal name is OSM. However, for the sake of compromise I have changed the wording so OSM is simply stated to be one of the other names of the company. Now, can you please list all of the other problems or objections that you have here on the talk page and we can go through them together one by one and find compromise solutions for each of them. Thank you in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with these edits and whether or not this acronym is mentioned by an American media outlet is quite irrelevant in this case: What do you mean by ″formal name″, in the first place? We talk of an entity that does not formally (in legal terms) exist, and most likely does not exist indeed.Axxxion (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Besides, we talk of a Russian entity: all actual sources are Russian-language: again, Where are they for this OSM? And what is it meant to be: a transliterated Russian acronym, English-language translation abbreviation?Axxxion (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion, first whether you agree or disagree with what the Wall Street Journal wrote is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages considers the Wall Street Journal a reliable source and thus we write as per that source. Second, if you bothered to see my last edit, as a compromise, I removed the term formal. Third, like I said in the above section, whether you doubt the company's existence is irrelevant since a large number of reliable sources have written about the existence of Wagner. Fourth, your cancellation of the part regarding OSM still does not explain your massive revert of all of my edits. Fifth, your last edit here was a third revert of my edits. I myself have now made a third revert of your cancellation of my edits and will make no more so not to violate 3RR. However, if you do make a fourth revert of my edits you will be in violation of the 3RR policy (not making more than 3 reverts in less then 24 hours). So, I would ask that you please talk here via the talk page regarding any and all of the issues so we can resolve them. EkoGraf (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion As an attempt attempt at compromise I removed OSM from the sentence. Not really in a mood to fight over this. EkoGraf (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion You just violated WP:3RR. I would please ask that you cancel your edit. Saying you are canceling my edits because you consider certain things irrelevant minutiae, while pushing your personal doubts regarding the existence of Wagner is consider personal POV-pushing. EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is what is a de facto site of Wagner: https://soldat.pro/tag/%D1%87%D0%B2%D0%BA-%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0/ It refers to it as ″ЧВК Вагнера″. What are you talking about at all? Please disist from further destructive activity.Axxxion (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion First, I already removed OSM from the lead and I haven't disputed the name ″ЧВК Вагнера″. However, the issue here now is you have been mass reverting all of my other edits to the article without a clear reason. You also ignored my warning you violated 3RR. Since you are unwilling to ether discuss your revert of all of my edits (not just the OSM thing) or to adhere to Misplaced Pages's policy on 3RR I am obligated to report the violation. EkoGraf (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Particular issues aside, I find that the thrust of your edits (taken as a whole) in this article is to make article meaningless as they seem to divert the focus from things that are fundamental (such as What are we talking here about at all?) to irrelevant minutiae about officers′ decorations, names of some secondary figures, etc. Let us stick to the subject. And first of all, the subject itself ought to be clarified.Axxxion (talk) 20:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Axxxion It is not up to us to decide what is irrelevant and what is not. Its up to us to write as per the sources and not leave out details based on our personal POV, which is considered POV-pushing. In any case, I attempted to discuss the issue with you and instead you made massive reverts of all of my edits. At this point, you undid my work four times (in violation of 3RR) despite my pleas to not do it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You skew the Guidelines completely, just like what you seek to do to this article, to my mind: It is exactly up to us to determine what is relevant for an article that we write and edit. But we must do it on the basis of RS — that much is true, not just copy&paste some cherrypicked sources, often totally unreliable.Axxxion (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Was just passing by, could not help mentioning a problem: do some fact check, folks, before posting as 'trusted' and read the bloody material u are referring to. censor.net is a known fake generator (googleable) and news editor; the article on the 'russian news site' which i read thru was a pile of noodles, pardon my language - not a single reference there, not a single name, just a school level composition with 1 pic from the web that I could generate like in 15 min without too much effort. 'Neutrality' is also a concept long forgotten - a bunch of allegations is narrated in a 'factual' manner hiding behind the word 'reportedly' - despite that most if not all of those reports come from either a mouthpiece of Ukrainan (usurper) rejime propaganda, or from their secret service, or from Russian highly-biased (and highly-inadequate as often) antiestablishment 'outlets' (like Alex Jones but of a much poorer quality), and the source in those 'reports' is often "they say" or "they ascribe". Im scared to think the rest of wiki is as biased.. Whats the problem? Is it poor skills in Russian? Aint there any native speaking volunteers? Or just lazy? But "they say" doesnot become something bigger just for being printed in The Times. Good luck ye all and thnx anyway for the effort to brindg knowledge 2 people & keep this dying horse arun)))))176.127.119.118 (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Casualties in Eastern Ukraine

The details about casualties, in Khryashchevatoe village and Luhansk Airport particulary, are stated on 18th image presented by SBU. We may replace it by a total number of 15 dead which are stated for Luhansk August-2014 battles in general: Участие в штурме аэропорта "Луганск" и сбивании Ил-76 принимали участие 72 боевика, из них потери 200-ми 15 человек. --VoidWanderer (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

You (VoidWanderer) are referring to the SlideShare slides as aviable in this Ukrainska Pravda article I presume? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. --VoidWanderer (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf, can you clarify what is the source for the claim you've added:

The Ukrainian SBU claimed the Wagner Group had lost 102 PMCs

Thanks, --VoidWanderer (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

VoidWanderer Here . According to the SBU: 15 were killed during the operation to down the Il-76 aircraft and the attack on Luhansk airport; 51 died during the Battle of Debaltseve; and 36 were killed on the demarcation line. That makes a total of 102 (per WP:CALC). EkoGraf (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide an exact quote? Can't see the article due to paywall. Because original source (slide №6, №18) says 15 died near Luhansk (Khryashchevatoye village and Luhansk airport assault) and 21 near Debaltseve. SBU also claims (slide №21) they've established 277 men fought in both Donbass and Syria, 67 died (unclear is it 67 died out of those 277, or it is total casualties in Donbass and Syria). --VoidWanderer (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

PS. It seems kyivpost article have a mistake in first digit, stating 51 died near Debaltseve instead of 21. It is also rather strange, that 15 (Luhansk) + 21 (Debaltseve) makes 36. Have they mentioned 36 twice saying about some demarcation line (I have no idea what does it mean)? --VoidWanderer (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

VoidWanderer Quote from the article - “What was the Wagner group engaged in? It downed Il-76 aircraft with our paratroopers on board, attacked Luhansk airport and Debaltseve,” he said at a briefing in Kyiv on Saturday. According to him, 72 militants of this PMC took part in the first two operations, 15 of them were lost killed. “We know their names,” Hrytsak said. “Some 205 Wagner militants took part in the attacking of Debaltseve, during which 51 members were killed. We know each of them,” he said. The SBU chief also said that 36 militants were killed on the line of demarcation. 15 (luhansk airport area)+51 (debaltseve)+36 (demarcation line) equals 102. However, after examination of your original source (with the slides), plus the Ukrainska Pravda article, which both state 21 died at Debaltseve I can concur that it seems Kyiv post indeed wrote a wrong number (51 instead of 21). This Interfax article , in English, further confirmed both our suspicions it seems. The first half of the article is a literal copy-paste of the Kyiv post one (including the part about the 36 dead at the demarcation line), with the exception of the number of dead at Debaltseve being 21 instead of 51. Furthermore, further down it clarifies 277 is the number of fighters who fought in both the Donbass and Syria, and 67 of those who were in both conflicts were killed. I will use this source, instead of the Kyiv one, change 51 to 21, and change the overall number 102 to 72 (15 at Luhansk, 21 at Debaltseve and 36 at the demarcation line). Nice find by the way of the mistake made by Kyiv! :) EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Yulia Romero I'm contacting you for a consultation since VoidWanderer seems not to be active on Misplaced Pages anymore (no edits for more than a month). In the last several days Ukrainian media outlets have been citing the SBU as confirming the deaths of 36 Wagner PMCs in eastern Ukraine. In the reports from October last year we used references which said 15 died at Luhansk, 21 at Debaltseve and 36 at the demarcation line (which is a total of 72). Considering 15 and 21 is 36 when summed up, could it be possible that the reports miss-quoted the SBU chief when they reported The SBU chief also said that 36 militants were killed on the line of demarcation., beside the 36 at Luhansk and Debaltseve? Seems VoidWanderer also had some reservation in this regard before (see his last message above about the possibility of double-counting the 36). EkoGraf (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

EkoGraf, can you provide the context for your question? I thought we've cleared the matter, was there a new source with same mistake? --VoidWanderer (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

VoidWanderer, yes we cleared it up at the time (October 2017), when we cited this source which clearly said 15 died at Luhansk, 21 at Debaltseve and 36 at the demarcation line (which is a total of 72). However, recently Ukrainian media outlets have been citing the SBU as confirming the deaths of 36 Wagner PMCs in eastern Ukraine , not 72. To be more specific (as seen in the first source I cited from 112.ua) they are confirming by name the 36 who died at Luhansk and Debaltseve. So, like I said in my previous message above, considering 15 and 21 is 36 when summed up, could it be possible that the earlier reports miss-quoted the SBU chief when they reported The SBU chief also said that 36 militants were killed on the line of demarcation., beside the 36 at Luhansk and Debaltseve? If so, then they double-counted it to 72. EkoGraf (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

My post dated 17:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC) also mentioned 72 dead, which looked like another mistake, the casualties that were counted twice. --VoidWanderer (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

VoidWanderer Yeah, that's my point. Taking into account the new sources citing the SBU as saying 36 PMCs have been confirmed killed, even naming them, it looks more and more as if the 36 killed at the "demarcation line" were a miss-quote. So I think we should remove those from the text and add the source that confirms by name the 36 deaths. Agree? EkoGraf (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, totally. --VoidWanderer (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Done. EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 October 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the first sentence of the first subsection The founder of the company is alleged to be Dmitriy Valeryevich Utkin, who was born in Kirovohrad Oblast (then the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic of the USSR) in 1970., which in its current form is not in line with WP:ALLEGED, to Its been stated that the founder of the company is Dmitriy Valeryevich Utkin... (etc). This would present his founder status not as fact for the sake of compromise, taking into account a fellow editor's insistence not to present anything about the group as fact, but still keeping the sentence within WP guidelines. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 19:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

MSGJ, thank you for the advice. It will be done so. Axxxion would you agree to the above change? alleged is a term that should be avoided per WP:ALLEGED. This way we wouldn't say that he IS the founder, but instead that its been stated that the founder is him. If you got a proposition for another term instead of stated please do. EkoGraf (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, every one. EkoGraf, with all due respect, i disagree with you on this. You refer to the Manual of Style, which ″should not be applied with rigidity", and be ″best treated with common sense", as this Manual states. More to the point, I think the term ″to state″ is horribly abused in Engl WP, which partly stems, I believe, from the fact that, luckily. we have a lot of non-native English-language contributors here, myself including, and in most languages, incl Russian, when an official is quoted, in media they would use a term different (more official) from a mundane ″say". But in English, if you look at native English-language sources, they write: President Jimmy Carter said..., Prince Charles said... One ″states sth″ in settings like a court of law, testifying to an investigator, etc. This is a mere issue of style. Secondly, as i said prior, the real problem with the topic of this article is that the very subject matter is quite obscure here. So far, as i said before, we do not really have any hard info on what we write about in this article. Hence, I believe, the usage of "is alleged", just once, at the start, is perfectly appropriate, as pretty much all the info in this article is in effect a bunch of uncorroborated allegations. You have pointed up that it comes from RS; but look carefully how this info is presented in these RS: there is always a caveat of some type in those sources: such as "is believed to be", "the so called", "according to anecdotal evidence". The sources cited at the bottom of the first section clearly suggest that the founder of this ″PMC" is the Russian government, namely the Defence Ministry. Again, we are not about to assert this outright, as this is also an allegation, technically speaking. But I would urge us to keep the article deliberately ambiguous by avoiding any categorical claims, precisely in line with the way this info is presented in the sources we have at hand.Axxxion (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the Manual says ″alleged″ is quite appropriate when applied to people accused of illegal activity, which in fact is the case here: if we assume that this person founded and runs a PMC, this means accusing him of illegal activity under Russian law. On the basis of what? A WSJ article based on hearsay that uses all those caveats i mentioned above?Axxxion (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I would ask that you avoid using expressions such as anegdotal evidence in the article, since its an unsourced POV term. Unless you have sources that call them as such. Also, I asked you for other alternative versions of the sentence, other then the loaded term alleged, so we could find a compromise. And I again please ask you to do so. I also ask other editors involved in related articles to voice their opinions on both this matter and the general problem you have been having. @Editor abcdef:@LightandDark2000:@MonsterHunter32:@Mr.User200:@Applodion:@Yulia Romero: EkoGraf (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

EkoGraf, excuse my being blunt: I think the problem is partially your lack of Eglish language competence: ″anecdotal evidence″ is exactly the evidence that all the RS we have here are referring to (except SBU, who does not divulge their sources at all): which in English means evidence of individuals who saw/heard/exprienced sth, but who have no formal/official/procedural status (as officials, court witnesses, etc.). This is just what this kind of sources are called in English; no relation to Russ term ″анекдоты″ - in case you are a Russian speaker.Axxxion (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

After looking at both the sources as well as the discussion, it appears to me that Axxxion's position on this matter as whole is rather unfounded. His sources, with which he tries to put Wagner's existence at doubt (including defending the use of "alleged" in this case), do not appear to be completely reliable or unbiased. In contrast, sources that report Wagner as existing PMC appear to be mostly reliable. I have to say that I fully side with EkoGraf on this matter: While it should be mentioned that some doubt that Wagner exists, the article should be written in a way that gives the reliable sources more credit and, by extension, that shows that Wagner probably exists. Applodion (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Applodion, no one, including myself, doubt that Wagner exists. You miss the point completely: there is no legal proof that such PMC (company) exists: every incorporated entity has its details on the relevant official sites. Where are they?Axxxion (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

All ″RS″ base their reports on one source as a matter of fact, a Fontanka ′research′: ″Бойцы несуществующей де-юре частной военной компании несут потери на Украине и в Сирии″ — ″militants of de jure non-existent private military company″. Q.E.D. Non-existent: ″Батальона с тяжелым пехотным вооружением и бронетехникой, известного как «ЧВК Вагнера», формально не существует. Такого подразделения не найти ни в силовых ведомствах, ни в реестре юридических лиц″. Axxxion (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of ″alleged″: this is the least degree of doubt we ought to have here under Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons (as the content of this article incriminates this person, who has not been so much as formally charged so far), which, unlike the Manual of Style is a binding Policy.Axxxion (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a footnote

″Kelly also said that one of President Donald Trump's biggest frustrations is with the media, suggesting that reporters should "develop some better sources." One of his frustrations is you, all of you, not all of you, but many of you," Kelly said in response to a question about Trump's frustrations.″ .Axxxion (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Holy crud, unless something has been confirmed as fact, it should not be stated as such, nor should an unverified statement be suggested as being a possible fact. Misplaced Pages should remain as neutral as possible in all of its articles, especially more so in controversial ones. That being said, thus specific article is not within my area of expertise, so I'll leave all of the legal stuff to you guys. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Just salting a source for future reference

Список Вагнера -- methinks, we do not have it in the article, at least in the original form. It provides further allegations (strictly anecdotal) that seem to give an update to recent developments in this ″pmc″. Interestingly, they appear to partially contradict the recent public allegations by SBU.Axxxion (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the article the same day it was published. I was not able to follow what happened in the recent round of edit-warring, but if it disappeared as a result it should be added back.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

My opinion

I think the way the article is now is good. Call the organization "Wagner Group", but mention different points of view. Just be careful not to cite sources that are too far out there. Ethanbas 16:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail

Note that the Daily Mail, per community decision, is not considered a reliable source, and the corresponding paragraph must be removed from the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Yeah, I myself wasn't really sure whether I should have included it or not taking into account it was the Daily Mail and the allegations were a bit out there. EkoGraf (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed. EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If any reputable media confirms it, it can be returned to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Sudanese Civil War

Right now the bottom link in the infobox links to a dab. This is not really acceptable; we must either disambiguate or delink.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Problem here is there are currently three internal civil conflicts in Sudan: War in Darfur, Sudanese conflict in South Kordofan and Blue Nile and Sudanese nomadic conflicts. We really have no idea in support of which one of these three is Wagner training Sudanese forces (training is confirmed by multiple sources), or if possibly they are training them for all three. Best we have right now is the disambiguation link which provides the list of all three. We can have it as a temporary solution and if sources appear that confirm Wagner's involvement is for a specific one then we can make the necessary change. EkoGraf (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I would say then it is safer not to link at all, to avoid confusion and misinterpretation--Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

But something still has to be in the infobox that confirms Wagner involvement in the Sudanese conflicts since they are supporting one of the beligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I would keep the text unlinked and the ref.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, removed . EkoGraf (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: Does training of security forces realy counts as participation in a specific conflict those forces engage in? Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smeagol 17: They are providing military support to security forces involved in a conflict. Someone earlier also voiced a similar concern to the one you are having and a compromise solution was found. In cases where Wagner is only providing training or security to a conflict's belligerent, but are not themselves engaging in direct fighting, like in the case of Sudan, the CAR and Venezuela, in those cases then we would list the conflict for which they are providing support, but not list the security forces of that country as an ally of the PMC. Although in retrospect I think its debatable now if we should maybe insert the Sudanese security forces as allies considering the PMCs reportedly took active participation against demonstrators during the Sudanese protests last year. But I am fine as it is considering the claim came primarily from Ukrainian intelligence. Maybe we could do the following... How about we add a small note beside the conflicts' name (both Sudan, CAR and Venezuela) stating that the PMCs are providing training and security only (or just security in the case of Venezuela)? Like this . EkoGraf (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This is good, but my problem is that someone who would like to know about this "Sudanese civil war" from the infobox would not know where to click. Even a link to a section of this very article would be good, I think. Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smeagol 17: Like this ? EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I think so. Better then before, but maybe this section should contain some brief exposition on Sudanese civil war(s) if it cannot be found elsewhere in wikipedia. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Smeagol 17: There is already one small sentence at the beginning of the section's second paragraph giving a general overview of the multiple conflicts raging in the region. Two internal-conflicts have been raging in Sudan for years (in the region of Darfur and the states of South Kordofan and Blue Nile), while a civil war has been taking place in South Sudan since 2013. If you feel this needs to be expanded a bit more please do. EkoGraf (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

connection to Yevgeny Prigozhin

The guy at the center of the troll factory. Quite a few sources now making the connection Legacypac (talk) 05:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Italicized title

I notice "Wagner" is italicized throughout the article, which stood out to me as something I haven't seen before in articles about groups. I see this has been the case since the article's beginning. Is this necessary; am I missing something? Just wanted to ask before I bother going in to change it all. Any input would be appreciated, thanks. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Thought it looked nice and so their title would stand out among the rest of the text. Also, nobody else mind. EkoGraf (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just thoroughly read the section of the MOS, and I can't find any reason that this should be in italics. I think it's possible that no one else has changed this because it's a rather large job, which is part of why I posted here first before doing so. Jessicapierce (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine either way (whether the italics are removed or not). EkoGraf (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Quick review

I managed to read through the lead and first section of this article, and here are a few things that I'd like to point out:

• The lead section should be expanded to summarize the article's main points. When that happens, all/most of its references can be omitted (see MOS:LEADCITE).
• Claims that are present in the lead have to already be mentioned in detail elsewhere in the article. For example, the Blackwater comparison is missing from the body.
• Mention of the US election interference, especially in the lead, is slightly off-topic and undue (better suited for Prigozhin's article).
• The "allies" and "opponents" should be removed from the infobox, unless sources explicitly use such terms. PMCs don't usually have allies/enemies. Just employers. And, in this case, only the Russian military is suitable for mentioning in the infobox.
• See MOS:ITALICS. Names of organizations and military units are not italicized (e.g. Wagner, Moran Security Group, etc). Same applies to Radio Liberty and Pavshino.
• There are several WP:WEASEL words throughout the article (it is believed, it is estimated, etc).

'History, organization, status' section

• Should be renamed, or preferably even split into 3 sections.
• The photo was published shortly after and caused a scandal - Why did it cause a scandal? Elaborate.
• Wagner was in 2016–2017 believed to have a membership of... - An example of weasel wording. Believed by whom? Plus the entire sentence needs to be rewritten, and it is preferable to have a maximum of two references (see WP:OVERCITE).
• The part from When new PMC recruits arrive up till contract without paying a fee in the fourth paragraph reads a bit like an official rule book (bordering on advertising) rather than an encyclopedic entry. Consider rewording or attributing to the source.
• Russian and Western experts as well as some people who... - Include examples at the end of this sentence, so as to reduce overcitation.

The article looks fine overall, and might even qualify as a GA candidate. But some issues, mainly the unattributed weasel words, need to be dealt with first. Nice work. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Allies/opponents

Fitzcarmalan, as stated in a previous discussion and in the article itself, most sources agree they are actually an extension of the Russian MoD/GRU, leaving Wagner Group only a private company in name. EkoGraf (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we should list all the "allies/opponents" (especially when sources don't use those terms, e.g. with the Sudanese and CAR militaries). They should be omitted same way we omit them from the Russian Armed Forces infobox. Same way we usually omit them from the individual brigades and divisions of national armies on Misplaced Pages. Of course they will be "allies" with whoever the supra-body (in this case the MoD/Armed Forces) is allied with. Same thing applies for "opposition". This is redundant because it's basically stating the obvious. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Except the Wagner Group isn't like the regular Russian Armed Forces. As stated in the lead, after much discussion, they are in essence (best described as) a paramilitary group. The infobox is conceived by Misplaced Pages to have a section for "allies" and "opponents" and for good reason. It may be obvious to you or me (people that follow these kinds of stories), but it may not be obvious to Misplaced Pages readers who are unfamiliar with the subject. A multitude of sources exists confirming Wagner fighting side-by-side with the Russian regular military, Syrian military and Ukrainian separatists against the Ukrainian military, FSA, Nusra and ISIL. Hence allies and opponents. As a compromise, I would be open to the removal of the Sudanese and CAR militaries from the infobox since, even though they are training them, Wagner haven't engaged alongside them in direct combat against their opponents. Let's see what other editors think, if nobody objects I will remove Sudan and CAR from the infobox (although I'm fine with their inclusion as well). EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing the Sudanese and CAR armed forces would be better than nothing, yes. And, if they are not fighting side by side, it would also be prudent to remove the Sudan and CAR conflicts from the engagements section. Offering training doesn't necessarily make them involved in a conflict. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

The form of the inclusion of the Sudan war was already discussed, so a new consensus would be needed, and the inclusion of the CAR war was approved by a few other editors as well. They may not be directly engaging, but they are basically providing on-site military support to those countries governments, thus making them involved. EkoGraf (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Berkan~svwiki's edits

Berkan~svwiki, please discuss the issue and do not remove sourced information. Reuters is considered a highly reliable/verifiable source by Misplaced Pages and edits based on our personal feelings about what they are reporting are considered POV edits which are not permitted per Wiki policy. Sources for the assertions have been properly attributed, as per Wiki policy. As Vif12vf has also said, consensus is required for the kind of changes you are requesting. In addition, the usage of the wording such as "alleged" is generally not used as per Wiki policy as well. EkoGraf (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

EkoGraf, no properly sourced information has been removed. What was removed was self-contradictory POV derived from the Reuters item which indeed gave conflicting information originally. If basing a new section on an article that states nothing more specific than that between 2 and 400 military contractors may have arrived in Venezuela between 2018 and 2019, then it can not be reasonable to simply pick one of those possibilities that you prefer and write it as if either is conclusively supported in the source itself. Regarding the "42 people were killed during the protests.", it is completely non-sequitur to the context (which protests?), and refers to both a limited scope of the time period alluded to and is an ongoing event but reads as if it were historical. You are very welcome to improve on these changes, but rolling them back to the unencyclopedic form it was in before the edit is entirely counterproductive. Thank you for pointing out the word "alleged" is not suitable, but unless you can improve on the quality I see no justification for rolling this back. Berkan~svwiki (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Berkan~svwiki, first, there was nothing self-contradictory in the Reuters report or anything conflicting. The Reuters report at no point casts doubt that the PMCs "may have" arrived and clearly states, as per its sources, that the latest batch arrived just recently to provide security for Maduro. Everything has been properly attributed to the sources cited in the Reuters report (Cossack leader, PMC source, etc). The "U.S.-backed opposition protests" (as per Reuters) are clearly cited in the second sentence of the paragraph so the death toll (42) from those protests, which is mentioned in the last sentence of the paragraph, is within the context. The death toll is there to be descriptive/informative of the crisis/protests. Just like we presented the overall toll for the Yemen war in the Yemen section. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and thus it provides a historical context to any events, whether they are presently unfolding or have ended. EkoGraf (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Berkan~svwiki, I am obligated to warn you that you just violated Misplaced Pages's 1RR policy regarding articles that contain anything related to the Islamic State with this edit . 1RR states that you may not make more than one full or partial revert/cancellation of another editors edit within a 24 hour period. Violation of 1RR can get you blocked. So, I would ask that you cancel your edit, stop removing sourced information and continue discussing the issue instead of edit warring. Otherwise I will be obligated to report the 1RR violation. EkoGraf (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

:EkoGraf, wow mister, that must be some sort of record in purposeful abuse of policy, and just in order to keep substandard articles substandard after I took the time to incorporate your suggestions into my edit. You win, I am off Misplaced Pages and will make no contributions on this or anything in the future, I hope you find much satisfaction "reporting" community members for contributing.

Berkan~svwiki (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

EkoGraf, please read the material in question if you want to vet it. One contradiction: "Yevgeny Shabayev, leader of a local chapter of a paramilitary group of Cossacks with ties to Russian military contractors, said he had heard the number of Russian contractors in Venezuela may be about 400." ("Shabayev") "“They did not arrive in a big crowd,” he said." (Third source). Second contradiction: "He said they set off in two chartered aircraft for Havana, Cuba, from where they transferred onto regular commercial flights to Venezuela." "A Russian Ilyushin-96 flew into Havana late on Wednesday after starting its journey in Moscow and flying via Senegal and Paraguay, the data showed." How are you denying that these are self-contradictory and incomplete data being used to assert two different conclusions - one being that there is a small contingent and the other being that there is a large contingent? Berkan~svwiki (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

First, it is not up to us to make personal analysis of a report, which is considered as POV Original Research by Misplaced Pages and is forbidden. Ours is only to write per the sources and properly attribute. Second, I am again notifying you that you violated Misplaced Pages's 1RR policy and if you do not cancel your edit you can get blocked. EkoGraf (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Operations>VenezuelaVenezuela-2019-02-11T15:21:00.000Z">

Is it me, or is this section somewhat poorly written and confusing? The mention of a cossack paramilitary chapter under Venezuela being open to misinterpretation, and the chronology seeming unclear. Can't help but notice that all other operations are supported by several citations as well. I hesitate to address this considering the recent edit history. 103.77.235.67 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Venezuela"> Venezuela">

No doubt it reads more like summry of article in citation than encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.156.174.171 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The article it cites backs up almost none of what is claimed in the WP article, and is overall pretty dubious.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Berlin killing of Chechen commander

@EkoGraf: Should this section be here because of "German Parliament member Patrick Sensburg theorizing"? Or is there more? Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

@Smeagol 17: I am divided in my opinion regarding this. The killing of the former Chechen commander is highly notable, but as you say there has been so far only one accusation of the assassin being a Wagner member. EkoGraf (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: If we had a section "in media" or "other", we could spare a sentence, but for now I think an entire section is undue. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Smeagol 17: Like I said, I am divided in my opinion. If you want to remove the whole section or reduce it in size and rename the section to something like you mentioned ("in media" or "other") I won't object. PS I was wondering if you could possibly help me out in establishing the proper license tag and upload a few images of Wagner PMCs to Misplaced Pages for use in this article since I was never good at that part? Most of the images come from Twitter from undefined sources. EkoGraf (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This entire article is extremely POV and needs to be revamped

The difference between the Akademi and the Wagner Group Misplaced Pages articles is stupefying. Both are private military contractors, both have done work for their governments, both compete for international security contracts and both have been employed by their country's intelligence services (CIA and the FSB/GRU). Yet the articles about the two are worlds apart, with Wagner Group being labelled as a paramilitary force of the Russian military and Akademi as a legitimately independent private company.

In my opinion the article about Akademi is fairer and less POV. Wagner Group's article should be structured like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HadesTheEldest (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

In Russia its illegal to organise PMC. So Wagner is not really legitimate. --101.100.146.39 (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

There Is no judicial evidence of such company even existing. We dont know if Wagner group is even a real company with a real name, or if its an umbrealla term used for several companies. F.Alexsandr (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Too much detail

The article currently reads, in places, like a blow by blow description of a prize fight. The key to an encyclopedia is summarize. Also editors should note that the Misplaced Pages is not news. Every fighter's death in Tripoli may be news, but it is not encyclopedic. Remember every sentence must have a point that contributes to the understanding of the topic. You don't have to discard reliable sources, but an editor needs to consolidate information and present it in an informative way. A chronological hodge-podge seldom does that. Please consider rewriting such portions of this article that are overly detailed; otherwise other editors may not be as considerate as you can be when they make this article conform to Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. Good luck.  --Bejnar (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Libya 2020

• United Nations
  • 12 February 2020, Security Council, 8722nd Meeting (PM), Security Council Endorses Conclusions of Berlin Conference on Libya, Adopting Resolution 2510 (2020) by 14 Votes in Favour, 1 Abstention, un.org
  • 19 May 2020, Security Council, SC/14190, Despite Calls for Ceasefire amid COVID-19 Pandemic, Unabated Fighting Could Push Libya to New Depths of Violence, Acting Special Representative Warns Security Council, un.org

user:suwa 17:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Idea

I am not an active editor on this page, but I think that it would be a good idea to split off the article's current history section into a sub-article, termed "History of the Wagner Group" or "Operations of the Wagner Group". In this way, we can preserve the great details of the article, while preventing bloating. Applodion (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It may be something to consider if the article continues to grow. Appropriate images should also be found for the article, since it doesn't have even one at the moment. EkoGraf (talk) 11:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

War crimes and human rights violations

The allegations into the group of war crimes and extrajudicial killings must be made in separate paragraph instead of being mentioned there and there.--101.100.146.39 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

So far, the only allegation of this kind against the Wagner Group has been in regards to the killing of Hammadi Taha Al-Buta which already has a whole section devoted to it. If more accusations are made in the future we might revisit the issue. EkoGraf (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

revert note:

Proven wrong by cnn (see latest on www.cnn.com) due to the subject's nature, only add credible ""NEWS"" sources and high ranking websites instead of "Internet Blogs", any attempt to Undo this revert shall have to take a look at the stated facts and represent them in a more objective fashion as well as remove some of the adjectives, also, use at least 3 NEWS citations per line (BBC...) due to the interest on the subject. visit the talk page.
The adjectives in this report are almost
Putn wants to win but not at any cost?
Shadows?
It seems like a combo between a bad theory, audience-pleasure political rant and crapfest, it should tune down
If you want to bring back the information:
state the event, very shortly
have more citations than necessary
glance around the whole finished article and remove anything that can be removed
There is something called "wrong" and there is sabotage that is very well made to hide stuff from users without alerting others, mind such sabotage.

Please be more specific than "(see latest on www.cnn.com)" I just went there and there are lots of articles about lots of things. I am not going to waste my time looking up information when there are already perfectly good citations in the article. If you can show, with reliable references, that this was proven wrong then we would want to include that and why other reliable references stated that it happened. VViking_TalkEdits 13:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Artsakh

The Radio Liberty writes: "As for the Russian mercenaries from PMC Wagner, a day after the publication, Radio Liberty still does not have any independent confirmation of the fact of their presence in the self-proclaimed republic ." 46.72.61.105 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Alleged logo

I have removed File:Wagner Group.png because of concerns about its provenance. The source is a forum post at a role playing community. Accordingly, the origins of the image are rightfully questioned.

If anybody can trace the image to another source, please list that source here, so we can review. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

BBC tablet

How notable is the tablet seen by the BBC? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/8iaz6xit26/the-lost-tablet-and-the-secret-documents

Hcobb (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• B-Class Russia articles
• Low-importance Russia articles
• Low-importance B-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of people of Russia