Talk:Wagner Group/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 ^(talk) 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″[1]). ″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 Wikipedia. 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)

Protected edit request on 10 October 2017

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 Wikipedia: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.″ [2].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. Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 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)

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. Wikipedia 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 [3] 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 Wikipedia'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)

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)

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 [4]. 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 [5], 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 Wikipedia 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 [6] 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 [7] 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 [8][9][10], 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)

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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.[234]", 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia's 1RR policy regarding articles that contain anything related to the Islamic State with this edit [11]. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and is forbidden. Ours is only to write per the sources and properly attribute. Second, I am again notifying you that you violated Wikipedia's 1RR policy and if you do not cancel your edit you can get blocked. EkoGraf (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Operations>Venezuela

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)

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 [12]. 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 [13][14]. 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 [15]? 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)

This entire article is extremely POV and needs to be revamped

The difference between the Akademi and the Wagner Group Wikipedia 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)

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 [of NKR]." [16] 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)

Could be used as a source. EkoGraf (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Utkins birthplace

This article states he was born in Ukrainian SSR, but his own states he was born in Asbest, RSFSR. Both sources are not the best, frankly speaking. But the first one is worse, as far as I can tell. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Put both as possible birthplaces with appropriate sources? EkoGraf (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2021 (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 Wikipedia 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)

@EkoGraf:There was a trial and verdict, and Wagner or mercenaries were not mentioned once, AFAIK. Shall we keep this section?

@Smeagol 17: If the killer wasn't directly connected to Wagner remove the section then. EkoGraf (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Who knows, but it is extremely unlikely given known information (or even speculation). Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Suriyakmaps

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 348#The @Suriyak Twitter account for occupation of various locations on the Syrian Civil War situation map and obviously WP:TWITTER. FDW777 (talk) 08:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• RussianmonumentBangui.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) NW1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 02:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Wagner Group → PMC Liga – According to several Russian and Western sources, the company has rebranded to Liga [17] [18] [19]. Pious Brother (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose In all three references, the primary source cited for the reported rebranding is the Ukrainian military, which is not reliable in reference to the Wagner Group as its belligerent. In addition, the PMC continues to be referred to as the Wagner Group by RS media outlets, thus the name is in line with Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME guideline. However, no objection to mentioning the alleged rebranding in the article citing the three references you provided and attributing the claim to the Ukrainian military, which I have now added to the 2022 invasion section. EkoGraf (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Recent media coverage continues to use Wagner Group. AusLondonder (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - Secondary Independent RSes determine WP:COMMONNAME, and the presented sources do not meet that threshold. The only one that does, The Telegraph article, does not appear to support the claim. If it did, it would still be outweighed by the many RSes which continue to refer to this company by "Wagner Group." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 03:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - The WP:COMMONNAME policy is very clear here. Until such time as ″PMC Liga″ becomes the commonly used name, Wagner Group should remain the main name. Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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.

To add to article

To add to this article: mention of the Rusich (also known as Task Force Rusich), a neo-Nazi-oriented subgroup of the Wagner Group. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if that's true—assuming the article describes a group that's prepared to eliminate practically anyone, would it mean much to imply that they preferred targeting certain people? Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not even sure why they'd go to that kind of trouble. After all, some of their non-Jewish victims could be as anti-semitic as they were, rendering the whole thing moot. (It must be very complicated trying to apply rationales to this sort of profession... I can't say I envy them.) – AndyFielding (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This response makes no sense. Volunteer Marek 01:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Kolovrat

Kolovrat is not a "slavic swastika" and should not be named as that because it implies thst It's a nazi or neo-nazi simbol while It's not. It may be used by some neo nazis but that is not enough to clasify it as that, because the kolovrar is an ancient symbols used by many groups. The same as an swastika in India is not a nazi simbol but in the western world it is... 31.223.150.97 (talk) 11:31, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

We go with what RS say. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree. BTW according to Russian Administrative Law Kolovrat is considered an extremist symbol, equivalent to Svastika. Check ru:Коловрат_(символ)#Закон_о_запрещении_демонстрации_в_России and references there Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• CapturedWagnerfighter.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi group?

If this group is Neo-Nazi in orientation, why not include that term in the article's text? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I may be wrong—but even if some members did lean in that direction, it would imply that they had political motivations as well as financial ones, contradicting the definition of "mercenary" (one who kills for personal financial gain). As they're apparently not limited to targeting people of certain faiths (for example), applying such a label could, ironically, have a misleadingly moderating effect. – AndyFielding (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It most definitely needs to be mentioned and the fact that it has been absent/removed up to now is pretty damming. [20]. Volunteer Marek 01:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The neo-Nazi link has already been mentioned for a time in regards to the specific Wagner unit linked to white supremacists and neo-Nazis, the Rusich unit, in the "Organization" section of the article. All current sources point to Wagner's neo-Nazi link being this one specific unit, while there are no RS confirming other units of the Wagner Group are also neo-Nazi oriented. I have no problem mentioning the neo-Nazi link (the Rusich unit) in the lead of the article, but at the moment there are no reliable sources confirming that the whole Wagner Group as an organization is neo-Nazi oriented. EkoGraf (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

To try and pretend that the Guardian article says that only the Rusich unit has been linked to neo-Nazism and white supremacist is at best WP:OR and more a straight forward misrepresentation of the source. The article says no such thing. It links the entire group to these things as clear from just reading it. Please stop edit warring over this and rather find a source which supports the view that "only" Rusich unit is neo-Nazi but not the rest of the group. Volunteer Marek 03:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not denying that the group has Nazi links, enough sources exist to confirm that they do. But we need to be specific about which elements of Wagner are neo-Nazi linked. Again, the Guardian article says Wagner has been "linked" to neo-Nazis, not that the Group as a whole is neo-Nazi, and in that sense I mean that their official ideology is neo-Nazi. And the article then primarily goes into talking about Rusich. All of the other sources you just added also do not say Wagner as an organization is neo-Nazi or that their ideology is neo-Nazi, which the wording you left could misleadingly imply, just as AndyFielding has said. The sources you linked primarily talk about: 1 - their one-time commander (reported to have been replaced) reportedly sporting neo-Nazi tattoos; 2 - the reported leaving behind of neo-Nazi symbols by some Wagner members in Libya; 3 - sources indeed mention elements within Wagner are neo-Nazi linked but when you click on the primary sources of the refs you added you link back to reports regarding the Rusich unit. I am not edit warring, I am trying to find a concrete compromise solution that properly reflects the sources cited. Sources clearly do not state that the group as a whole has an ideology that is neo-Nazi, instead specific elements and the text needs to reflect this. EkoGraf (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Also, please stop adding bare references, thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added a separate paragraph dedicated to the issue in the lead which you can further adapt and expand if you like. I have used all of the sources you provided, while also adding a few more additional sources. EkoGraf (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

"Links to far right" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/russian-mercenaries-in-ukraine-linked-to-far-right-extremists "neo-Nazi Russian mercenaries" https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rusichs-neo-nazi-mercenaries-head-for-kharkiv-prjndp9rl, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/04/08/russia-send-notorious-neo-nazi-mercenaries-ukraine/, https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-terrifying-neo-nazi-mercenaries-being-deployed-in-ukraine, https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1592997/Ukraine-news-band-neo-nazi-mercenaries-rusich-wagner-russia-update "Neo-Nazi Russian Attack Unit" https://www.thedailybeast.com/wagners-rusich-neo-nazi-attack-unit-hints-its-going-back-into-ukraine-undercover We might also be able to use this https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/putin-nazi-pretext-russia-war-ukraine-belied-white-supremacy-ties-rcna23043

I gave up at this point, as this is enough for us to say they are Neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven Yes, three of the seven links you provided have already been used in the sentence in the lead. The other four links you provided all talk about the Rusich unit specifically and we can add some of those sources for further confirmation of their neo-Nazi orientation (don't want to overcite). Which I did just now and further expanded the sentence. Do you have any other suggestions Slatersteven what else could be added/changed regarding the sentence? EkoGraf (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we shous drop the weasel words, unless there are RS that say it is not neo-nazi we do not have to caveat the claim, we should, say they are. Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven Which words in particular? EkoGraf (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

"Various elements of Wagner have been linked to white supremacist and neo-Nazi far-right extremists,[42] with their commander, Dmitry Utkin, reported to have Nazi tattoos,[43][42][44] Wagner's openly far-right and neo-Nazi Rusich unit,[45][46][47][48] and Wagner members have left neo-Nazi graffiti on the battlefield.[44][49]" should be something like "The Wagner is a white supremacist and neo-Nazi far-right group,[42] their commander, Dmitry Utkin, having Nazi tattoos,[43][42][44] Wagner's openly far-right and neo-Nazi Rusich unit,[45][46][47][48] and Wagner members have left neo-Nazi graffiti on the battlefield.[44][49]", ort somrthgin similar. Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven Reference number 42 does not say that Wagner is a white supremacist and neo-Nazi far-right group. Instead, it says as has been written, quote from the source - "Various elements of the current Wagner Group have ties to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism". The "linked" word being used as in accordance with the other sources and so to avoid a copy-paste. Also, almost all of the sources you provided talk about the neo-Nazi Rusich unit within Wagner, which is not in dispute, and have been used to confirm their neo-Nazi orientation, thanks for that. That, in combination with Utkin's tattoos and the graffiti in Libya is the combination of neo-Nazi links cited by the media regarding Wagner. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I have just added the quote from the source to the citation, which also references Utkin's tattoos. EkoGraf (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe 42 does not, but as I said I have found plenty that out rright say they are neo-nazi. Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Slatersteven Your first ref [21] talks about Wagner being "linked" to far right extremists and later on it talks about Rusich. The next five references all talk about the Rusich sub-unit specifically being neo-Nazi [22][23][24][25][26], not Wagner as a whole. And the last source [27] talks about Utkin's tattoos and that some of their members left behind the graffiti in Libya, which is not in dispute. All of this has been incorporated in the sentence. EkoGraf (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I am in agreement with Volunteer Marek's initial wording with the group being "linked" to neo-Nazis as per the new citations he has added and when you add in Utkin's tattoos and the graffiti beside the neo-Nazi Rusich unit, but there are no RS confirming the whole organization being openly neo-Nazi or that its their official ideology. EkoGraf (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Can we see the articles before 22 February 2022 and how they described the Wagner Group?

"The nominally private but state-linked Russian security company the Wagner Group's role in conflict zones in Africa poses a threat"[28] Brookings Institution

"Wagner Group, a paramilitary group linked to Kremlin insiders close to Vladimir Putin."[29] - New America

"Since its 2014 debut during the war in Eastern Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, theWagner Group has become the Russian Federation's premier private military company (PMC)"[30] - University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

"Wagner Group, a shadowy mercenary outfit waging secret wars on the Kremlin's behalf" [31] - Foreign Policy

"WG stands for Wagner Group, a Kremlin-linked paramilitary force." [32] - EUobserver

None of these articles mentioned any links to far-rights.

I can add more but the point is very clear that these sources, as well as the one being added to push "links to Neo-Nazis" are being used as subjective thought even by the recent sources. Newslinemag calls Utkin's tattoos a rumor.

Such misleading views are also disputed by a scholar: "But Ms Gaston says that while the alleged founder has "sympathies to far-right groups [and] there's probably some in the general recruitment that also have those sympathies, predominantly, it's not an ideological group." (emphasis mine) [33] - ABC.

I don't see any sources debunking this view. It is also senseless to assume that ideology ever played a role in the operations by the Wagner Group.

This should not be added on the lead, as it will provide false impression that there is a widespread conviction when there is nothing. 122.170.32.154 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the last version by EkoGraf seems more accurate and balanced, but I have seen another edit made by a IP thats seems to be reverting the consensus likely made here.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:25, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Mr.User200 122.170.32.154 seems to have moved the sentence from the lead to the main body of the article. In principle, I agree with 122.170.32.154 like I said in my previous comments that there is no evidence that the Wagner Group as a whole has a neo-Nazi ideology or identifies as such, but I admit also that through the Rusich unit and possibly Utkin there are elements within Wagner linked to neo-Nazis. EkoGraf (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I assumed that we are still working on consensus since these edits were introduced all today.

While it is possible they recruited far-right fighters, the ideology has no role in their operation.

Note that Wagner and Utkin are attracting significant coverage since 2015,[34][35] that's why we need to be careful with presenting the information as I described right above. 122.170.32.154 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

122.170.32.154 Agree that the neo-Nazi link has only been widely reported on since little before the invasion with the emergence of Rusich, even though Utkin's possible tendencies and the graffiti in Libya were reported on at some point during the years, but not so prominently. Due to this I agree we need to be clear on this in the text and not add the label to the whole organization collectively. EkoGraf (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

While looking for sources before February 22, 2022 I overlooked the talk page message note which say:

"The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2021/11/17/inside-wagnergate-ukraines-brazen-sting-operation-to-snare-russian-mercenaries/

https://meduza.io/en/news/2021/12/13/eu-sanctions-wagner-pmc-over-human-rights-violations-in-ukraine-syria-and-libya "

I read them and still found no allegations of having links to far-rights. This confirms that this information, emerging after the attack on Ukraine, is insignificant for lead. 122.170.32.154 (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

There's five reliable sources right there which you tried to remove. Also, as a brand new IP account I suggest not immediately jumping into controversial topics. Volunteer Marek 22:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

He didn't remove them, 122.170.32.154 just moved the text/paragraph to the main body of the article. Which I don't mind since the lead only has to give us a summary of the main points of the subject, but for the sake of compromise I also don't mind to mentioning in the lead that various elements within the organization have links to white supremacists and neo-Nazis. EkoGraf (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I also don't see anyone 'removing' the sources but only moving from lead to the section and providing more context. I had seen that earlier and I agreed with that move.

The main argument here is that this is an apolitical company and the coverage before February 2022 has missed any mention of "far-right" or related connection, that's why we shouldn't be buying into this WP:RECENTISM. Here is a pretty good document which tells that Wagner has been diverse in their recruitment, and so diverse that even this source from 1 year ago didn't mention them being linked to any far-right extremists. Sources that are being used on lead largely base their claim by speculating the origin of the word "Wagner" (connection is too tenuous) and recruitment of some far-right extremists, which I don't think was actually intentional since this is not an ideologically driven company. Shankargb (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Shankargb Exactly and I agree. That's why their main purpose (private military company/mercenary network/Russian government unit) shouldn't be left in the lead's secondary paragraph [36] and instead should remain in the forefront one. Like I said, for the sake of compromise, I don't mind mentioning the establishment of some elements being linked to neo-Nazis in the lead, but the main purpose of this obviously non-ideological organization has to come first. Between, if you could add that document with accompanying text within an appropriate context to the article that would be great, thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

One more time. There's five sources given (right now, easily can find more but don't want to ref bomb) which link THE ENTIRE organization to neo-Nazism and white supremacy. Can we please drop this "it's only a few bad apples within it" nonsense? I mean, ffs, their leader (decorated by Putin) is covered in Nazi tattoos, in their own promotional videos they talk about how they're "the saviors of the white race" (intermixed with footage of themselves proudly torturing and decapitating captives) and there's literally dozens of sources which confirm it. This is beyond absurd at this point. Volunteer Marek 09:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

First, like I said, their main purpose (private military company/mercenary network/Russian government unit) has to remain in the forefront of the paragraph, no problem with mentioning the "neo-Nazi" link at the end of the paragraph. Now, for your five sources, first please stop adding bare references. First source [37] says Wagner has been linked to far-right extremism, but then goes into talking about the Rusich unit specifically. Second source [38] talks about Rusich solely, not Wagner as a whole. Third source [39] talks about Wagner's commander "reportedly" having Nazi tattoos, and that some Wagner members left neo-Nazi graffiti in Libya. Fourth source again talks about the commanders tattoos and that (again quote) Various elements of the current Wagner Group have ties to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism. [40] Fifth source, like source number three, also talks about about Wagner's commander "reportedly" having Nazi tattoos, and that some Wagner members left neo-Nazi graffiti in Libya [41]. At this point, the sources identify three specific neo-Nazi links - The Wagner commanders' tattoos, the Rusich unit and the graffiti left in a mosque in Libya. You have to keep in mind that the Wagner Group is made up of 8,000 members and of various units. I'm fine with mentioning that various elements have neo-Nazi links in the lead, but delegating their main mercenary purpose to a secondary position is inappropriate and leaves the impression this is an ideological unit. And on this point I agree with Shankargb, LordLoko, AndyFielding and 122.170.32.154. I have moved back in the "neo-Nazi link" from the second to the first paragraph (which was moved my LordLoko) for the sake of compromise. In essence, I agree more with LordLoko delegating it to the second paragraph which is more in proper context. But I also have no problem with leaving it in the first paragraph for the sake of dispute resolution. However, If you continue to disagree, please initiate an RFC so the issue can be resolved with multiple 3rd party editors getting involved. EkoGraf (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course their primary purpose is to be a paramilitary company. But they are *a particular kind* of a paramilitary company. Still think this “various elements” wording is trying to weasel it, but I’ll accept current version as compromise. Although it may very well be that new sources come out with them taking an active role in present conflict. Volunteer Marek 13:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes I agree, if and when new sources come out about the neo-Nazi element taking a more prominent role as you say, we will adapt and expand the article accordingly. EkoGraf (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I know that there are more than "five sources" but even those new sources are mentioning the connection with far-right extremists which is undue for the lead. This group is attracting mainstream coverage for nearly a decade and the speculations that are being made without any substantial basis to show that Wagner is linked to far-right ideology is misleading the readers to believe that ideology plays is playing a role in Wagner's operations, contrary to consensus among mainstream literature that this is just a Kremlin's private company following the orders of Russian government and it is apolitical. Shankargb (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

What is this “mainstream literature” that you claim says Wagner is apolitical? And why are the facts reported by actual reliable sources merely “speculation without any basis”? Got a source that says that? The above comment looks like textbook WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT original research. Volunteer Marek 17:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Mainstream literature would count scholarly sources like here, here, that show zero support to the sentence you are adding, support the actual description of this company that its just a private military contractor serving Russian interests. Then you can see just all  the sources dating before February 2022 have been cited above that find no mention this group being linked to neo-nazism and far-right extremism. This shows that this is fairly a recent allegation with no substantial basis because if this was substantial enough then no way it could have been missed for so many years by far better researchers. One source was already cited above[42] which say that this is not an ideological group but has only recruited some of those who have sympathies with far-right groups. Noting that this is the reality of this allegation, it clearly does not deserve a mention on lead. Shankargb (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Your first source is a 288 page book which mentions Wagner... three times (not counting in refs)? Yeah I don't think that quite proves your point. Your second source, America: Unite Or Die: How to Save Our Democracy" (wha? whuh? mmm? what does that have to do with Wagner???) isn't exactly on topic either and is most definitely not a scholarly source. It's a political tract (and in fact it may very well be good, who knows). This book has 512 pages. And it mentions Wagner... ONCE. And this is suppose to be "mainstream scholarly literature on the Wagner Group"? Dude. You made a false assertion based on your own WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT original research. You were challenged on it. You then went and googled some stuff and came up with nothing then tried to dress it up like something. Cut the crap. Volunteer Marek 19:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Shankargb Like I already said in my previous comments, I agree the organization as a whole is not ideologically neo-Nazi orientated nor is that their main purpose of being (no sources confirming this), but concur some elements are linked to far-right groups or have neo-Nazi leanings (Utkin and the Rusich unit, as per available sources). For the sake of compromise due to Volunteer Marek's concerns, I due not object to mentioning the neo-Nazi link in the lead (in the current form). However, if most editors concur it should be moved from the first to the second paragraph (like LordLoko did; which may be more within context) or leave it solely mentioned in the main body of the article where it is developed on much further in detail like 122.170.32.154 did, I would also not object to this. EkoGraf (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I moved to the second paragraph because in the view of what was written in the article. The written text ("Various elements of Wagner have also been linked to white supremacist and neo-Nazi far-right extremists.") is good, it's factual and neutral as it should be, but I feel it's just in the wrong place. The first paragraph mentions their nature and purpose (military group) and my view is that the white supremacism and neonazism is not something integral or the objective of the organization, and as such they fit better in that second paragraph where they have the rest of the accusations of what they have done (i.e war crimes).

That's why i feel it should be in the second paragraph of the lede. LordLoko (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

LordLoko As I said previously, I agree, the context of the second paragraph is indeed more appropriate. EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How you "feel" is textbook original research (it's a different way of saying WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT). Multiple reliable sources stress the Neo-Nazi affiliations of this group. Volunteer Marek 23:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

That reliable sources report on the neo-Nazi links of some of the elements of Wagner is not in dispute. However, LordLoko was referring to the context of the subject. The second paragraph of the lead also refers to other allegations against Wagner (war crimes, rapes, robberies, etc), and the neo-Nazi link would indeed be more appropriate in that part of the text. I reaffirm again that I am in agreement with both him and Shankargb that, looking at the available sources, neo-Nazism isn't the primary purpose of the group or its prevailing ideology. The link should be mentioned yes, no problem with it being even in the lead, but delegating the neo-Nazi link to the first paragraph is WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in my opinion and is also not in the proper context of the text. EkoGraf (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that I am being alleged of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by the user who comments on a scholarly source by judging its title. Anyway, @LordLoko and EkoGraf: Do you really see a difference between "white supremacists", "neo-nazis" and "far-right extremists" given the context? I don't think we should be using these strong terms per WP:LABEL because this can still pass a misleading connotation that Wagner group is picky about which "far-right" they are recruiting. I think "far-right extremists" should be enough for mention, just like The Guardian source, if the sentence is being added on lead at all. Shankargb (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, you can find it hilarious if you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that the only reason I listed the actual title of the source is because you falsely claimed it was about Wagner or a closely related topic. You are also repeating the false claim that this source was “scholarly”. It is not. It’s a political tract (about domestic US politics, only barely related to Russia). Please stop making false claims and misrepresenting sources. Volunteer Marek 09:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You are the one who is misrepresenting sources. I never made any "false claims". You falsely claimed that this source mentions Wagner only 3 times (outside references) when it mentions 7 times and does not support the POV you are adding. You shouldn't be the one to talk about misrepresentation of sources, especially when your entire argument depends on misunderstanding of the subject. Shankargb (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Shankargb No problem with your proposed wording as far as I'm concerned. EkoGraf (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No, sources use “neo Nazi” and “white supremacists” so that’s what we’re going to use too. Please stop trying to WP:WEASEL this. Furthermore, the version you reverted was already a compromise version. What’s the point of compromising and reaching consensus if you’re just going to swoop in and restore your own preferred version anyway? Should I remove the “some elements” weaseling that’s been added too? Volunteer Marek 09:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

But no one is moving it back to first paragraph other than you. I count at least 5 editors, including me, to have removed it from the first paragraph while you are alone with keeping it on first paragraph. See WP:1AM. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Srijanx, you have not edited this article or any topic even remotely connected to it ever, afaict. Can you please explain how you came to be aware of this dispute? I mean, I DO see the connection mind you, but it’s not one that’s related to this particular topic. Volunteer Marek 18:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Evidently, they have edited the page before. You should strike your false accusation. Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

VM, no we are not going to throw every possible term. It seems that the mainstream sources before the emergence of some war propaganda are conclusively unaware of any linkage of this group to “neo Nazi” and “white supremacists” and the sources you cite have failed to address how they found such unsubstantiated links overnight. That's why WP:UNDUE is important. I still maintain that this shouldn't be on lead at all Shankargb (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Care to explain what you mean by “emergence of some war propaganda”? To me that sounds like you’re saying “I’m going to ignore reliable sources which contradict my POV”. The Guardian, The Economist, NBC … are these the “propaganda” sources you’re referring to? Because that’s what’s being used to source these terms. Same for this “sources fail to address” <— that’s you second guessing reliable sources and doing original research. Sorry, reliable sources don’t have to explain everything to some Wikipedia editor’s satisfaction.

You already tried to misrepresent other sources, and when that was pointed out, you switched to clutching at straws. Volunteer Marek 18:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

First, the compromise (at least between us two and thanks again) was reached for the wording (with which I am still satisfied either way), while other's continued to take issue, and I am going to leave it up to them. The issue of the text's inclusion and positioning in the lead continued. In the end, everyone, except you, agree either it shouldn't be in the lead at all or at least not in the first paragraph. Continuing to include it in the lead, while moving it into the second paragraph which deals with the controversial issues of Wagner (within context) is the most appropriate formulation (as I stated before and agreed with LordLoko, and with which Shankargb also ultimately agreed and I didn't object for sake of further compromise). Second, Srijanx22 (who also agrees) isn't forbidden to join the article's editing process or discussions on the article's talk page just because he hasn't been involved with the article up to this point. If anything, as an uninvolved 3rd party editor, he's input should be considered very much appreciated. EkoGraf (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I have moved it to the second paragraph, as almost everyone agrees to this course of action, while not changing the wording from the one agreed to earlier (between us two - including the term "neo-Nazi"). Like I said, going to leave that up to everyone else. EkoGraf (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

By saying "emergence of some war propaganda" I was absolutely talking about what is being written by people after February 2022 despite they never heard of this group ever before. NBC is an opinion piece. The Guardian says the "Wagner Group, are “almost certainly connected with extreme far-right organisations”.'" While The Economist does not say Wagner has ties with any 'far-right' extremists.

Overall, only The Guardian is being used for telling half-truths compared to its entire report, because it uses the words like "almost certainly" as quoted above. Maybe we should too but then I don't think it would deserve a place on lead. Shankargb (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Shankargb

Quote -

Wagner is led by Dmitry Utkin, a former head of Russia’s foreign military intelligence agency. Utkin is believed be a Nazi sympathizer and may have named the group after the German composer Richard Wagner, whose work Adolf Hitler revered.[43]

Was Wagner renamed the Russian League recently? - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The source is speculative ("believed" & "may have"), not definitive. And as previously discussed, apart from Utkin and the Rusich sub-unit (which I don't deny), the rest of Wagner hasn't been linked to far-right extremists nor has it been confirmed to have an official ideology in that regard, which would be contrary to their confirmed mercenary character. EkoGraf (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Even the very first source (still in the article) I looked at says: Various elements of the current Wagner Group have ties to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism.--> [44] but Shankargb removed it [45] and you EkoGraf removed the Neo-Nazi cat. -->[46] I believe that’s not how it works around here. I would appreciate if you both self reverted your removals and dispute the source first. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:32, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I do not dispute the source and agree, "various elements" have links, which is the wording that was agreed to with VM. However, sources do not confirm the organization as a whole is neo-Nazi nor that it is their official ideology, which the neo-Nazi organization category implies and which I also pointed out in my edit summary. A number of other editors have also pointed out that such miss-labeling should be avoided. The far-right movement category is even more miss-leading since they are in no way a "movement". EkoGraf (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, the source says --> Group have ties to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism but exactly that has been removed. So you both are contradicting the sources by implementing your own WP:OR and removing the mention of ties to neo-Nazim. We need to either say what the source says or remove (?) the source. So which is it? - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Anywhere I look I see Wagner's links to Neo-Nazism -->[47]... - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

First, so there won't be a misunderstanding, I did not remove the wording. In fact, I was the one who added/worded it (neo-Nazi linked) in the sentence in coordination with VM for sake of compromise. And I have no problem with the wording's inclusion (as compromise) or exclusion (which I am not actively advocating) either way in the sentence. So please refrain from WP:OR accusations and stick to WP:GOODFAITH, thank you. Second, as has been discussed above, as per cited sources, specific elements of Wagner (Utkin and Rusich) have been linked (no dispute there and why I do not object to the wordings inclusion). However, no sources state that the organization as a whole is neo-Nazi (an ideological organization). There is a difference between an ideological organization and a mercenary organization (what Wagner is). EkoGraf (talk) 10:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

PS, thank you for this source [48], I remembered I saw it somewhere and wanted to add it as a reference for the specific Wagner neo-Nazi links, but couldn't find it again. EkoGraf (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Break

@GizzyCatBella: But I only removed the word "Neo-Nazism" because it is redundant as it is the same thing as "far-right extremism". The information as a whole is not so clear-cut, since The Guardian says "Wagner Group, are “almost certainly connected with extreme far-right organisations”,"[49] and ABC says "while the alleged founder has "sympathies to far-right groups [and] there's probably some in the general recruitment that also have those sympathies, predominantly, it's not an ideological group."[50] This is why I am more in favor to keep it out of the lead but I am also fine with just keeping "Various elements of Wagner have also been linked to far-right extremists" at the end of the 2nd paragraph on lead. Shankargb (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No, "Neo-Nazism" and "far right extremism" are not synonyms. Neo-nazism IS far right extremism, but not vice versa. Far right extremism could be various types of reactionary movements, monarchism, non-Nazi nationalism (like Hindutva or something) etc. The sources call it "neo Nazi" and that's what we're going to call it too. Volunteer Marek 16:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Monarchism, and general reactionary movements are not far right extremism. Nearly all of the Non-Nazi nationalist movements would be mere "Far-right activism", but not "far-right extremism". Since The Guardian says they are "almost certainly connected with extreme far-right organisations", this is why "Neo-Nazi" on lead becomes WP:UNDUE. Shankargb (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree, neo-Nazism is a type of far right extremism (alongside fascism, racial supremacists, etc). However any nationalism solely isn't a type of far-right extremism. It can be an element of it yes in combination with other things, but not a type. As for monarchism, nothing to do with the far-right. EkoGraf (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources say (see above) --> ties to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism, anything else is your WP:OR - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: For the second time, I would ask that you refrain from WP:OR accusations against your fellow editors and try discussing the issues in a manner towards dispute resolution. Now, I would recommend you read what types of Far-right politics exist, of which neo-Nazism is one. That the person who wrote the "and" in that source didn't understand neo-Nazism is a type of far-right extremism and not separate from it is their problem, but that doesn't mean we also need to be making the same mistakes. Also, the compromise wording agreed to with VM did not include the usage of the word "and". If you insist on leaving the "and" in, then it should read "neo-Nazis and other far-right extremists" (which wouldn't be incorrect since I think there was a link to a far-right football club as well I think). EkoGraf (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf - We go with what the sources say, not what you think, that’s why it is your WP:OR. Let’s examine once again what sources say? I’ll make it easy for you by providing this quote --> Various elements of the current Wagner Group have ties to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism."[51].

This is what the sources say and that’s what we use. Your opinion might ne correct, but its irrelevant since we can’t use user EkoGraf as a source. Can we? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella Its not what I think, its what the far more reliable sources in Far-right politics say (and any other highly respectable RS that exist on the subject), that's why I recommended you read them. There is no need to try to make anything "easy" for me, I already said I acknowledge what the author incorrectly wrote/expressed himself in the source. Also, there is not need for that type of sarcasm or condescending behavior which is borderline contrary to WP:CIVIL. But, if you insist on writing verbatim what the source incorrectly says and ignore what the proper definitions actually are then no point in discussing the issue further and you can act as you like. Thank you for reminding me why I gave up on Wikipedia long ago and semi-retired. Best regards! EkoGraf (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf - Responsed on your talk page - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: You are citing Foreign Policy,[52] and it writes: The propaganda campaign has extolled the Wagner Group as hunting neo-Nazis and extremists. Yet the group’s own ties to the Russian far-right are well documented: The likely founder of the group has the logo of the Nazi Schutzstaffel tattooed on his neck. Various elements of the current Wagner Group have ties to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism.

Foreign Policy is saying that Wagner Group is propagated to be fighting "neo-Nazis and extremists" but "the group's own ties to the Russian far-right" are documented and then it presents the sentence that we are using. It is categorizing "neo-Nazis and "far-right extremism" under the broader of "far-right".

You have missed that I cited ABC and The Guardian to support my argument above. The Guardian say Wagner is "almost certainly connected with extreme far-right organisations"[53] while ABC says "sympathies to far-right groups [and] there's probably some in the general recruitment that also have those sympathies, predominantly, it's not an ideological group."[54]

This shows that we can't state "Various elements of Wagner have also been linked to Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists" in Wikivoice because The Guardian says the connection almost certain, not wholly evident while ABC say that the connection is not relevant because its not exactly ideological group.

A proper representation of these sources would be: "While the group itself isn't ideologically driven, various elements group have been linked to far-right extremists."

You can see how all these sources, who are making connection with anything "Neo-Nazi", are basing their claim over the name "Wagner" to have taken from the "Richard Wagner" the favorite musician of Nazi Adolf Hitler and the "recently" appeared picture of "likely founder" or "alleged founder" Dimitry Utkin having SS "tattoo".

But Foreign Policy publication itself did a good research last year, showing that the name "Wagner" has no origin and is likely a "convenient cliche" and the article further noted that Dmitry Utkin hasn't been seen since 2016. Furthermore, Foreign Policy also described how "most likely is no Wagner Group."[55]

"Parsing facts from the mythology that has developed around the Wagner Group gets particularly messy on this issue. “We don’t really know where this name comes from,” Sukhankin said. “In many ways this is a convenient cliche.”

The name Wagner is reported to have been the nom de guerre of one of the group’s early commanders in the fighting in eastern Ukraine, Dmitry Utkin, a former lieutenant colonel in the Russian military intelligence service, the GRU. Utkin is alleged to have been enamored with Nazi Germany, including Adolf Hitler’s favorite composer, Richard Wagner. In 2016, Utkin was pictured at a ceremony in the Kremlin intended to honor the courage of military personnel and civilians, but he hasn’t been seen in public since.

The mythology around Wagner appears to be something Prigozhin is keen to indulge. He is reported to have funded three feature-length action movies about the group’s operatives in Libya and the Central African Republic. The film Tourist, which had its premiere in the latter country’s capital, Bangui, earlier this year, offers a heroic portrayal of a group of Russian military advisors dispatched to the country to fight back violent rebel groups."[56]

After taking this important information into account, I really don't think we should be basing our understanding on the views disputed or refuted by the better experts. Shankargb (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• Updates I have now incorporated the Foreign Policy link to the article to reflect the information on the first paragraph of the lead that Russia has denied the connection and the group officially does not exist. ABC also supports this statement.

As discussed above, and agreed by several users "Neo-Nazism" should be taken out of the lead as it is already covered by "far-right extremism" and 2nd paragraph is better for the sentence. Though I have added that Wagner is not ideologically driven per ABC.

Another theory is that "Wagner group" name came from Utkin's enthusiasm for the helicopter scene from 1979 Hollywood movie Apocalypse Now.[57][58] I added this to article's body.

In 2018, Utkin was reported to be a "Rodnover" by multiple sources based on the accounts provided by members of Wagner group [59][60] and it seems that it was easy to confuse his Slavic Native Faith with Nazism in the later articles because both have some similar symbols. I am also sure that the confusion was accidental because at least 9/10 people in the western world would be aware of Nazism but not even 1/50 would be aware of "Rodnovery", the actual belief of Utkin. We should also remember that Foreign Policy,[61] National World,[62] and others reported that Utkin hasn't been seen since 2016. I am saying this because no new evidence could have propped between 2018 - 2022 that could influence already developed understanding about Utkin because he hasn't been seen since 2016. I have added about Utkin being a Rodnover on article body since this is important.

I expect this sums up the issue. Shankargb (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course Russia denies any connection. But… who’s fighting for Russia in Severodonetsk as we speak? Whom did Putin decorate with medals and $$$ after Ukraine 2014 and Syria? Yes, we should mention that Russia denies any connection, we should also state that independent analysts think that’s full of shit. Which is what we already have with the “plausible deniability” text.

As for links to neo Nazism, you keep removing that on the WP:OR pretense that neo Nazism and far rightism are the same thing so mentioning both is redundant. Ok. So if they’re the same thing how about we remove “far right extremism” from article and replace it with “neo Nazism” everywhere it’s mentioned, cuz hey, it’s the same thing? Will that work? No? Didn’t think so. Which is why your original research that “far right extremism” and “neo Nazism” are same thing is NOT ONLY contradicted by reliable sources which mention BOTH in connection to the group, but also a pretty clear example of WP:TENDENTIOUS approach youre taking to the subject.

We had a compromise version worked out (with EkoGraf). That is the default version until you either convince other editors otherwise or start an RfC or something. In the meantime please cut it out with the TENDENTIOUS edit warring. Volunteer Marek 18:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing for this Rodnover stuff is weak. An unpublished thesis and passing mention which reports on a rumor. But that is a separate topic. Volunteer Marek 18:28, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Also stop trying to add this WP:WEASEL bullshit about “While the group itself isn't ideologically driven”. None of the sources provided state that. This is YOUR own original research. Volunteer Marek 18:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek The source he cited actually does say that (not his OR). Quote [63] - ...while the alleged founder has "sympathies to far-right groups [and] there's probably some in the general recruitment that also have those sympathies, predominantly, it's not an ideological group." It wouldn't be a bad addition to the sentence to give more clarity, with proper attribution ofcourse. EkoGraf (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Which source is that? Volunteer Marek 18:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek I linked the source above. Here it is [64]. Think it got removed from the sentence in that last revert. EkoGraf (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I think that my arguments are not being read properly at all. Every single sentence I added was backed with a reliable and often scholarly source that's why allegation of OR is false. To say that we should ignore every claim by Russia won't fly either because report by The Foreign Policy also says that the group does not exist. Calling Routledge a "weak" source when in fact it is far more reliable than every single source here is not going to fly either. Shankargb (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Again this is simply not true. You are REMOVING well sourced info - for example the connections of the groups to neo-Nazism. You are including weakly sourced text - which you have the temerity to falsely claim is "scholarly" - about how the group isn't "ideologically driven", despite the fact that most sources identify it with neo-nazism and white supremacy. You are using passing mentions from a couple sources, which you falsely claim are "scholarly", to cherry pick certain information.

Let me repeat the example above. You found a book which has 288 pages, and which in these 288 pages mentions Wagner, in passing, exactly three times. You tried to pretend above that this was some in depth analysis of Wagner. You further falsely claimed that this source denied any links between Wagner and neo nazism (this was false, the source only failed to mention these... probably because it only made 3 passing mentions in a 288 page work)

You also found another source which you falsely claimed was a scholarly source [65]. It isn't. It's a political tract about... democracy in America. Completely unrelated to Wagner. In its 512 pages, this book mentions Wagner exactly once, in passing. You tried to pretend, again, that this was "mainstream scholarly literature" on the Wagner group.

You also falsely claimed that these two sources - both of which barely mention Wagner group - represent "far better researchers" than all the numerous sources we have which highlight the Nazi connection.

You additionally made problematic claims about "emergence of some war propaganda" which you then clarified meant NBC News, the BBC, and the Guardian.

In other words, you regard reliable reputable sources as "propaganda" because... apparently because they don't fit with your POV and with your attempts to whitewash this neo-Nazi group.

This is at minimum disruptive and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing and really the kind of WP:NOTHERE behavior that should result in at minimum a topic ban. Volunteer Marek 06:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Controversial edits require consensus. Shankargb removed nothing, except the word "Neo-Nazism" wording which you are trying to add to first sentence or first paragraph just because you are convinced to believe this non-existing claim that Wagner is a "neo-Nazi group", and never care about gaining WP:CONSENSUS. The link you are mentioning[66] to demean Shankargb is page no. 200 and it doesn't mention "Wagner exactly once" but 3 times on this single page alone. You are wrong if you are thinking that your misrepresentation of sources would be overlooked because of the personal attacks you are making. You need to stop throwing strawman to prove your argument instead of commenting on the specifics pointed above in a very polite manner compared to your frequent violation of WP:NPA. I understand your frustration because you are being a WP:1AM who reverted Ekograf,[67][68] IP,[69] LordLyoko,[70] me,[71] Shankargb,[72] and anyone who gets in the way of your POV pushing. If strawman, personal attacks and edit warring is what you want to engage in then you should WP:DROPTHESTICK. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

First, can you explain why Shankargb is replying to questions and comments I made to you, while you are replying to questions and comments addressed to him? Since this article seems to be the ONLY connection between you too IN THIS topic area, this seems strange. So, how about you let them reply, ey?

Second, it's just simply false that "Shanargb removed nothing, except the word "Neo-Nazism"". Now, if that was all he did, that WOULD STILL be against consensus (as agreed upon previously in the compromise version) and against reliable sources, half dozen of which stress the connection! But what they coupled that with is a lot of WP:WEASEL tendentious wording about "not ideologically driven" and "oh, he's just a pagan, not a Nazi" nonsense trying to downplay this as much as possible.

Third, the fact that you can say with a straight face that, quote, "this (is a) non-existing claim that Wagner is a "neo-Nazi group" when there's half a dozen freakin' reliable sources provided which state otherwise only goes to show how WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:POV your approach here is.

Fourth, if you're going to accuse me of "misrepresenting sources" then you really need to explain how exactly I'm doing that. See my comment above? Where I lay out in detail how your buddy is trying to pretend that political tracts are "scholarly" or that a book which mentions Wagner in passing once in 500+ pages is some kind of indepth treatise on the group? THAT is what you have to do here. Without a serious attempt to explain how exactly I'm suppose to be "misrepresenting sources", you're just making personal attacks.

Likewise your claim that I'm the only one who thinks that this belongs here is false, AS THIS VERY DISCUSSION clearly illustrates. I mean... I don't get it. Do you think that other editors aren't capable of seeing this discussion right here with their own eyes or something? Volunteer Marek 07:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus to add "Neo-Nazism" on the lead. What has been argued above that is already covered under "Far-right extremism" and this is not a political group so it is not even necessary. Though I see a number of statements above that the allegation that the founder is sympathizer of Neo-nazism (not nazi himself) are misconstrued. There is still no source which say Wagner is a Neo-Nazi group. You added Telegraph which only calls Rusich a Neo-Nazi group but not Wagner itself. You removed a lot of reliably sourced content here which I think requires discussion but I don't think you will gain the consensus to keep it removed. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely no consensus to add "Neo-Nazism" on the lead what you mean is that you and Shankargb are willing to edit war and ignore more than a half a dozen sources to keep it out of the lede per some kind of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. There's at least 8 reliable sources which say so!!! How can you just blatantly ignore and violate Wikipedia policy like that? Cuz you can tag team to bully your way through on this article?

What has been argued above that is already covered under "Far-right extremism" One more time - WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - no, "far right extremism" and "neo Nazism" are NOT the same thing. One is a subset of the other. IF we were forced to choose between the two (we aren't, since sources use both) we would go with "neo Nazism" as it's more specific. This has ALREADY been explained and the response from you and Shankargb has been basically "I don't care I do what I want!"

Though I see a number of statements above that the allegation that the founder is sympathizer of Neo-nazism (not nazi himself) are misconstrued Wait what????? You're actually saying there are sources which deny the fact that the guy covered in swastika and SS tattoos is "not a nazi himself" (fucking seriously?) or that he is not a "sympathizer of neo-Nazism"? Which sources are these? List them right here. Or stop making obviously and egregiously false claims.

There is still no source which say Wagner is a Neo-Nazi group Completely and utterly false!!! Have you even bothered to look at the sources you're edit warring to remove? The very first one. The first one. The one at the beginning. The one that you should look at first. Says: " Various elements of the current Wagner Group have ties to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism." Which is precisely what the agreed upon text - that you and Shankargb keep removing - says. Third source also says it. Fourth source says it. And so on. How in the world am I suppose to have a constructive conversation with someone who will just sit there and make complete false claims?

Yes, I added Telegraph which is about Rusich. Rusich is a SUB-UNIT of Wagner. The agreed upon wording is "Various elements of Wagner". Rusich is an "element" of Wagner. The source supports the text. Also, there's SEVEN other sources there which you are now ignoring.

Literally every sentence of what you wrote is just plain false. Volunteer Marek 08:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

To analyze your "SEVEN other sources", I quote the relevant part here: "Yet the group’s own ties to the Russian far-right are well documented"[73], "a former Russian soldier adorned with Nazi tattoos"[74], "Wagner mercenaries are reported to have left behind neo-Nazi propaganda"[75] (opinion piece), "the far-right ideology traces within the Wagner group can be traced with their use of specific symbols",[76] "Wagner mercenaries have reportedly left behind neo-Nazi propaganda in the conflict zones",[77](opinion piece by a student) "Dmitry Utkin, a mercenary with the Wagner Group, a private army financed by pro-Kremlin oligarchs, who bears Waffen-SS tattoos on his collarbone and chest,[78](opinion piece)

These sources only say that the suspected founder has Nazi tattoo, swastika (also related to Slavic paganism) and Wagner has collaborated with Rusich but none of these sources say "Wagner is Neo-Nazi" because it would mean that they are actually affiliated with the ideology, which is not the case. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@Srijanx22 you removed all this data plus all the sources [79]. What’s going on here? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I restored nearly 2,000 bytes of content with that edit. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yet you removed the KEY well sourced text. You want to keep the redundant and trivial stuff about pagan whatever? Fine. Keep it. But 1) at least write it as a coherent sentence and 2) don't use restoring that text as a flimsy excuse to remove other text. Volunteer Marek 08:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I checked this source you added, but it does not bring anything new than what we have already discussed and you can find a more detailed article here. Yes, Rusich unit has been called neo-Nazi, but Wagner isn't one because connection with one military unit won't describe Wagner as Wagner has worked with a vast number of insurgents in Europe, Asia and Africa. Srijanx22 (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The wording we have - that you insist on removing - is "various elements". Rusich is an element. There's sources for BOTH calling Wagner as a whole neo-Nazi and for calling its particular sub units neo-Nazis. You're busy pretending these sources don't exist. Volunteer Marek 08:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

And here is what the source actually says: " the Wagner operatives left more than boobytraps. They also spray-painted swastikas and SS lightning bolts as graffiti wherever they went. Nazi symbols are popular among the mercenaries". It says Wagner operatives It does not say "Rusich operatives".

Then it says: "Many founding members of Wagner also belong to the ultra-nationalist and white supremacist group known as the Russian Imperial Movement, which the U.S. State Department has declared a terrorist organization". It says members of Wagner. It does not say "members of Rusich"

So once again you're... saying things which are obviously not true and appear to be doing so willfully and of your own accord. Volunteer Marek 08:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The above quotes are from Time magazine -->[80] - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is that this source happens to contradict a range of other sources. For example, "Many founding members of Wagner". So far, only 1 "founder" is what we have seen so how they found more founders and if they found then they should have named which they haven't.

That's why the correct argument is that Wagner is not a neo-nazi group, nor it is a far-right group, because at worst it is considered to be a private mercenary as documented by these reliable sources, or more like "a network of companies and groups."[81] If it really had any ideological leaning then I don't think that any of these sources could have missed it. Wagner has only worked with groups like Rusich which has far-right extremist fighters and that's why the lead mentioned it like that. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Like I already said many times, I don't mind leaving neo-Nazi in the sentence for sake of compromise, although personally I think it is redundant to use the term since we are already stating "far-right extremists" as well, of which neo-Nazis are a type. Also writing neo-Nazi "and" far-right extremists is improper in the sense of proper definition. So it should say either "neo-Nazi far right extremists" or just "far right extremists" (although I won't be actively advocating the latter as per earlier compromise). That's my opinion. As for positioning of the sentence, I support @Srijanx22, @Shankargb and @LordLyoko that it should be in the second paragraph of the lead (which covers controversial issues), not the first. Also it may be WP:UNDUEWEIGHT pushing it into the first paragraph in my opinion. Finally, I think adding at the beginning of the sentence "While the group itself isn't ideologically driven," as Shankargb properly did and cited per [82] would correctly balance out the sentence. In that form I would even drop my objection to it being in the first paragraph of the lead, again for the sake of compromise, if that's what it takes. Otherwise, we are at an impasse since we have five editors thinking one thing and two editors thinking the other and the best solution would be an RfC to resolve the issue if its impossible to do here. EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, please stop overciting. 3-4 references are more than enough, a few should be removed since they do not additionally confirm anything more than what's already been established with the other sources. EkoGraf (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I can stop overciting as soon as some editors stop pretending that these sources don't exist. Volunteer Marek 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I highlighted above here that the Foreign Policy's article from 2021 actually finds no origin behind the name "Wagner", it casts doubts over a number of claims about the Wagner. There was no need to remove the soucing to the Foreign Policy article, and I have restored it.[83] It is uncontroversial to state that this group does not officially exist.

This time, I haven't moved the sentence from the lead. But I agree that the sentence "While the Wagner Group itself is not ideologically driven" was discussed yesterday per here and should stay unless we agree on some other wording. Shankargb (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a single source. OTOH we have 7 sources which link it to neo-nazi and white supremacist ideology. Re the origin of the name here's another source [84] which says what we already knew. If we have half a dozen sources that say one thing and one source which says something else, we go with the preponderance of sources, per WP:DUE. Volunteer Marek 23:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

If only a source is cited it doesn't mean that only 1 source exists for the information and the information automatically becomes wrong. Foreign Policy cites Sukhankin who researched more about Wagner than any of the sources cited until now.

The information you removed from lead comes from an expert[85] and a reliable source. It is not even controversial since this is not an ideological group. To begin with, there is no evidence that this group ever operated under an ideological tenant. Instead it is deemed to be a military unit run by the Russian government.[86][87] Those 7 sources only say that some elements of Wagner group have links to neo-nazis, not that the group is ideologically driven. There is a difference. US military has white supremacists and extremists,[88][89] but it doesn't mean that US armed forces are ideologically motivated. If you are going to keep the sentence about their ties to Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists then you need to also keep the fact that this is not an ideologically driven group or otherwise keep the whole sentence out of the lead. The version was stable for the whole day and should be restored. "my way or highway" approach can't be adopted for this dispute. Shankargb (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Shankargb I believe you need more than one source for that clam to stick here even with attribution. Can you find any? - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

VM, regarding your comments here [90] all of the sources cited do not confirm the Wagner Group is a neo-Nazi ideologically oriented organization as a whole. Instead, they confirm specific elements of the Wagner Group (Utkin and Rusich) are linked to neo-Nazi extremists, while the sources also reaffirm their main orientation is as a mercenary organization or a unit of the Russian government. Like I said before (as well as Shankargb now), there is a difference. If you want an example (beside the obvious US one that was given), you have the Azov Battalion which was (for a time) linked to neo-Nazi extremists, but we didn't consider the whole Ukrainian military (of which it is a part of) a neo-Nazi organization because of that. I would remind there are no Wikipedia guidelines condoning the removal of the properly sourced text, just because its sourced to only one reference, but for sake of compromise again here is one more source [91] that its not an ideologically oriented organization. Will add it to the text. Like I said before, no objection to the sentence remaining in the first paragraph when including this part of the text. EkoGraf (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Between, both sources do not contradict the neo-Nazi element and actually do state that some members of Wagner have links to far-rights. But they also state that ideology is not what drives the organization. EkoGraf (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Coming to this late but can I just add my voice to what appears to be the view of the overwhelming majority of editors: that while there are good sources for neo-Nazi elements and neo-Nazi links, there is a lack of good sources for saying that the whole Group is neo-Nazi. We should accurately describe the elements and the links, but we cannot leap from that to a definitive blanket designation of the whole group. I also think VM is correct that "far-right" and "neo-Nazi" are not synonyms: the latter is a subset of the former. But where we have to choose one, we should use the more capacious term, as some sources emphasising "far right" don't mention neo-Nazi and therefore the more general term is far safer. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley: You came at the right time. None of us say that Far-right is same as Neo-Nazi but "Far-right extremism is same as Neo-Nazism" and this is why mentioning both "Far-right extremists and Neo-Nazis" does not sound well but looks repetitive. Until we agree to better wording, we should really write something like "far right extremists including Neo Nazis" or "Neo-Nazis and other far-right extremists". Though the word WP:EXTREMIST can be tendentious and "activist" may sound as good but I am yet to think more about that. Shankargb (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct, user Shankargb on 3 June 2022 wrote (see above) Quote - ..But I only removed the word "Neo-Nazism" because it is redundant as it is the same thing as "far-right extremism". -->[92] ,however, the source says Various elements of the current Wagner Group have ties to neo-Nazis and far-right extremism [93].

I believe we should follow sources, not our WP:OR. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

But The Guardian[theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/russian-mercenaries-in-ukraine-linked-to-far-right-extremists] categorizes that under "almost certainly connected with extreme far-right organisations". Modification that I echoed above would be justifiable. Shankargb (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, neo-Nazi IS a type of far-right. And this is thoroughly historically established. One just needs to check Wikipedia's own Far-right politics article. That the person at the Guardian miswrote or doesn't know the definition doesn't mean we have to be making the same mistake. And writing something correctly that is obviously written incorrectly in a source is not OR. The "and" should be removed or "other" should be added right after it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@EkoGraf:: The Wagner Group has been described as a white supremacist group by many reliable sources, such as Time, NBC, and the Guardian. The removal was absurd. Stuntneare (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Stuntneare:: See above talk. Compromise wording has already been agreed to after much discussion. In addition, saying neo-Nazism and white supremacism in the same sentence in that form is redundant since by nature and ideology neo-Nazis ARE white supremacists. In other words, when you are saying they are linked to neo-Nazis, you are already saying they are linked to white supremacists. EkoGraf (talk) 23:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Prisoners' crimes amnesty

Ukrainian MOD reports that Wagner is recruiting from Russian prisons with aims to recruit up to 10,000 personnel in two months. Recruitment has been conducted within the prison municipalities of Rostov, St. Petersburg, and Nizhny Novogrod. Recruits are said to be sent to a village near Molkino, Krasnodar Territory, a likely Wagner training facility.The contract is said to offer full amnesty for crimes committed following six months of service. Why isn't this mentioned in the article? 185.13.50.212 (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about their recruitment in Saint Petersburg prisons, but I couldn't find anything about Rostov or Nizhny Novgorod. Could you please provide a source for that? Kleinpecan (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

PMC

PMC, which I gather is short for private military company or private military contractor is not familiar to me. I think it ought to be spelled out or otherwise explained when it is first used in the article. LankyYankee (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@LankyYankee: It is, in the second sentence of the intro: "It is variously described as a private military company…" —C.Fred (talk)

I've added the abbreviation, per normal practice, to make it clear. (Hohum ^@) 15:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

It is also confusing, that in the lead the company is named as PMC Wagner and PMC defined as private military company but later in te text Wagner PMCs is used as the name of PMC Wagner's mercenaries though in the lead no any hint about the difference to PMC vs PMCs, and not mentioning the company as simply "Wagner". JSoos (talk) 10:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

PMC is both the short-hand for a private military company and private military contractor. So, when we write PMCs we are referring to private military contractors. More neutral term than mercenary. I don't mind adding in the article that PMCs also refers to private military contractors for those unfamiliar with the terms so the difference between PMC and PMCs (as you say) is noticeable. EkoGraf (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Billboards

Public recruitment in Russia: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/07/russias-private-military-contractor-wagner-comes-out-of-the-shadows-in-ukraine-war I just added a sentence on Yevgeny Prigozhin's page to that effect. Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

SIZO No. 4 (St. Petersburg)

Wondering if the group is recruiting from there too... Lotje (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Opponents - Ukraine

How comes that Ukraine isn't listed as opponent? 2A02:810A:D00:3B44:DCA:F82:9BC3:8175 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Wagner Group in Fiction?

Recent Ryanverse books (Tom Clancy's legacy) include a company with a similar name. Same group? Will (Talk - contribs) 00:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

“Topaz” (aka the “killing Ukrainians makes me horny” guy)

I’m not sure if this individual (who is a member of Task Force Rusich and is influential on Telegram) deserves a mention or not. He operates a Russian military vehicle with blatant Nazi symbols on it alongside the “Z”. It definitely undercuts Putin’s claim that the war is about “denazification”. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AD07 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Its one guy. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Add a Description of the Wagner Group's Logo

Logo of Wagner Group.

A grining menencing skull framed by the light-red crosshairs of a sniper rifle in a black background.

Padded by the group's name in the Latin and the Cyrillic script with a black background and a strong light-red outer border.

On the flag also followed by an outer black background color.

BoQsc (talk) 11:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

We have a picture, why do we need a description? Slatersteven (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to be aware of how Search Engines or Wikipedia works.

The reason is simple: so we can find things. I mean what's even is this question of yours?

Why even bother having a Wikipedia article when we can just drop a few images and call it a day.

Maybe Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, isn't it, or image storage facility? 78.63.42.224 (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No I am aware of how they work, So if someone searched for "Wagner Group" they will find this page with (relative) ease. I am unsure why someone being able to find this page after searching for "grining menencing skull" would be what anyone is looking for. Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No point in a description. EkoGraf (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Wagner Group.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2022

Could someone please add this to the article? Thank you! File:Emblem of the Rusich Group.jpg Vl2020 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 11:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Rusich promoting abuse of POWs

According to [94], Task Force Rusich’s Telegram channel has encouraged its members to commit war crimes, such as removing the limbs of still-living POWs and then falsely claiming they were already injured when they were captured, or simply killing them while in captivity. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:AFF0 (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

But Rusich (ДШРГ Русич) is NOT a subsidiary of Wagner group! Even though they are linked. Dmitryredkin (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Use of blogs and not Reliable Sites as a Source

I'm excluding the claim made by a Newly created site, wartranslated.com about the size of Wagner Group, most sources agree on 6,000 to 8,000 men,this two sources are proven historically Reliable for WP policy. However the claim made by the url/site, previously mentioned is WP:EXTRAORDINARY, not need to consider. Mr.User200 (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

I would suggest that the "Size" in the infobox be increased to 20,000 per this BBC source which quotes the UK Ministry of Defence

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64050719 2A00:23C8:2D94:AC01:7E23:AE:3D39:E575 (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Increased to 50,000+ per other sources. Lemonaka (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Wagner Group (variant).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Typo

While the Wagner Group itsel does not position itself as (January 11 2023) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.37.234.67 (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Neo-nazi claim in lead

No mater if the claim is true pr not it should not be in the lead it should follow similar prosedure as the article for sparta battalion or the azov regiment 217.140.202.214 (talk) 19:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Although I agree, the issue was already discussed at very great length previously (see talk page above) and after a lot of back-and-forth talk (and edit warring) a compromise solution was found that has managed to mostly hold the integrity of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it should be highlighted in all leads. The whitewashing of fascist paramilitaries is an ongoing problem. KetchupSalt (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The infobox box says the founder is Prigozhin but, in the Origin section of the article, it says Utkin was the founder. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Due to sources themselves not being sure and contradictory for years. Seems one financially helped found it, while the other is the military founder. Most at moment point to Prigozhin but still uncertainty remains. EkoGraf (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Then we should remove it form the infobox, and discuss it in the body. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I would simply move Prigozhin in the infobox from "founder" to "leaders" until it is clearer. EkoGraf (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 Febuary 2023

Request to add under the section Wagner Group#Activities

Main article: Russia–Ukraine relations

Main article: Russia–Syria relations

Main article: Russia–Sudan relations

Main article: Madagascar–Russia relations

Main article: Libya–Russia relations

Main article: Russia–Venezuela relations

Main article: Mozambique–Russia relations

Main article: Mali–Russia relations

respectively. Also add link to Tourist (film) under the section Wagner Group#Awards and honors. 223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I added the link to Tourist. I don't think linking to the main Russian relations article is correct as the the Russian/state relations articles are wider than just this mercenary group. --Mvqr (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Is there an actual source for the note in source 57?

"The likely founder of the group has the logo of the Nazi Schutzstaffel tattooed on his neck."

I've searched for proof of this claim, but couldn't find anything substantial. The claim is often repeated in sourceless news publications, however. It is also absent on Yevgeny Prigozhin's wikipedia page.

Surely there's a better source available than a news magazine like Foreign Policy?

Additionally, I think the use of them as a source might have something to do with their very serious sounding name. News websites such as Fox News or Washington Post (whose parent owns Foreign Policy) are discouraged as sources. 205.185.107.25 (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Someone provided:

Meliha Kešmer (2022-03-21). "Iz redova ekstremne desnice među ruske plaćenike u Ukrajini". Radio Slobodna Evropa (in Bosnian).

As a source. But this still lacks any form of evidence. It's just another news article but in Bosnian. The standard of evidence has to be higher than "people are saying" something. 205.185.107.25 (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no source for any of that. 91.148.93.151 (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this must be referring to Dmitry Utkin, who's widely believed to be a founder or co-founder along with Prigozhin. The actual image of him with the Nazi tattoos on his neck is the first image that comes up when you Google "dmitry uktin neck tattoo". HappyWith (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Reduction of the article

Could someone write an article about the activities of the Wagner group in Ukraine, as has already been done with Syria? Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

See "Too long" section above. Working on it. EkoGraf (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks :) Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Renaming of this article to Prigozhin Group

The article should be renamed to Prigozhin Group for the following reasons:

• Possibility of Wagner ending up with the same fate as the swastika symbol.
• founder of the group is Yevgeny Prigozhin and therefore, even though he named it that way, it's his group and best associated with the founder and not the composer.

• Searches for Wagner Group may then redirect to the renamed Prigozhin Group for those who search for it.
• Entries addressing the group should also be changed to Prigozhin Group unless where the group's idea for their internal naming is mentioned.

RobiBuecheler (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It's far more commonly mentioned as Wagner Group in sources, news articles, etc, so per policy WP:COMMONNAME, it should stay as Wagner Group. (Hohum ^@) 01:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

thus proving my point exactly RobiBuecheler (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

As per Hohum, it's called the Wagner Group as per WP:COMMONNAME. As for speculation regarding any possible events that may or may not take place in the future regarding the organization see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. EkoGraf (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Nicknames to the information box

I suggest adding a nickname section to the information box as in sources Wagner commonly uses these to refer to themselves. I suggest adding:

• (The) Orchestra • Musicians • Wagnerians/Wagnerites

This would bring the page in-line with RU-Wikipedia as well. Coobadge1 (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Do WE do this usually? Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if bringing it in line with RU-wikipedia is at all needed, but it is still relevant information. Coobadge1 (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Reduction of the article

Is anyone working on Wagner Group activities in the Central African Republic or Wagner Group activities in Libya right now? Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 09:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Uwdwadafsainainawinfi Yeah I was planning on doing it like for Ukraine and Syria when I find the time. But you can do it yourself if you wanted to. EkoGraf (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Emblem of the Rusich Group.jpg (discussion)
• FACA soldier with Wagner patch.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Wagner

Wagner group 59.153.127.148 (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. your poitn is? Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Army

One of the former soldiers of the Afghan army 31.2.194.145 (talk) 15:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Source, and so? Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2023

Lithuania designates Wagner as a terrorist group. Please add Lithuania to "Designated as a terrorist group by" box.

Sources: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1936307/lithuania-designates-russia-s-wagner-as-terrorist-organisation https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-734274 Iosif bidenavich (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

 Already done a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 15:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Battles and wars infobox parameter is very long

This parameter in the infobox is crazily long, and extends the infobox far down into the article body. I think it might be best to just show the wars, and not every individual battle - or collapse the individual battles into dropdown lists, or delegate them to the offshoot articles like Wagner Group activities in Ukraine, etc. Thoughts? HappyWith (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I've collapsed the battles as an initial measure. (Hohum ^@) 16:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I think someone reverted you because the formatting was messed up. If I have time I’ll see if I can do what you did but with more correct formatting so that it can stay in the page. HappyWith (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Too long

The article has grown well beyond the guidance at WP:SIZERULE. My suggestion would be to move the long Operations section to its own article, and leave an overview here. (Hohum ^@) 13:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Given it is one sub contractor mercenary group, maybe trim it of all but the essentials? It it really so important we need two articles? Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like one way will be more achievable than the other. YMMV. (Hohum ^@) 15:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the topic is prominent enough and sufficiently extensively covered in reliable sources to merit such in-depth coverage on wiki, so I definitely don't support trimming the details. If the article has gotten a bit unwieldy due to its size, I suggest splitting off the Operations section into multiple separate articles based on geographical regions (e.g. "Wagner Group Activities in Africa", "Wagner Group Activities in the Middle East", and "Wagner Group Activities in Ukraine"), leaving here a "Main article:" template and a summary. For countries/regions where activity has been minimal, the content can just stay here.

King regards,

-J Jay Hodec (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

This seems like a good solution. (Hohum ^@) 23:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind this. I don't support just simply trimming this article due to the high notability of the organization. But, if sub-articles are created on their operations and leaving this article as the main one with summaries as Jay Hodec suggested then I would support that. EkoGraf (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hohum @Jay Hodec I have started the process of branching out and cutting down the main article with the creation of Wagner Group activities in Syria. I titled it "Syria" instead of "Middle East" since they have only had activities in Syria and nowhere else in that region. Will continue branching out and cutting down this main article in the coming weeks when I find the time. You can also join in if you can. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Not quite,

There are numerous articles about Wagner operated Jets, SAM in Libya.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/us/politics/russian-jets-mercenaries-libya.html

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20200924-libya-4-wagner-mercenaries-killed-in-helicopter-crash/ 5.19.139.220 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

EkoGraf You're right, a Syria spin-off makes more sense than a Middle East one at the moment (it could be consolidated into a "Middle East" one if Wagner operations expand to other countries in the region in the future). Obviously any single partitioning arrangement will be somewhat arbitrary and may be worth revising further on down the road. The process of spinning-off articles could for example be repeated for an eventual Wagner Group activities in Africa article if activities in particular countries (and hence wiki content for those countries) become extensive enough.

Regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jay Hodec Yeah I agree. If they expand their operations in the Middle East we can rename the article to that. Wagner Group activities in Africa is my next planned spin-off since its very large due to Libya and the CAR particularly. Leaving the Ukraine spin-off for last. EkoGraf (talk) 10:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

5.19.139.220 The Middle East region officially ends at Egypt and doesn't include Libya, which will be part of our spin-off into Wagner Group activities in Africa, since Libya is in North Africa. EkoGraf (talk) 10:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Hohum @Jay Hodec I have branched out the Ukraine activities article. Only Africa remains, which I will do at some point. My question is should we have one article encompasing all of Africa, or multiple ones by country? I am thinking it should be one article per country, because the CAR and Libya sections are pretty big right now. EkoGraf (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@EkoGraf I share your evaluation here. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

If we did one per country, my concern is that each article would be pretty short to the extent that it wouldn’t even be worth splitting. It’s a complicated issue, but I’m leaning towards one article for Africa as a whole being the way to go. HappyWith (talk) 15:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity of soldiers in the Wagner group?

Is the Wagner group made up of only ethnic slavic people? Why call it the wagner group when putin is calling every ukrainian with a ancient slavic people symbol tattoo a nazi? 50.40.198.205 (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Information about Steneneu s (talk) 01:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Under "Organization/Recruitment and training" in the second to last paragraph: change the word "cadres" to "cadets". Explanation: the sentence is discussing recruiting practices of the Wagner Group and the phrase is referring to those new recruits, not a "small group of people specially trained for a particular purpose or profession" (Wiktionary). Although Wiktionary also includes the military definition "the framework or skeleton upon which a new regiment is to be formed; the officers of a regiment forming the staff," the context does not seem to suggest that these inmates are being hired for their military skill. LargeMike (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 09:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2023 (2)

Please change 23 June, 2023 to On June 23, 2023, 47.156.12.29 (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Already done Tantomile (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Terrorist Designation

This should be distinct from Sanctions.

• France: The French parliament vote on 9 May 2023 was non-binding, only calling on the EU, so France should not be listed as a designator. —John Navas (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Again, France did not designate Wagner as terrorist. "The resolution, which is non-binding and symbolic ..." [emphasis added] It only calls on the EU, is not binding on France. —John Navas (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with Jnavas2, the voted on resolution does not designate Wagner a terrorist group. Instead, as a non-binding resolution, it calls on the EU to list them as a terrorist organisation. The article further goes into what would happen IF they are listed as a terrorist organisation by the EU (see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL). EkoGraf (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2023

Add to Wagner Group#Ukraine: Prisoners who returned to Russia went on to commit more crimes. Examples include Georgiy Siukayev, who stabbed a man with a developmental disability to death in his home town of Tskhinvali; Ivan Rossomakhin, who killed an 85-year-old pensioner; and a 42-year-old mercenary who threateed two schoolgirls with weapons before raping one of them. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

And the answer is the same, read it.

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. About non-notable people accused of crimes, please see WP:BLPCRIME, about "to get pacified", please see MOS:EUPH. Slatersteven (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Where did you see "to get pacified"? Did you read the edit request? 93.72.49.123 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I just copy and pasted from your last one, As you added nothing that changes the answer, you have not tried to get consensus, so should not have made an edit request. Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Emblem of the Rusich Group.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo Wagner Presence?

Does it make sense to mention the recent Kosovo disruption with Wagner agent procedures among Serbs? Or at least suspected as per the world map graphic colour. https://prishtinainsight.com/wagner-group-symbols-seen-in-protesters-in-northern-kosovo/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/02/11/wagner-mercenaries-helping-serbia-prepare-potential-attack-nation/ 81.78.174.220 (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Not right now, as it seems to be only a rumour. Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

PMC Wagner Recruitment on Social Media

A Politico piece from this week cited research which found evidence that PMC Wagner has been recruiting on mainstream platforms like Twitter and Facebook https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-ukraine-war-mercenaries-wagner-group-recruit-twitter-facebook-yevgeny-prigozhin/ Billiardsdzonkha (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Trivial. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2023

@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
 | image            = Logo of the Wagner Group (official).svg
 | caption          = Official logo of the Wagner Group<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mk.ru/politics/2022/11/23/prigozhin-otpravil-evroparlamentu-kuvaldu-s-logotipom-chvk-vagnera-i-sledami-krovi.html|title=Пригожин отправил Европарламенту кувалду с логотипом ЧВК "Вагнера" и следами "крови"|website=www.mk.ru|date=23 November 2022 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://bloknot.ru/obshhestvo/uvazhayut-nashih-voinov-istorik-grigorov-o-vozvrashhenii-letchikov-antonova-i-nikishina-v-grobah-s-flagami-rf-i-chvk-vagner-1029595.html|title=Уважают наших воинов: историк Григоров о возвращении летчиков Антонова и Никишина в гробах с флагами РФ и ЧВК "Вагнер"|first=Кристина|last=Кирьянова|date=14 December 2022|website=Блокнот Россия}}</ref>
 | ideology         =
-| slogan           = "Blood, Honor, Homeland, Courage" ({{lang-ru|Кровь, честь, родина, отвага}}) <!-- Motto from the logo -->
+| slogan           = "Blood, Honor, Homeland, Courage" ({{lang-ru|Кровь, Честь, Родина, Отвага}}) <!-- Motto from the logo -->
 | groups           =
 | headquarters     = PMC Wagner Center, [[Saint Petersburg]], Russia
 | area             =

37.99.39.44 (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 (talk) 23:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2023

Change Russian Armed Forces from ally of Wagner Group to enemy 2600:1702:2020:4730:B831:D825:EFDD:2F9F (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol. But seriously, per WP:NOTNEWS let's wait a bit and see. Volunteer Marek 00:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Things could die down a bit. Don't want to jump to add stuff before things can be verified. Professor Penguino (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Rebellion or Mutiny

This page refers to a Mutiny. This is incorrect, Wagner PMC was not part of the Russian Military, so it not rebelling against it generals. It is a separate organisation, fighting against the government, as an act of rebellion. The idea of rebellion vs Mutiny was discussed at length here - and the discussion was closed, with the decision that it is a *rebellion* and Mutiny is the incorrect term.

Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Also the RM is still open, and the closed discussion made not judgment. Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Please look at the votes. The consensus wth both discussions is that rebellion is the correct term and Mutiny is not. one discussion is closed, the RM is still open, but its clear that the editors overwheilmingly support Rebellion over mutiny. Mutiny is the incorrect term. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We are not a democracy, what do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Slogan

Is there a source for the slogan? Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is written on the emblem. 147.32.88.205 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Opponent update required - Russian Armed Forces

After today, "Russian Armed Forces" needs to be listed as both an ally and an opponent. Very Russian. Dubbs01 (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Everyone we don't like is far-right"

The about the groups ideology stemming from the far-right really shows the bias of Wikipedia. They could actually be far-left, have you interviewed the group? The inclusion of that is not based in fact but conjecture. 24.154.203.238 (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Accurately describing a group's ideology is not "bias". To describe a group founded by a man with Nazi insignia tattoos as "far-left" is quite a bold claim, and you better cough up some reliable sources that say so. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess they could be self hating slavs and considering 80% of them are from Central Asia maybe they like Nazis more than Russians. smh Fruitloop11 (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Calling a far-right group far-right isn't bias. It's called accurately describing political affiliation. Professor Penguino (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The reality-based community checks the sources before shooting from the hip. The article has many reliable sources for that information. Please show us yours. Carlstak (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the position of the pro-Russian governments in Donetsk and Lugansk?

Does anyone have a source that talks about the position or what they think of the pro-Russian separatists or the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics in reference to the Wagner rebellion? Is this because Wagner's troops mostly abandoned separatist-controlled territory, more specifically the Lugansk People's Republic, or is it that the separatist forces simply fell into utter military irrelevance? LLs (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That info is covered at Wagner Group rebellion#Reactions. HappyWith (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 June 2023

LPR isn't linked anywhere before it's used under "Ukraine", and should be linked to Luhansk People's Republic to define what it means Gisforgirard (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Prison battalions

There’s not much in this article about Wagner’s use of prisoner recruitment and the special arrangement they have with the convicts. There’s a lot of information out there, so I think we could add this. I don’t have time right now, but if anyone else wants to help expand that material, that’d be welcomed. HappyWith (talk) 21:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit: There actually is info about this in the article, just in the “Ukraine” section and not in the “organization” section. I think then all that needs to be done is to consolidate it in one place. HappyWith (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Fkskf 109.166.130.132 (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

RAF as oponents?

After the attempted coup, the RAF should be classified as enemies StovlessStove (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2023 (2)

France declared Wagner a terrorist as well (source : https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/16/textes/l16t0111_texte-adopte-seance) Tonalisme (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Did this happen?

This was reported by the Associated Press:

Prigozhin said Wagner field camps in Ukraine were struck by rockets, helicopter gunships and artillery fire on orders from Gerasimov following a meeting with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, at which they decided to destroy Wagner.

Did this happen? The word "camp" or "camps" isn't mentioned in the current version of this Wikipedia article. Or would this issue be covered in another related Wikipedia article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 13:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, here it is: Wagner Group rebellion. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we have an article on it. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe the line "after he threatened to attack Russian forces in response to a claimed air strike on his paramilitary soldiers" is the reference to the camps. Wagner Group rebellion covers more of it in Prigozhin's announcement section. Whether or not it "happened" or not isn't currently out there in sources, all that sources report is Prigozhin claims it happens. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Are the Russian Volunteer Corps REALLY Opponents?

The leader of the RVC, Denis Kapustin actively praised the Wagner group rebellion and requested to join the uprising. This has been cited numerous times in the Wagner Group rebellion page. Now, in spite of all of that, how in the heck are they still listed as "opponents"? AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2023 (EST)

Because they did fight them. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, however, just like Wagner became allies with the Russian Military despite them openly fighting them just yesterday, so too do I think that recent sentiments of their leader's desire for cooperation and alliance in an uprising between the two factions, overwrite past sentiments at least until we have confirmation that these positive sentiments have dissolved. AverageWikiEditingEnjoyer (talk) 10:34, 26 June 2023 (EST)

As yet they have not fought alongside them, and as the war is not over Wagner may yet re-enter it and be hostile to RVC. Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Contracts

Hey, so, the line "and the Wagner fighters were to sign contracts with the Russian Defense Ministry." line does not seem to make sense with the overall context of the mutiny. While it has yet to be added to this page, we know there was friction between Prigozhin and the PoD in regards to such contracts (See <ref>{{Cite news |last=Osborn |first=Andrew |date=13 June 2023 |title=Putin backs push for mercenary groups to sign contracts despite Wagner's refusal |language=en |work=[[Reuters]] |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-backs-push-mercenary-groups-sign-contracts-despite-wagners-refusal-2023-06-13/ |url-status=live |access-date=24 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230622143644/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-backs-push-mercenary-groups-sign-contracts-despite-wagners-refusal-2023-06-13/ |archive-date=22 June 2023}}</ref> for a pre-mutiny source, while <ref>{{Cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Julian |last2=Gibbons-Neff |first2=Thomas |date=25 June 2023 |title=With Wagner’s Future in Doubt, Ukraine Could Capitalize on Chaos |language=en |work=[[The New York Times]] |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/us/politics/wagner-future-ukraine-war.html |url-status=live |access-date=26 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230626004944/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/25/us/politics/wagner-future-ukraine-war.html |archive-date=26 June 2023}}</ref> for a post-mutiny source. This latter source seems to go into more detail than the currently cited CNN for the line, however: it says "Wagner troops who did not participate in the revolt would be allowed to sign contracts with the Defense Ministry." AP News frames it as "The government also said it would not prosecute Wagner fighters who took part, while those who did not join in were to be offered contracts by the Defense Ministry." (<ref>{{Cite news |date=25 June 2023 |title=Russian mercenary group revolt against Moscow fizzles but exposes vulnerabilities |language=en |work=[[Associated Presss]] |url=https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-wagner-prigozhin-9acbdf1eda849692ca0423a4116058d1 |url-status=live |access-date=26 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230626054415/https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-wagner-prigozhin-9acbdf1eda849692ca0423a4116058d1 |archive-date=26 June 2023}}</ref>)

So it looks like the CNN article being cited made a bit too firm of a statement with "will sign contracts". Would anyone who can edit this page please correct it so it is less firmly stated in this article? Editoronthewiki (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• And also, yes, the disagreement over signing contracts before the mutiny should go somewhere in here since its prelude to the rebellion, but I already raised that point on "Edit request" above, so any discussions should go up there Editoronthewiki (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Much like I did on the rebellion talk page, I have a recent moment (and citation for it) I think should be reflected in text: <ref>{{Cite news |last=Osborn |first=Andrew |date=13 June 2023 |title=Putin backs push for mercenary groups to sign contracts despite Wagner's refusal |language=en |work=[[Reuters]] |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-backs-push-mercenary-groups-sign-contracts-despite-wagners-refusal-2023-06-13/ |url-status=live |access-date=24 June 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230622143644/https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-backs-push-mercenary-groups-sign-contracts-despite-wagners-refusal-2023-06-13/ |archive-date=22 June 2023}}</ref> Russia was pushing for Wagner to sign a contract to become part of its military hierarchy, much to the anger of Prigozhin. At this time, I cannot edit the page due to the lockdown, but I think this could help anyone who can Editoronthewiki (talk) 00:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

• It has since been added to the rebellion page under the subsection title "Order to integrate Wagner" for anyone interested in other references Editoronthewiki (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

Change "de facto private army of Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman formerly with close ties to Russian President" to "de facto private army of Yevgeny Prigozhin, a businessman who formerly had close ties to Russian President".

As it is currently, the reference of this sentence is unclear because of a structural ambiguity; i.e. is Prigozhin formerly a businessman, or formerly somebody with close ties to the president? Worded in the way I have suggested, the ambiguity is resolved and it is made clear that Prigozhin formerly had ties to the president, but is (presumably) still a businessman. PoopyL (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not unclear at all Formaly is after businessman. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Question: why not use what's in the main article (a Russian oligarch and a former close confidant of Russian president Vladimir Putin)? M.Bitton (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

That's what I would suggest. Not necessarily because it's used in another article, but because out of all the proposed version, it's the clearest and most readable. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Come to think of it, what's the point of adding what's already covered in the linked article? The whole point of wikilinks is to keep the articles concise while maintaining relevant information in one place, to avoid the spread of contradictory info, pov forks, etc. M.Bitton (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Become Hero after Try to Coup in Russia from Western media

No comments Western countries allow Wanger froup refuged in their Coutries to join NATO Army. But denied Civilian Refuges like Syria Ukaine or Afganistan. 2001:FB1:18C:545D:785B:73BB:8A1E:9330 (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources about 'Wanger Group' soldiers being allowed to join the 'NATO Army'? I've never heard of that happening. HappyWith (talk) 19:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Allies

the Russian armed forces shall be removed from the allies and added to the opponents section because Wagner has revolted against the Russian army WIKIROBOTBOT (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Or changed to former. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There are so many "former" allies and opponents, including those that only had those status in individual battles. In my opinion, "allies" and "opponents" should only be listed that have consistently maintained such relationship with Wagner. Therefore, Russian Armed Forces should be removed as allies and Al-Nusra Front should be removed as opponents. The "Battle of Khasham" comment should be removed as the United States Air Force is not the only party listed that has only interacted directly with Wagner once. El819 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Which ones are they still fighting? Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Not sure, but by consistently I mean that they don't change from being allies to opponents and vice versa. Maybe Al-Nusra Front should be kept then but there's no need to specific the years, as that isn't done for other parties listed. El819 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

MAybe remove the whole list, as it is going to change, and really tells us nothing. Slatersteven (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

i support DitorWiki (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Headquarters

the headquarters shall be changed to Belarus because the Wagner Group has been expelled from Russia and it has also been banned in Russia. The Belarusian government is constructing a large military base to house wagnerites inside belarus. WIKIROBOTBOT (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Lets wait still we now if is Wagner, or a new group. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

yes. I agree to your point DitorWiki (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Disbanded

Should be changed to past tense now: [95] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:FE1B (talk) 16:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

But the wagner group is still functioning only their headquarters and bases have been relocated and changed to Belarus DitorWiki (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @DitorWiki, I do not see any articles or sources that suggests that Wagner has been disbanded. See article today concerning troop movements in Africa (https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/central-african-republic-says-wagner-troop-movement-is-rotation-not-departure-2023-07-08/). Jurisdicta (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Gurkha soldiers

The Telegraph is reporting that Wagner seems to be recruiting from Gurkha soldiers (previously trained in the Nepali Army) after India has tightened its rules on Nepalese soldiers in its military. Not sure where this should be included in the article, but seems noteworthy. GnocchiFan (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Opponents/Allies error

After the Wagner group rebellion, shouldn't the Armed forces of Ukraine be on their Allies' section and the Russian armed forces on the Opponents section? I don't know whether to change this or not because there might have been something I've missed.

NO, the enemy of my enemy is not my ally. Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Splitting

As has been discussed here, I think it would be a good idea to summarize Wagner Group activities in Africa in an article of that name, bringing together content currently independently sub-sectioned under this article about; Sudan, Central African Republic, Madagascar, Libya, Mozambique, Mali, Chad and Burkina Faso.

Additionally, the content under the Deaths of journalists section could be moved under the activities in those respective countries section.

Opening the discussion, please contribute. --Jabbi (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. As mentioned in the archive discussion, the page is (still) too long to navigate and could do with some splitting out into separate articles. GnocchiFan (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

I have created a draft article Draft:Wagner Group activities in Africa. --Jabbi (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you blank this draft and make it a redirect to the page please FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I have now created the article Wagner Group activities in Africa. The question becomes how to summarize the content on the article. The Wagner Group activities in Africa article is already ~75kb so this will be effective in making this main article clearer and more readable IMO. --Jabbi (talk) 16:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2023

217.33.144.227 (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

FERIAKRIM 19/05/95

What? Slatersteven (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Equipment

Are there any indications of the equipment available to them? Do they have drones, tanks, helicopters, ...? Jan olieslagers (talk) 19:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2023

217.33.144.227 (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Feri akrim 19/05/95 [sy121897b]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Second sentence in lead ambigous

Second sentence reads:

The group operates beyond the law in Russia, where private military companies are officially forbidden.

It is a notable fact that Russian law fordbids PMCs and that this means that Wagner Group's status in Russia is in a grey area. Academics and journalists have pointed out that this gives Putin arbitrary power to get rid of unwanted agents or look the other way as he sees fit.

Problem is, it is unclear what is meant by "operating beyond the law in Russia", for one thing Wagner Groups apparently doesn't officially exist as an entity. Another thing is, what does that phrase mean exactly, that Wagner Group activities are illegal in Russia by default? I'm not sure the sources support that. And finally, does this belong in the lead? Wagner Group mostly seems to operate in other countries. (Which also raises the question if they operate "beyond the law" there.) Jabbi (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sledgehammer

What is it? No mention about the stories the article subject is most known for?
https://dossier.center/kuvalda/ The Dossier Center found out the names of thugs from PMCs who tortured, killed and dismembered a Syrian in 2017 (rus)

Murder of Yevgeny Nuzhin there is even an article on this and it is only mentioned in "See also"? Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Utkin

Utkin seems quite likely to be a mere figurehead, this seems all but confirmed by this Bellingcat report.

Statements about Utkin should be careful:

The group was founded in 2014 by former GRU officer Dmitry Utkin and businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin. 

This is the first sentence of second paragraph of lead.

He should be much less prominent than he is. He's not been seen publicly for years, unlike Prigozhin... --Jabbi (talk) Jabbi (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Asarlaí:, thank you for your recent edits. I want to question whether any reference to Utkin should be made in the lead, as you have reinstated with this edit. It is correct what you mention in you edit summary that "numerous sources say Utkin was co-founder and longtime military commander, who gave the group its name, so he shouldn't be cut from the lead". However, serious highly reliable critical sources such as the Bellingcat report above which states that Utkin was "a convenient and deniable decoy to disguise [Wagner Group's] state provenance" [96] are rather dismissive of his role. Candace Rondeax refers to him as Wagner's "titular commander" [97]. Sources seem to agree that Utkin was the first operational commander of Wagner Group starting in Donbas [98]

2014 marked the end of Slavonic Corps as such, but a part of the group morphed again. That same year, Lt. Col. of the Reserves Dmitrii Utkin – a man who claims both to have earlier worked on anti-piracy for the long-lived shipping Moran Security Group, and to have been in Syria with the Slavonic Corps for the infamous trouble – popped up in the Donbas in eastern Ukraine as the commander of a new organization, the Wagner Group

In my opinion Utkin should be extensively covered in the section about Wagner Group origins. But he only serves as a distraction in the lead. He is only historic trivia.

See also: [99], [100], [101]

The lead is supposed to summarize the most important aspects of an article. Utkin seems to have been the first, yet only one of many compatible, later to come on field commanders - whose call sign gave the group it's name. That doesn't seem important to me. --Jabbi (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections here I will remove again the sentence "The group was reportedly founded in 2014 by Prigozhin and former GRU officer Dmitry Utkin (alias 'Wagner')." The reason being that it is not clear what is meant exacly by "founded" (as Wagner is an informal entity) and the following sentence explains that the group came to prominence around that year, 2014. The purpose of the lead is to summarise the most important points from the article. Utkin is not important in any way to the Wagner Group. He does not seem to have ever been more than an on-field commander, one of many, admittedly the one from which the name of the group is taken, but it is not clear that this fact has any importance to it. Prigozhin is referenced in the lead as controlling Wagner. -- Jabbi (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

PMC Wagner should redirect to this article

PCM Wagner used to redirect to this article but it no longer does. H44dyss9900 (talk) 09:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023

Change “The Wagner Group is known to have operated in at least eleven countries; Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Syria, Sudan, Mozambique, Central African Republic, Mali, Libya, Sudan and Madagascar” to “The Wagner Group is known to have operated in at least eleven countries; Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Syria, Sudan, Mozambique, Central African Republic, Mali, Libya, Venezuela and Madagascar”

Reason: Sudan is listed twice atm. Venezuela is included in the Activities section but is missing from the list of eleven countries. Lhollo (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixed the Sudan issue. Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Founder

According to Foreign Policy[102] and Bellingcat[103] sources in the body of the article, Utkin was one of the earlier commanders, employed to run the group, while Prigozhin (by his own admission[104]) is the real founder, owner and funder of the group. Mhorg (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Yevgeny Prigozhin is dead 2601:47:4300:B120:E05F:A1DD:B71C:F8C (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66599733 Let's leave it until the dust clears. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Question about putting the leaders as killed in action.

Shouldn’t Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin not be killed in action they weren’t killed in a war they were killed by a plane crash so made instead you should put (2014-2023) next to there names like other wikis. Dmitry Utkin HuntersHistory (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Wagner leader

Wagner group leader, Prigozhin killed in Moscow plane crash today so you should put him as (2014-2023) [105]https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66599733 Wagner Group leader Yevgeny Prigozhin on passenger list of plane that crashed HuntersHistory (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin not be killed in action they weren’t killed in a war they were killed by a plane crash so made instead you should put (2014-2023) next to there names like other wikis. Dmitry Utkin HuntersHistory (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Death is Confirmed

As a close official with the US Military, I can now confirm that he has died. 2601:47:4300:B120:8C53:1F1C:8F80:8FDF (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Yevgneny Prigozhin's wikipedia page also records him as dead but for some reason wikipedia moderators are insisting on, even though it makes wikipedia contradict itself, the information is not clear enough to be considered encyclopedic. Cactus Ronin (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin not be killed in action they weren’t killed in a war they were killed by a plane crash so made instead you should put (2014-2023) next to there names like other wikis. HuntersHistory (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2023 (2)

Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin presumed dead after Russia plane crash and Russia and Russia said so it should you should put (2014-2023) next to his name see reasons in talk. HuntersHistory (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin not be killed in action they weren’t killed in a war they were killed by a plane crash so made instead you should put (2014-2023) next to there names like other wikis. Dmitry Utkin HuntersHistory (talk) 23:50, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2023 (2)

Incorrect spelling. Change "dessert" to "desert" in the section "Recruitment, training, techniques." The text snippet to change is "fighters who retreat or dessert" Hifear267 (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, @Hifear267. I've gone ahead and fixed it. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2023 (3)

Shouldn’t Yevgeny Prigozhin and Dmitry Utkin not be killed in action they weren’t killed in a war they were killed by a plane crash so made instead you should put (2014-2023) next to there names like other wikis. HuntersHistory (talk) 23:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

In ‘Activities’: Change ‘ten countries’ to ‘eleven countries’ and then add ‘Venezuela’ to the list of countries that follows. Reason: Venezuela is highlighted in red on the map, showing Wagner group as active there, and there is a section about it further down in this same ‘Activities’ section, so this edit is needed for consistency. Lhollo (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:CIRCULAR. M.Bitton (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Not Ideologically Driven?

The description says that the Wagner Group "is not ideologically driven." This is a highly questionable claim; they clearly do have ideological tendencies, and just because they don't overtly say they have an ideology doesn't mean they aren't driven by underlying beliefs or motives. So this phrasing seems incorrect and confusing. Maybe writing "While the group is not explicitly driven by a single ideology" would be more appropriate. LouMichel (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it’s a bunch of people with different ideologies, there’s monarchists, Nazis, and communists. So no. Napalm Guy (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ideology isn't just expressly stated political views. If they are driven by greed, there's still an underlying belief system behind that. LouMichel (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ideology

Last sentence of first paragraph of lede reads:

While the group is not ideologically driven, elements of Wagner are linked to neo-Nazism and far-right extremism.

Why is is important? There is a section discussing these links to far right extremism. PMCs are by their very nature far right - its market directed violence. Take a look at Blackwater, what are the chances that the mercenaries convicted for murdering Iraqi civilians voted for Bernie Sanders. Right?

My point is, there is nothing ideological about Wagner. If a subset of mercenaries have far-right convictions that does not really tell us anything. The wording of the sentence conveys this "elements of". Well elements of nearly anything are linked to far-right extremism these days....

It's a remarkably clumsy sentence, apologetic from the start. Should be removed from lede. Jabbi (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I don't think it is relevant for the lead. Almost any political ideology is irrelevant to this group. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

It is called a compromise, between those who want to say it is far-right (as you say, by definition it must be) and those who want to white wash it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I was a party to that discussion and reasonable arguments were provided on how almost nobody talked about political motivations of Wagner Group before the beginning of Ukraine war. Even today in 2023, the coverage about the political leanings is beyond minimal. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A compromise should nonetheless have justification. It is completely unclear how it is relevant in the article's lead section. To be clear, the lead "is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents". The far right elements section is only 224 words out of the article's total of 9,237 or 2.4% and discusses only Utkin really, a single member who's been shown to be notable only for having been the first on-field commander and whose call-sign was chosen as a name for the group, and Rusich Group. The "elements" refered is then one man and one part of Wagner, Rusich Group, which according to its leader counted at most "several dozen people,". This is not important and should be removed from lead.

Also, as a thought experiment, try applying the same statement to a randomly chosen group. Let's say Deutsche Telekom or Walmart. --Jabbi (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I missed this discussion and posted about it below. Ideology isn't just about one's overtly stated views. Wagner is driven by underlying motivations. Whether that's nationalism, far-right beliefs, or just capitalist greed, there is still an ideology. LouMichel (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This source (quoting an academic) is quite accurate:[106] the group has no ideology, I think it was speculated by journalists because of the fact that one of the most famous commanders, Utkin, was a neo-Nazi. I think we can take this part out of the lede. Mhorg (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this sentence is clearly undue for lead. Editorkamran (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 August 2023

In lede: On 23 August 2023, Prigozhin and Wagner commander Dmitry Utkin were presumed dead in a plane crash in Russia should be changed to On 23 August 2023, Prigozhin and Wagner commander Dmitry Utkin were killed in a plane crash in Russia or similar now that the aircraft's Aug 23 passenger list have all been confirmed dead. VronaMrk30 (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Tver Plane Crash

This article references the plane crash that presumably killed Prigozhin and Utkin (details still developing). There is a wikipedia article on this, 2023 Tver plane crash. I propose that it is linked within this article.

The last sentence of the leader/header currently states "On 23 August 2023, Prigozhin and Wagner commander Dmitry Utkin were presumed dead in a plane crash in Russia, leaving Wagner's leadership structure unclear. It is alleged the plane was shot down by the Russian military." That would be a good place to link it. I can not directly edit the page. If editors with editing rights agree, please do so. LWu22 (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"It is alleged the plane was shot down by the Russian military". Current statements indicate that it was not shot down but the leading theory is a bomb onboard the plane or other sabotage. This is found in the 2023 Tver plane crash article which quotes United States Department of Defense press secretary Patrick Ryder and The Wall Street Journal. Fanra (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

To more directly address the comment by LWu22, their suggestion appears to be implemented, as the current version has "...Prigozhin and Wagner commander Dmitry Utkin were presumed dead in a plane crash in Russia,..." with plane crash text linked to 2023 Tver plane crash. - Fanra (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you User:Fanra -LWu22 (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

British designation as an terrorist group

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-wagner-be-declared-terrorist-organization-by-uk-bbc-2023-09-06/ 2A02:3030:817:5622:1:0:436E:368F (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The source says:

Britain is set to declare the Russian mercenary Wagner Group to be a terrorist organisation [...]'

A draft order due to laid before parliament will allow Wagner's assets to be categorised as terrorist property [...]

The order is expected to come into force on Sept. 13

(parts bolded by CiaPan).

So it's in progress. Should be added to the article when it's done by the parliament. --CiaPan (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

While it's not decided by the parliament yet, it actualy is being submitted by the govenrment, and that fact can be reported in the article.
Source: "Russian Wagner Group declared terrorists". Gov.UK. 6 September 2023. Archived from the original on 2023-09-07. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
{{cite web| url=https://www.gov.uk/government/news/russian-wagner-group-declared-terrorists| title=Russian Wagner Group declared terrorists| website=Gov.UK| date=6 September 2023| access-date=8 September 2023| archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20230907055523/https://www.gov.uk/government/news/russian-wagner-group-declared-terrorists| archive-date=2023-09-07| url-status=live}}
CiaPan (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Going to be debated on Wednesday 13 September: https://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2023/september-2023/coming-up-in-the-commons-11-15/ --CiaPan (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

Please add "United Kingdom" as a designated terrorist group, per source via https://edition.cnn.com/2023/09/06/europe/russia-wagner-group-terrorist-organization-uk-intl/index.html 112.205.176.179 (talk) 04:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Too soon. See the source you linked. --CiaPan (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC).

 Not done: that's not what the source says. M.Bitton (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2023 (2)

The following discussion 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.

---

Should be mentioned somewhere in the article that they are going back https://www.newsweek.com/wagner-russia-ukraine-putin-progozhin-1828052 Napalm Guy (talk) 22:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:NOTNEWS. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

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.

typo [minor]

it says "being lead" where it should be "being led" BennyBoy36 (talk) 18:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Neopagan connections

Here’s an source [107] suggesting deep connections between Wagner Group activities and Rodnovery beliefs and practices, a link which goes beyond merely the fact that members of Wagner (as with certain divisions in the regular Russian military) are disproportionately Rodnovers.

Apparently, the group’s trademark use of sledgehammers for torture and execution is a nod to the use of hammer symbols in various pagan myths (e.g., Mjolnir); Prigozhin himself reportedly acknowledged this connection while he was alive. Senior figures in the Russian Orthodox Church have denounced him and other Wagner leaders as pagans. Wagner also reportedly founded an ideological division in 2019 whose primary focus was promoting Rodnovery. The source I linked does take care to mention that there are plenty of Slavic neopagans, particularly outside of Russia, who oppose Wagner’s use of their faith’s symbolism. This article should certainly mention all of this; it’s not entirely accurate to describe Wagner as non-ideological. It’d be better to say that to the extent that Wagner Group had an ideology, it would have been Rodnover nationalism. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:77FB (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wagner group itself is not pagan, they are orthodox Christian I believe you are thinking of Rusich Group which is pagan and has a Slavic pagan icon on their patch Napalm Guy (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

[minor] Sergei Shoigu image description change

I believe the image description of the image portraying Sergei Shoigu should use past tense, as it refers to the deceased Prigozhin. Emlythk (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

IDF?

Why is IDF listed as opponent? No source is given for this. Genabab (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Looks like that's related to (lower down in the info box) involvement in the 2023 Israel-Hamas War. The citation listed for that is Gordon, Michael R.; Salama, Vivian (2 November 2023). "Russia's Wagner Group Plans to Send Air Defenses to Hezbollah, U.S. Says". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2 November 2023 https://www.wsj.com/world/russias-wagner-group-may-provide-air-defense-weapon-to-hezbollah-u-s-intel-says-37dc8f45 TurnipWatch (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Plans to send" and "is sending" are two different things. Until they are actually confirmed to be sending we stick with WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. This was also discussed over at the 2023 Israel-Hamas War article and consensus was that until it is confirmed that Wagner are actually actively providing support to Hamas they are not to be included. EkoGraf (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2023

Please replace File:Wagner armed rebellion vehicle marking Z.png with File:Wagner armed rebellion vehicle marking Z.svg Rainbowlack (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Please note, User:M.Bitton: you only come across as lazy and uncharitable when you routinely deny requests without thinking yourself. As HappyWith must have spotted, the image format changed from png to svg. Converting images to vector format is an excellent reason to give for a proposed change. Wikipedia doesn't lose anything by editors holding off until they're reasonably sure the request actually lacks merit. Please consider not involving yourself if your involvement is limited to rubber-stamping a "no". Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: if you were more thorough and less eager to be unnecessarily rude, you would have noticed that it's not a like for like replacement, and therefore, an explanation is expected before removing the image that has implicit consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you say so when you declined the edit request? No? Then perhaps my message to you remains valid? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. HappyWith (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Anton "Lotus" Yelizarov

Anton "Lotus" Yelizarov became field commander of the Wagner Group after the death of Wagner owner Yevgeny Prigozhin and field commander Dmitry “Wagner”Utkin. Speaking in a video on February 5th 2024 Yelizarov detailed the location of Wagner’s new headquarters at Kazachi Lageri Cossack Camps (Казачьи Лагери) near Rostov, co-located with the barracks of the Russian 150th Motor Rifle Division. Yelizarov also claimed in the video that Wagner’s new basis would also house the Russian National Guard (Rosgvardia) new Volunteer Corps, implicitly confirming Wagner’s subordination to Rosgvardia. https://twitter.com/NewFrontlines/status/1754627448925294738 Sneuper (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Unsure this is an RS for a BLP. Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Africa Corps

This article lists "Africa Corps" as an alias for Wagner.

When I looked at the source and a bunch of other ones, it seems that it's being used to replace Wagner, not to rename it.

SlopeInterceptor^Talk 13:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources such as? Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Wagner group ranks 121.6.199.197 (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sources? Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Should we start a new article, taking the title from what's currently a redirect to Rommel's Africa Korps?

So far, I've added a hat note over at Africa Korps. "Africa Corps" currently redirects there.

However, we usually rename our articles when companies change names. Should we move this article to the new name of Africa Corps? (If so, the hat note should instead be here, saying something like "For the WWII German expeditionary force, see Africa Korps").

PS. Please don't lazily ask for sources when it is trivial to find lots of them, just google "africa corps wagner". Here are just some random ones:

CapnZapp (talk) 06:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

In source 2, it says that the Africa Corps is under RuMOD control and is a new organization with a new structure. It might becuase wagner is a bunch of companies and not 1 single entity, but this organization seems to replace Wagner entirely, and isn't a rebrand. SlopeInterceptor^Talk 15:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 March 2024

Add Asia to the list of continents where there have been operations, as Syria and parts of Russia are in Asia. IrisArgo (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 March 2024

In the Serbia section of "Possible activities" it says "being training" when it should say "being trained". AshtonWest032 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 18:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Logo before 2023?

I remember the patch of a skull in a sniper reticle being prominently displayed on the article in the past. Was it removed due to copyright reasons? Surely it'd fall under fair use, right? It baffles me that the older and more notorious design wouldn't be shown anywhere on english wikipedia, let alone the dedicated page. EnzarelX (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)