Talk:Russian Volunteer Corps

Does this article violate NPOV?

Reading the article, it sounds like it was written by someone who wants to portray unit as Nazi-aligned, with heavy focus on it being "right-wing" and reference to WW2 Nazi-collaboration. In addition, it uses quotation marks around legion when referring to Russian Legion fighting in Ukraine, giving indication that legion is not real. With how short the article is, and its very heavy focus on supposed right-wing nature of the unit, it sounds more like written to serve POV than being description of the unit. 85.76.130.152 (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

formed in August 2022, a unit of Russian far-right volunteers whose historical icon is Nazi collaborator Viktor Larionov 37.54.230.242 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The members of that Unit are likely only apolitical Mercaneries who belong to ethnic minorities of Russia or perhabs also Turkic Rightwing Extremists (Grey Wolves or Gülenists) or North Caucasian Islamists who pretending to be or portratied by the Media of EU and NATO countries as Russian Neo-Nazis or Ultranationalists. Russian Neo-Nazis either consider Ukrainians as subhumans or deny the existence of an Ukrainian ethnic group or Nation. There is even a rumor that Kapustin is an Agent of MI6.--92.211.154.66 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

They're not Russian ultra-nationist, they're pan-European white supremacists, they may or may not think Ukrainians count as a distinct group, but they see them as allies. And it seems very unlikely they are ethically diverse, not impossible, but unlikely.

I might be watching unusual news? But I've never seen Chechen or neighbouring groups depicted as Nazi, not even when there was that riot in Dagenhan, but I'm sure someone somewhere called that riot Nazi? There's Chechens in Wagner, but they are just mercenarie?

Irtapil (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe they are Russian nationalists but just anti Putin. Potentially they are more anti Putin than pro Ukraine. Irtapil (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

They literally admit it themselves 2A02:587:E803:3E69:1803:8589:5C6:239C (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I haven't read the article in full, but "Nazi aligned" or neo Nazi does match reliable sources. Including sources that are generally very critical of Putin's Russia, e.g. Meduza. The two Russian groups in Ukraine have very different ideologies, they team up occasionally because their current main goals match. Irtapil (talk) 05:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Dude, the leader is an open Neo Nazi. "White Rex". He was expelled from Germany for being a Nazi. Liger404 (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality

The article has a clear preponderance towards Ukrainian sources and the official point of view of the Ukrainian state. The article, for example, does not indicate the founder of the corps - a white neo-Nazi who was previously friends with Maxim Martsinkevich (I added the independent source). The article should be rewritten without predominance in one direction of the conflict. Please use international reliable sources. PLATEL (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@PLATEL I think the article now has no more neutrality problems and we can remove the banner. Mhorg (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

major rewrites and new sources needed

this article is incredibly biassed and needs major rewrites as well as new sources as the majority of sources used are russian language, pro russian news outlets with links to the state. this is not a good encyclopedia article and should be deleted, merged or totally reworked. DParkinson1 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

pro-Russian sources "Vesti" and "Versiya" were removed. Only Ukrainian (including Russian-speaking pro-Ukrainian) and Western sources remain PLATEL (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

pardon, NG also removed PLATEL (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Biased

I believe this article to be biased. Many of it's political remarks lack proper sources. And it makes conclusions it should not have made on the information available on this subject. I believe most of these fighters to be real freedom fighters, from right as well as the left wing (whatever that means, since the terms left- versus rightwing are highly subjective, very badly defined and not very usefull for defining all the political variables that exist). So I would like Wikipedia to refrain from that kind of dichotomy as much as possible.

Off course many people fighting for freedom are likely to have nationalist feelings. But what the hell is there against that? You can very well be a nationalist, without being an expansionist, an isolationist or a suprematist. And guess what, most people are!

And about the use of symbols of the Russian Liberation Army, you should note that they did not choose to fight during WW-II on the site of the nazi's. It was just a case of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, for now". Hell, there have even been moments the Russian Liberation Army has fought against the Germans. Since they where also just Liberation Fighters just like Russian Volunteer Corps. So no wonder they choose the same symbols. 77.60.121.89 (talk) 12:02, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

"Freedom Fighters" is not a neutral term, unless we're talking about Economic Freedom Fighters. Please cite sources saying that the RDK is not a Nazi, but a "left-right" corps. In turn, I cited sources that this is a neo-Nazi corps. These sources have absolutely nothing to do with the Russian government position. PLATEL (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

RDK is not neo-Nazi corp, they wrote in Telegram channel that they have traditionalist views. 188.163.121.90 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

yeah right 2A02:586:E835:E7B8:815B:DFA1:3DF0:21A6 (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Its likely that RDK are just NATO mercaneries who pretending to be a political armed group. The actions of RDK are from the point of view of international law just War crimes and fit the definition of Terrorism. There are parallels between RDK and the combat group against inhumanity that was controlled by Intelligence Services of US, UK and France and committed Terrorist acts in GDR, but their members were actual Nazis.--92.211.154.66 (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This entire wiki page is unsubstantiated.

It's basically a copy of the Russian version of the page with the addition of the "apparent assault" in Bryansk.

There is no evidence this group is a member of any of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. If someone can supply evidence of their membership in the National Guard (unlikely, they only allow Ukrainians in), the Territorial Defence (I have found nothing about them and it's Ukrainian only), the ZSU (again, nothing, but they do allow foreigners).

They may well be a volunteer group, like local farmers are, but that does not affiliate them with the armed forces. It's almost impossible to gather information on volunteer groups because they are so informal.

An article in Meduza sheds some light: https://meduza.io/feature/2023/03/02/russkiy-dobrovolcheskiy-korpus-eto-podrazdelenie-vsu-rossiyskie-partizany-ili-agenty-fsb — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstroPolicious (talk • contribs) 13:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Supposedly, they are subordinate to the Main Directorate of Intelligence (of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine). 2A00:1FA1:37F:9047:46CB:74C1:F671:E2EA (talk) 10:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Any proofs? 188.163.121.90 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Given only a tiny number of sources are in Russian it seems more likely that the Russian page is a copy of this? Irtapil (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Ideology

@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith: You wrote in your edit summary that these are "literally the same article" but this is not the case.[1][2]. In the first one, it says "neo-Nazi movement Russian Volunteer Corps, a unit of Russian military volunteers fighting for Ukraine..." while the Russian version says "неонацистский «Русский добровольческий корпус» — подразделение русских добровольцев...". The second article simply notes the leader as a neo-Nazi. But they are different articles. So I have reverted because your edit summary was not accurate. I am not sure if "neo-Nazi" is NPOV but some of the sources here use language such as "far-right Russian extremists who have links with Ukrainian far-right groups".[3] Mellk (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Good catch. I think I messed up, they were very similar articles that I thought were just the same article in different languages, but failed to confirm that all the info was the same. I'm still going to remove the one that just says the leader was a Neo-Nazi for now, since it doesn't support the claim. HappyWith (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I should make clear I have no objection to calling them far-right in wikivoice, since WP:RS seem to be pretty unanimous on that front - I only have reservations about unconditionally calling them a group whose ideology is Nazism, based on one Novaya Gazeta article that says this briefly in passing. I'll try to find a larger sampling of sources when I have time, and get back to you then. HappyWith (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

• I doubt they have any ideology. According to this [4], the guy (Kapustin) who founded this group was one of the "hooligans" dispatched in Europe by Kremlin (it says, for example, Last year, the Kremlin assigned an FSB agent to each of the 11 clubs in Moscow, where they work with a fan liaison officer – usually a senior hooligan from each firm – in an attempt to control their members.). Meaning, this is probably a front organization involved in a false flag attack, exactly as some Ukrainian sources say. Or maybe not. Or maybe it was not founded by Kapustin. Some sources do not say it. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

  I do not think there is enough to include an ideology in the infobox, but there are news articles that generally describe it as far-right (rather than something specific like neo-nazi), which I think should still be mentioned. I also do not see any evidence of Kremlin ties. For example Zaborona says he moved to Ukraine in 2017 and involved in the far-right there. No doubt he is a neo-Nazi though. Mellk (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, he is definitely far-right, maybe even neo-Nazi (or pretends to be the one), but the organization is not him. And yes, it says he moved to Ukraine in 2017 and involved in the far-right there. Which does not mean he broke connections with Russian services. But this whole story with Bryansk attack is so murky. The fog of war. My very best wishes (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• After quickly looking at sources, nothing is clear. What was the actual role of Nikitin (who also appears under a different name) is not clear; some sources do not seem to be RS, etc. But I do not to have time right now to dig this out... My very best wishes (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Useful source

This reuters interview with the RVC could probably be useful for the article:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/how-russians-end-up-far-right-militia-fighting-ukraine-2023-05-11/ HappyWith (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it could be useful. This is the readable version.[5] Mhorg (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

symbols of the Russian Liberation Army

The sentence They use the symbols of the Russian Liberation Army, which collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II. from the article is supported by the vot-tak.tv . Can somebody please check the link and if it's reliable. Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

This is also stated by Reuters.[6] Mhorg (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I invite everybody from the discussion below to participate here. Reuters states "It sports the symbols of the anti-communist Russian Liberation Army", and this is what the article currently says. However, as I understand, far from everybody in that group wears those symbols, and those symbols are far from "official". Can we indicate that in the article somehow? Manyareasexpert (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we're limited by what the sources say. Do you suggest an alternate wording, or have any other sourcing? Tristario (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

What exactly symbol(s) the publication in Reuters is talking about? Do RVC uses such symbol(s) officially? We need to know some specifics to include the claim. We are not making blind copy pasting from various sources. We need to properly summarize what RS say. My very best wishes (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt the reliability of the Reuters article, other sources also show pictures of RVC fighters with RLA symbols.[7] Mhorg (talk) 14:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This new link is hardly RS and WP:PRIMARY. Reuters is an RS. But which "symbols" the article is talking about? What are names of these symbols (plural) - according to Reuters, rather than any other sources? Does it explain if they are official symbols of the organization? Any other details? My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

New actions

https://news.yahoo.com/explosions-belgorod-oblast-russian-volunteer-084900667.html Victor Grigas (talk) 13:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this part should be added. Mhorg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of ideology and its sources

User:My very best wishes. Please explain why you remove any mention of neo-Nazism and the far-right, and such reliable sources as Reuters, DW, Novaya Gazeta, etc, but do not give alternative reliable sources about the ideology of this organization? I can consider your actions as ideologically motivated vandalism. PLATEL (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked some of these sources. One of them does not even mention Russian Volunteer Corps. The unsigned news report in Novaya Gazeta is hardly a reliable source. This is very strange story where someone (Nikitin) appears under two different names, and what exactly was his role is not clear. How exactly did he founded Russian Volunteer Corps? The group seems to be actually created by Ukrainian authorities, not Nikitin, but that is not entirely clear. You are welcome to check all these sources, select only those qualifying as RS, and re-summarize them properly. As about ideology, please see discussion above [8]. None of RS (rather than questionable sources) say that this organization has any ideology. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta is a reliable source:[9] "The neo-Nazi movement Russian Volunteer Corps, a unit of Russian military volunteers fighting for Ukraine, claimed the responsibility for the attack."

Telegraph:[10] "The Russian neo-Nazi hooligan who led an anti-Putin militia across the border. Denis Nikitin and 40 others from the Russian Volunteer Corps snuck across into Russia to take photos of themselves"

Reuters:[11] "The RVC was founded by Moscow-born Denis Kapustin, also known as Denis Nikitin or by the nom de guerre White Rex."

I am in favour of a restore of content supported by first-class sources. Mhorg (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Maybe it is not necessary to include such labels in the infobox but the far-right label should be mentioned at least as it seems to be a widely used descriptor. Mellk (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a single source that calls the group Neo-Nazi as a whole, alongside dozens upon dozens of sources that do not. I don't have an objection to putting that label on Nikitin himself, since that has been pretty established, but the group as a whole? No. It doesn't seem to be the opinion of the majority of WP:RS. Most of them uncertainly call the RVC "far-right or right-wing", because it really is not clear, since this is a very obscure group. HappyWith (talk) 21:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, it is quite clear it is a far-right group based on their own statements, hence why the descriptor is used often. But yes, it would be probably be undue to include "neo-Nazism" in the infobox. It can be called a far-right group founded by a neo-Nazi. Mellk (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty much fine with your proposal, though I think it would be good to mention that the members are not all far-right in their politics, akin to the Azov Regiment. See this Reuters article, for instance. HappyWith (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, it calls it a "far-right paramilitary group" anyway. It can be mentioned that the founder rejected the "neo-Nazi and white supremacist characterisations". And yes I guess it can mention the Reuters interview. Mellk (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I express my support for this wording. PLATEL (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources may say an individual is this and that, but we need sources saying an organization is that. Which is only Novaya Gazeta it seems. Manyareasexpert (talk) 21:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta is considered a reliable source. Removing a reliable source that talks about ideology does not serve any good purpose of improving the article. PLATEL (talk) 21:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Who was author? Neither this appear to be an editorial. Therefore, no, not a good source for such claims. Yes, it does appear that Denis Nikitin was "the head of the Russian Volunteer Corps" [12], however none of these sources say that the entire group/organization (rather than Nikitin himself) has any ideology, except maybe "anti-Putin". I would wait for more publications about this. My very best wishes (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

To weigh in on this (like I mentioned below) WP:CONTENTIOUS says we need strong sourcing for labels like this (attributed or not). I don't think a passing mention in a Novaya Gazeta article calling it neo-Nazi is particularly strong. Tristario (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple RS cited that call Denis Nikitin/Kapustin the founder and leader, therefore I really do not understand the continued edits writing "allegedly". Mellk (talk) 23:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Removing "alleged" is OK, but defining a non-notable living person as a neo-Nazi football hooligan in WP voice on a page about a different subject (this page is not about him) I think is a BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

How so? Mellk (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

First of all, we can not flatly say as a fact (in WP voice) that he is a neo-Nazi hooligan. Secondly, why this is at all important for this page? This is not a page about him. A reader could follow the linked references. It might be debated if he was or was not neo-Nazi on a page about him, but we do not have such page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The policy in question is WP:VOICE. First of all, I do not think there is any dispute in sources that he is a neo-Nazi, it is not a "seriously contested" claim. It is quite blatant he was involved in neo-Nazi ideology. And if the sources mention the group is founded by a neo-Nazi, then it must mean it is notable. There is a point in not referring to the group as a whole as such, because it would be undue, but regarding the founder, I do not think it is debatable. Simply omitting any mention of neo-Nazism or far-right ideology is not a solution. Mellk (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Even if he was a neo-Nazi hooligan in the past, why do you think this so important to say in this page and in such context? The subject of this page is not he, but Russian Volunteer Corps. Hence undue. If the entire organization (the subject of this page) were described as neo-Nazi in multiple RS, then yes, this had to be included. My very best wishes (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Current sources specifically about the group refer to him as such (as the founder and leader), so it is not my opinion here. Why do they[13]? Not sure, you can ask them. Maybe because he was very influential in the European far-right movements? Mellk (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

When we mention Wagner Group, are we going to not mention the background of Prigozhin? "The Wagner Group was founded by Yevgeny Prigozhin". The end. Mellk (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure I have strong views on this discussion, but I'll note that when calling organizations, and particularly people, things like "neo-Nazi" WP:CONTENTIOUS applies, which means you want strong sourcing, and you generally want to attribute. Tristario (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I think the edits you made are fine. Mellk (talk) 00:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an excellent point about Yevgeny Prigozhin. He is very much notable, we have a page about him, and more importantly, his role in Wagner Group has been described in great detail in a large number of RS. But here we have someone who is not notable and whose role in organizing the Russian Volunteer Corps was not described in any detail except flatly saying that he "founded" the group or was "the head" of the group. Hence we must only briefly note in the body of the page that he founded the organization. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yet there are plenty of sources that elaborate on this founder's background (as he is also the leader), probably because it is important to mention. Indeed, he had plenty of coverage before 2022/23. If he was previously a desk jockey, then of course sources would hardly mention any of this and none of it would be mentioned here. Mellk (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you insist, we can describe him in more detail, however this would be a far cry from a "Neo-Nazi hooligan". That would be something as briefly summarized here [14], i.e.

1. The Basmanny Court in Moscow arrested in absentia the commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RDK), Denis Kapustin
2. The FSB considers Kapustin to be the founder of the RVC.
3. According to the special services, he was also involved in the attempted assassination of Konstantin Malofeyev, founder of the TV channel Tsargrad, and the attack on villages in the Bryansk region in early March.
4. He is also credited with organizing a “sabotage and terrorist act” at an oil and gas facility in Volgograd Region in August 2022.
5. Rosfinmonitoring put Kapustin on the list of extremists and terrorists.

But again, I think that would be too much for this page.My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not suggest we must include all background details, for example what courses he offered and what shenanigans he was involved in France[15], it must be self-contained. But it is possible to also briefly mention some of those things you listed. Mellk (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course no one suggest to include his background details. I listed only details that are related to the subject of this page, i.e. the "Corps". He appears as a militant leader, not as a hooligan, and he should be described as such on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight we should be giving to details about the leader. But I do think we should include at least some details about him in the body, including that he's been described as a "neo-Nazi" (or "far-right"). The sourcing seems to indicate that is due. Tristario (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

And no, the unsigned/anonymous news report in Novaya Gazeta is not an RS. I would not recommend anyone editing in EE area use and especially reinsert such sources. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This is the reason I removed it. In addition, this page has an undue focus on Nikitin. If he is someone notable (I doubt), welcome to create a separate page about him. My very best wishes (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta has been removed[16] with the motivation: "an anonymous news posting on Russian news website is not an RS". NG is not simply a Russian newspaper, but the newspaper where, for example, Anna Politkovskaya worked. It is not a pro-government site, quite the opposite. Mhorg (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, anything by Anna Politkovskaya would be an RS. Anything by another reputable journalist would also be probably OK. But there is no any author out there. Who posted this? This is not an editorial board. That looks like a blog. Please find a mainstream secondary RS and use it. My very best wishes (talk) 21:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Besides, this is NOT Novaya Gazeta, but another independent newspaper launched in Europe: [17] - “There’ll be no one working for Novaya Gazeta and Novaya Gazeta Europe at the same time,” Martynov told The Moscow Times on Thursday. “We’ll have our own editorial council and guidelines.” It needs to earn the reputation. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Nikitin/Kapustin never made a secret of his beliefs so I added another source for that. Alaexis_¿question? 06:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If so, then you should use that another source. But there is another problem. His personal views (whatever they might be) are undue in the lead of this page. If he was someone notable and we had a page about him, then it might belong to the lead of the page about him. And BTW, a paragraph dedicated to him in the body of the page is probably also undue. But this depends on the coverage of the group in RS. If they say a lot about Nikitin, so should we. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, they absolutely do! BBC mentions Nikitin's background when describing the RVC ([18]). The Financial times mentions him and his neo-Nazi views ([19]), Meduza has a section on him in the article about the raid ([20]). Alaexis_¿question? 16:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Tristario, you've reverted my edit with the summary "this source doesn't mention subject of this article." On what policy is it based? Der Spiegel does mention Nikitin/Kapustin and doesn't mention the Russian Volunteer Corps because back then it did not exist. Alaexis_¿question? 14:58, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I checked Novaya Gazeta better, it has the same name as the original NG but is actually a different newspaper.

As for Nikitin's definition, it can be found on numerous RSs that I have added to the article. And numerous RS[21] always emphasise this fact, which is of obvious public interest, so it is due.

Der Spiegel's definition is from 2019 and is inherent to Nikitin's definition from other sources, it is not an OR. Mhorg (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. No significant objections from me at this point except that Nikitin is probably undue in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Someone has created a page Denis Kapustin (militant). Welcome to place any info about him and his personal views to this page, assuming the content is consistent with our BLP policy. My very best wishes (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with your removal of details about Kapustin from the body of the article. I don't think there's a policy based reason to do that. Clearly, sources regard him as relevant to the topic of this article. Not sure about the lede, but we should discuss him at least a bit in the body. Tristario (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR says you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented.

WP:NPOV also says representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

We write articles using sources that discuss the topic of the article, not using sources from three years before the topic of the article existed. Tristario (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with NPOV or OR. This is probably valid content for another existing page, Denis Kapustin (militant). This is just removing duplicate content per Wikipedia:Content forking. This content belongs to another page, this is all. Saying that, I just checked a commentary about their recent raid [22] (sorry, that's Russian), and it seems to have potentially enormous international implications. I had no idea. This is probably "too hot" for me, and I am happily leaving this to you. My very best wishes (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

(my comments about NPOV and OR were in reply to Alaexis about a source I removed, not related to you)

Okay, concerns about content forking are valid, so we don't want to write a mini-biography or anything. But I think if we don't include at least some basic details about Kapustin in this article (to the extent sources consider them to be relevant to the topic of this article), then we won't be providing a proper overview of the topic of this article Tristario (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Sources constantly mention Kapustin when discussing the RVC. We should do that at least a little as well. HappyWith (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

OK to remove duplicate content, but the information on Nikitin's political beliefs is reported on all sources, so it must also be here. Mhorg (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The NYT headline today is about this.

there was a discordant note that emerged as clearly as the neo-Nazi Black Sun patch on the uniform of one of the soldiers: Mr. Kapustin and prominent members of the armed group he leads, the Russian Volunteer Corps, openly espouse far-right views

“They are largely a far-right group of neo-Nazi exiles who are undertaking these incursions into Russian-held territory who seem far more concerned about making social media content than anything else,” Mr. Colborne said.

The Wikipedia article has been whitewashed a bit too much. Do tone it down. regards, TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

No one doubts that some or many members of the group have far-right views. This just needs to be properly sourced and given proper weight on the page. Speaking on the weight, the most important issue is not political views, but their military performance. Which seems to be significant; they are using heavy weapons, etc., but we probably should wait and see how these events will develop and will be covered in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No, all first-class sources always go into the ideology of the RVC, so the article must reflect that. Mhorg (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Telegram channel

Telegram channel appears to be russvolcorps instead of rusvolcorps

Page is currently protected so change cannot be made. A10203040 (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Add photos please

• 
• 
• 
• 

Zacharpolis (talk) 03:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done - the second image was added. The article is so short that there isn't really room for all of them. HappyWith (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No sign of any relation to "russian liberation army" symbols

"The RVC uses the symbols of the Russian Liberation Army, which collaborated with Nazi Germany during World War II" The vot tak article has one photo of 2 soldiers with the patch. but nowhere else on any official or unofficial photo of the group this is repeated. the only symbols they have there is the official sword one, ukraine flag, and new russian flag (white-blue-white). I suggest removing it or rewording to reflect that it's far from an official symbol. as right now the article reads like a hit piece. Shturmavik71 (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That was already discussed in a section above [23] and based on two sources. I do not see that one of them (noted by you) say anything about them using such symbols. I have no access to 2nd source (Reuters), but based on the quotation provided in section above, it does not provide any specifics, i.e. which symbols (it was plural in the source), who uses them and how, etc. Based on that, I think this content should be removed, unless there is a consensus to include, and I do not see such. My very best wishes (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic heritage of members?

Are the members of these Terrorist Group ethnic Russians? Or Ethnic Ukrainians, Turkics and North Caucasians. I doubt that Russian Nationalists would fight for Ukraine and NATO against their own country! That is as absurd as German Neo-Nazis who support the claims of reparations against Germany by current right-wing Polish government. The founder Kapustin is probably really a Jew or an Ukrainian by ethnicity.--88.66.143.103 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The prevailing ideology of this group (from what I've seen in personal discussion) is that the Putin regime puts too much emphasis on collaboration and protection of minority populations. Essentially, in it's current state Russia is multiethnic and protects the rights of the many minority groups. This group (and other similar groups) want a Russian state that exists to serve Ethnic Russians above all. 2607:FB91:17ED:D636:581C:E5CE:80BC:5365 (talk) 14:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

They really are not hiding their ideological loyalties 2A02:586:E835:E7B8:815B:DFA1:3DF0:21A6 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This statement of that group is unconvincing because 1. there is no such thing like a Putin regime and Russia strictly regulates immigration in opposite to Germany or Sweden and there is no affirmative action unlike in the US, 2. the actions of that group killed innocent ethnic Russian Civilians, 3. Russian Neo-Nazis or Neofascists have no reason to support the Euromaidan Regime of Ukraine which discrminates ethnic Russians and fighting the government of their own country because it is conservative and nationalist at least and they approve the Incorporation of Crimea, Donbas, Cherson and Zaporizhzha and 4. American, Canadian and Australian Neo-Nazis for example just kill Non-White People to create a state that serves Whites only. Alexey Milchakov is a Russian Neo-Nazi who fights on the Russian side in the current war in Ukraine and he considers Ukrainians as subhumans and the current regime of Ukraine as corrupt and anti-Russian. It is also possible that Russian Volunteer Corps is only pretending to be a political group, while it is infact only an apolitical group of NATO mercaneries. There is even a rumor that Kapustin is an Agent of MI6.--92.211.154.66 (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Uh, why are you turning it into a forum? It's not 4chan. Most Russian nationalists from the 2000s and early 2010s support Ukraine because they are white nationalists, not strictly Russian nationalists who dislike all other groups including other Slavs and whites. I don't know where you took the information that "Russia strictly regulated immigration". Russia has the highest Asian immigration in all of Europe at about 4.5 million Uzbeks, 2.5 million Tajiks, etc. Multiple RVC members are perfectly public figures who were well-known before the start of the war, so it's comical to claim they are not an ideological group. Humanophage (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

No Russian Nationalists dont support Ukraine because they dont see it as a sovereign country and also not as a role model for an Ethno-Nationalist state. Ukraine is considered by them as a very poor and corrupt Client State of US with an illegitime Regime that discriminates ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking People and suppresses Russian Culture. The Ukrainian Nationalists were respectively are only an instrument of Oligarchs like Poroshenko and Kolomoisky (who are both either completly or partly of Jewish descent) and now of de facto Dictator Oleksiy Danilov who uses the Jewish President Selensky as a puppet. They tolerating the purchasing of black soil by foreign, especially American and British but also Chinese, Corporations and tolerated the Corruption of President Biden and his son during their time in Ukraine. A large part of German Neo-Nazis for example considers Ukrainian Ultra-Nationalists as henchmen of US and Israel for that reason. In the Donbas war Ukrainian Nationalists killed White People who were mainly Ukrainian by ethnicity and were and still are supported by North Caucasian and Turkic Islamist Volunteers from Russia and other post-Soviet countries during their then and now operations. Ukrainian Citizens operate as organizers of illegal Immigration of Non-Europeans to EU and a very large number of young and healthy Ukrainian men dont want to fight for Ukraine and fleed to EU or even to Russia. Why Russian Volunteer Corps only killed ethnic Russians in Belgorod but not a single Russian Citizen of North Caucasian heritage or Central Asian Immigrant? Russia regulates strictly Immigration in opposite to Germany or US where a much larger number of legal and illegal Immigrants from Non-European countries living. Like I already said a large part of Ukrainians not only from Donbas and the conquered territories fleed to Russia since the beginning of the war in 2022. Oleksii Arestovych who was a Propagandist of the Ukrainian Regime is now pro-Russian. There were also Russian Nationalist Volunteers who fought on the side of Donbas Rebel forces during the Donbas war too, while many ordinary Ukrainian men fleed already after its begin to EU because they did not want to fight against their own countrymen. RVC are portraited positively mainly in English-speaking Media.--88.65.190.9 (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 July 2023

РДК Or Русский Доброволческий Корпус Also a part of the Free Russian Legion Also entering The Russian City Of Belgorod/Белгород But failing the attempt to Capture the city Created Also created By Алексе́й Анато́льевич Нава́льный PДК Is Also a Anti Putinist Group being Pro Ukrainian.The groups ideology is also democratic Wojackman228 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Please can you please accept my request

 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. Additionally, please make sure your request is entirely in english. Cherrell410 (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

About «Irpin Declaration»

«He claimed that the RVC also agreed to join the agreement»

Yes, Ponomarev claimed this, but later members of the RVC denied it - they were present at the conference, but did not sign it.

By the way, RVC take part not only in raids in Russia, but also in operations inside Ukraine, together with the Ukrainian military and military intelligence 2A00:1FA1:42DF:7CC0:2FBA:25D9:ABEF:1178 (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Errors

This article is riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, yet it is impossible to edit, apparently having been blocked from editing. Please fix this ridiculous situation! 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Ethnic heritage of the fighters

Are there any information about the ethnic heritage of the fighters of that milita? Its highly unlikely that they are not ethnic Russians.--88.66.133.218 (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it's called the Ethnic Russian Volunteer Corps. Numerous members are non-anonymous, so anyone can see their ethnicity.--Humanophage (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

"ethnic nationalism" in the ideology section 177.125.42.109 (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Manifesto

Preserving here by providing this link; this is undue verbatim quoting of the group's manifesto. -- K.e.coffman (talk) 10:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources for the group's ideology that could be used instead:

• RUSSIAN MILITIA HAS LINKS TO AMERICAN NEO-NAZI AND ANTI-TRANS FIGURES, The Intercept.
• Who are the anti-Putin groups behind the dramatic raid into Russia?, NBC News.
• Inside the controversial group of Russian dissidents fighting with Ukraine against Putin, PBS.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman Hello. Its unfortunate that you have deleted the info on the Ideology of the group out of hand, as this topic is rather important, since the group is obviously very ideologically driven. However I have listened to your criticism and added some new, secondary sources, including from independent Russian media. F.Alexsandr (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

Greetings @F.Alexsandr, regarding your tag removal [24], and category insertion [25], you need to actually provide relevant sources, not just to claim there are such. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The article contains planty sources discussing the afct that the group is Neo-Nazi F.Alexsandr (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

No, and you neither provided none. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Criticism of Caesar towards the RVC

Former representative of the Legion "Freedom of Russia" Ceasar called RVC a "PR company" at a closed meeting that was leaked in Internet Yaroe (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Let's see the source first. Mhorg (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Typo in ideology section

"German authorities have cautioned that the RVC fighting Ukraine serves as a strategic advantage for Russian propagandists, enabling them to portray the Russian invasion in Ukraine as a purported effort to "de-Nazify" the nation. "De-Nazifiction" is a common talking point in Russian disinformation to justify the invasion of Ukraine."

RVC fighting Ukraine

I think there should be a for in there, no? Makes it confusing Bossa Nova Hog (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. TylerBurden (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Purpose

@Mellk You are repeatedly changing the stated purpose of the groups formation to "fight the Russian Armed Forces", replacing "Putin's government" which was the long-standing wording, I then tried to compromise by actually quoting the reference discussing the formation, and now you've again changed it to Russian Armed Forces, again removing mention of Putin.

The first source you added simply states that the group has "fought alongside Ukraine's armed forces against Russian troops". That doesn't support your change.

The second source you added I can't even check because it's locked behind a paywall, what does it say that makes it override the previous wording?

Since this is evidently now a content dispute, I am restoring the stable version until a consensus can be reached, please avoid edit warring. TylerBurden (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The mention of Putin was not removed, I moved this to the second sentence to reduce repetition ("who are primarily united by their opposition to Russian president Vladimir Putin"). The version now says that they are fighting "the government of Vladimir of Putin" then again says that they "are primarily united by their opposition to Putin". I do not see the point of saying that they are fighting the government only, rather than the Russian armed forces, in the war. Is it disputed that they are fighting on the side of Ukraine and fighting Russian forces? We are not calling the article Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

RFE/RL says that they "fought alongside Ukraine's armed forces against Russian troops" -- I am not sure how that does not support the change when the proposed sentence says they fought against Russian forces. The NYT article says: "The Russian Volunteer Corps... was one of two groups of anti-Russian fighters that conducted a cross-border attack in the Belgorod region of southern Russia on Monday, engaging enemy troops over two days of skirmishing."

If we want to emphasize their stated goal, then we can say that: "The group reportedly consists of Russian exiles who are primarily united by their opposition to Russian president Vladimir Putin and who seek to overthrow his government". Then we can mention that they are fighting Russian forces in the war. Mellk (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

No it's not disputed that they are fighting the Russian military alongside Ukraine, but that is something they are doing to achieve their stated goal, the unit was not created to fight the Russian military for fun and giggles, they claim to be fighting to undermine Putin and his "henchmen" (government), as well as defend Ukraine which is sheltering them.

So on one hand you have the stated purpose of the formation, on the other you have a byproduct of said purpose.

I don't think your suggestion is bad since it summarizes this information rather effectively. But if we are going to use the word "formed" it makes more sense to focus on the ends and not the means, and that is how the Washington Post reference does it, it describes the unit's creation along with the initial statement of the unit. TylerBurden (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

OK, I get your position there. Would it be better to say something like it was formed as an anti-Kremlin militia and then saw fighting against Russian forces? The WP article seems to be a little dated at this point and does not cover later events, only when it was first gained widespread attention. Mellk (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, it seems you mostly want to make it more clear the unit has fought against the Russian military? If so, we could add something like "It was formed in August 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to fight against the government of Vladimir Putin and assist the Armed Forces of Ukraine."

I think this is pretty in line with the source: “We Russian volunteers living in Ukraine have decided to take up arms and create a military formation — the Russian Volunteer Corps — so that together with our Ukrainian comrades-in-arms, we can defend their homeland, which shelters us, and then continue the fight against Putin’s criminal regime and its henchmen.”

"Anti-Kremlin" could work but is arguably a bit vague given how specific the source is, so if we want to avoid repetetive mentioning of Putin straight away we could change the current wording in the second sentence to "united by their opposition to the invasion of Ukraine coupled with the aim of ending the current Russian government". This is in the article body currently.

So this combined would look like: "The Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC; Russian: Русский добровольческий корпус, РДК, romanized: Russkiy dobrovolcheskiy korpus, RDK) is a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens, based in Ukraine. It was formed in August 2022, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, to fight against the government of Vladimir Putin and assist the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The group reportedly consists of Russian emigrants who are primarily united by their opposition to the invasion of Ukraine coupled with the aim of ending the current Russian government. According to Ukrainian military officials, the group is not a part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine." TylerBurden (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

As mentioned in the WaPo article, it should be made clearer that the stated purpose is according to the manifesto. We cannot use such quotes to say this is what secondary sources say about the group. As is to be expected, RS took such claims with a grain of salt. Mellk (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• I understand this unit is a part of International Legion (Ukraine). If so, this is not an independent militia, but a part of regular Ukrainian forces, is not it? My very best wishes (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

"Right-wing to far-right"

In the infobox, I oppose changing the political position parameter from "far-right" to "right-wing to far-right", as the body of the article and the sources in totality clearly describe a far-right organization. @Wonderland ave If you insist on this change, we can discuss it, and involve other editors if need be. The WP:ONUS is on you to create consensus for this change, but the change is not even verifiable and the source which you had inserted in the infobox was not appropriate. —Alalch E. 15:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

From what we read in the media they are "far-right". Mhorg (talk) 11:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mhorg: This comment isn't strictly necessary, but I'd like to follow up with a clear argument for why the source wasn't appropriate. Whenever politically extreme organizations claim that they are closer to the centre than what outside observers state about them, such self-originated claims are always self-serving WP:ABOUTSELF, and therefore inadmissible in our articles. This is because it always benefits those organizations to pragmatically claim they are closer to the mainstream: (1) They broaden their appeal in general, make themselves look more established and reasonable, and make it seem like they have a broader base of support than they really do; (2) They make their extreme ideas appear less extreme when they make it look like the ideas come from a source closer to the mainstream, and/or are associated or interchangeable with other more widely-held views, and so they increase the acceptability of the ideas; (3) The pragmatic behavior itself increases the organization's appeal among those who understand the coded message (and the more blatant and preposterous it is the better, usually), because being pragmatic is usually felt as a valid and necessary strategy among people who have extreme views, insofar as it is a sign of competence and existence of a coherent strategy. —Alalch E. 15:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)