Talk:National Republican Army (Russia)

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 August 2022. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Ukraine

	Ukraine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ukraine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.UkraineWikipedia:WikiProject UkraineTemplate:WikiProject UkraineUkraine articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Military history: National / Balkan / European / Ottoman / Polish / Russian & Soviet / Post-Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	National militaries task force
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Ottoman military history task force
	Polish military history task force
	Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force
	Post-Cold War task force

Why does this page exist[edit]

There is no proof this organization exists, it is seemingly one individual who published a manifesto that he claims a group authored. 98.36.196.86 (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Supported by a reliable source which has been echoed by many other reliable sources is what Wikipedia requires. Not "proof". I didn't want to clutter this page with tons of sources but can do so if you wish to shine a spotlight on them and raise their Google ranking scores. -- GreenC 04:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are media talking about this alleged group, this page has a reason to exist. Edit it adding any published doubts over its existence, add sources (all of you)... but do not delete the page. There are many pages about things which do not exist.--2003:D1:4700:DA59:AC80:7FCA:B9A1:AB17 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard about this organisation and search it on Wikipedia... Why to delete this ? Nonsense. Phil.sch (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have issues with the proposed deletion, then you're more than welcome to join in with the discussion. Grnrchst (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't deserve to exist[edit]

Only a couple of sources acknowledging the fact that this organization exists and we still know nothing about it apart from the killing of Dugina (which is elaborated on her page further.) Feels like WP:TOOSOON. This article contributes nothing to Wikipedia and should be removed in my books. Fijipedia (talk) 07:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are media talking about this alleged group, this page has a reason to exist. Edit it adding any published doubts over its existence, add sources (all of you)... but do not delete the page. There are many pages about things which do not exist.--2003:D1:4700:DA59:AC80:7FCA:B9A1:AB17 (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fijipedia, I have opened a Articles for Deletion discussion. Grnrchst (talk) 09:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible related activities prior to the car bombing[edit]

Though it is only my speculation at this point, I would like to point out the extensive fire bombings of recruitment offices and other facilities without any perpetrators. 31.205.4.176 (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We build our articles off reliable sources, not baseless speculation ~~by random IP editors~~. Regardless, there is already an article about the arson attacks. Grnrchst (talk) 09:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whether someone is an 'IP editor' or not is, as in this case, almost always irrelevant. Narananas (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your work on this article, though. Narananas (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that they're an IP editor wasn't relevant, I'll retract that part now. Grnrchst (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto[edit]

Aside from whether or not this article should stay up, there is a big issue here with including the manifesto in full. Wikipedia is not a web host or soapbox for propaganda purposes. Including the entire manifesto is very problematic, but it may be fine to include select quotes (such as those quoted in reliable sources). Grnrchst (talk) 13:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The manifesto was not included in full, there was a select quote. [1]. Not sure what happened now it's gone. -- GreenC 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was expanded from a select quote to the full manifesto by User:Blaylockjam10.[2] I subsequently removed the manifesto.[3] If you want to restore the select quote, that's fine, as that's the section that was quoted by The Guardian. Grnrchst (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nоt a real оrganic оrganisatiоn in Russia[edit]

Sіmрlе frоnt fоr а fоrеіgn роwеr. 172.58.203.194 (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources for that claim? Grnrchst (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real group[edit]

Every reference is either ukrainian state sponsored news outlet or western MSM with questionable reputation. We cannot create new page for every new lie made up for clicks, have some dignity 5.129.219.95 (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please take discussion like this to the deletion page. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Notably complaining about Western conspiracies is the only thing this IP is here to do). Firestar464 (talk) 03:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that this made up story appears now[edit]

There is no proof of the existence of such a group! It seems to be a pathetic attempt of western forces to create a fake internal enemy to destabilize russian public opinion. It also seems that someone wants, (in a ridiculous way) to convince european public opinion that the killing of Miss Dugina was not a Kiev’s gaffe. This surely doesn’t help to stop the war… Wilipedia, if you consider yourself a serious websites that checks the facts, delete immediately until clear intel about this 151.68.65.12 (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources reporting this information are used in the article. If you have additional information and sources please include them. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, it does not require proof of truth, which is rarely possible for anything. Wikipedia reports many things that are alleged such as Ghost of Kyiv. It says "alleged", it doesn't say "this is true". -- GreenC 02:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Kyiv at least the claims were made by various people, governmental officials and bodies, hence the large amount of coverage which gave it notability, not suspiciously by a single person. Mellk (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The NRA also has a large amount of coverage which gives it notability. I understand there is some suspicion, but that's up to the sources to untangle. We already have a section on the credibility of the claim. The topic is notable due to the amount of coverage, yet the sources don't agree if NRA exists or not. So what? We report what the sources say. Wikipedia allows for multiple points of view. -- GreenC 20:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would not say there is "significant coverage in reliable sources" as per WP:GNG. Mainly it is low-quality/tabloid sources that address the NRA directly, reliable sources tend to give it a brief mention in articles about the killing only. Of course this is unsurprising considering the circumstances mentioned. Mellk (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek, The Guardian, DW - full length high quality sources about the topic. I can't judge the Russian sources. However the list is not exhaustive do a google search there are lots but we won't ref bomb to make a point. -- GreenC 23:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek is not a "high quality" source, at least this is the consensus per WP:NEWSWEEK. The Guardian and DW do each have a dedicated article on Ponomarev's claims, but I am struggling to find this level of coverage by other RS (hence why I said mainly low-quality/tabloid etc sources), so I am not convinced about "significant coverage in reliable sources" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Mellk (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and thats why Wikipedia is laughing stock now. What happened to the "wikipedia is not a news outlet"? There is no reliable sources for this page. Western News outlets and ukrainian state sponsored news outlet is NOT reliable. FMKairos (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "Western news outlet", anything that is not Russian, Chinese, Iranian and North Korean? But even those countries cover this story. Hmm.. the more you look the more notable it becomes. Notable just means "this story was reported" it doesn't mean "this story is true". -- GreenC 06:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "western" sources in this article are considered reliable. I hope you're not suggesting we rely on Russian state media as an alternative. — Czello 15:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Post interview + Vovk[edit]

Ponomarev has given a pretty wide-ranging interview to the Kyiv Post (an English-language publication with some stature), where he gives a number of claims about the NRA such as structure, ideology, etc. --standard stuff for armed militant groups. I have put in a few grafs of material based on it.

Smart, Jason Jay. “Exclusive Interview: Russia’s NRA Begins Activism - KyivPost - Ukraine’s Global Voice.” KyivPost, August 23, 2022. https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/exclusive-interview-russias-nra-begins-activism.html.
~~It also strikes me that Ponomarev's claim to Meduza and on his social media that he helped Vovk's escape means there is now the tiniest degree of convergence in the stories of the FSB and Ponomarev.~~

The remaining differences in stories are irresolvable: regardless of truth, the Kremlin is not going to give NRA credit, Ukraine cannot acknowledge support of an assassination, Ponomarev cannot admit he is a fabulist. Evackost (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard. Evackost (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists[edit]

They are terrorists, not “underground partisans” or whatever dodgy language you choose to use. This is the bottom line, just because you don’t like the group they oppose does not make them somehow “good guys” or non-terrorists. Furthermore, in what way are they “Russian nationalists”? This is an uncited claim, and actively calling for causing harm to Russia certainly makes someone not a “Russian nationalist.” 206.108.213.42 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What one side call 'terrorists' or 'villains', another side can call 'freedom fighters' or 'heroes'. Appropriate terms from the neutral point of view are 'insurgents' or 'partisans'.--Hu753 (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom fighter is the best term, has the most accurate description, but since the main source calls them 'underground partisans' we stick with that for now. Partisans don't quite fit the description but "underground" partisans sort of might. Freedom fighter says: People described as freedom fighters are often also called assassins, rebels, insurgents or terrorists. This leads to the aphorism "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". -- GreenC 05:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the references like this?[edit]

This is a headache for editing. I don't see the point of having the references formatted this way. Super Ψ Dro 10:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allies and the Irpin Declaration[edit]

https://gordonua.com/news/war/russkiy-dobrovolcheskiy-korpus-legion-svoboda-rossii-i-nacionalnaya-respublikanskaya-armiya-rf-podpisali-deklaraciyu-o-sotrudnichestve-1624002.html

This is the supposed source, in which it states that the RVC (Russian Volunteer Corp) have signed several agreements with the FRL and NRA, example being the adoption of the white-azure-white flag. However, https://t.me/russianvolunteercorps/118 in this telegram post the RVC denies ever signing of such a declaration, as such, putting them as both allies and using the Irpin Declaration as evidence does not make sense. 2A00:A040:196:782:B168:E14C:E989:40C3 (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]