Pular para o conteúdo

Conheça Walt Disney World

Talk:Wagner Group

Contradictory payment figures

There are paymen figures in this article that hardly make sense. Namely, it says that the pay could be between 80,000-250,000 rubles or 667-2083 in USD citing a 2017 article. So the USD/RUB ratio was about 120 back then. Problem is, back in 2017 and prior the USD/RUB ratio was between 60-70 rubles, and even if we take into accout the taxes, it is still way off the 667-2083 range stated in the same sentence. The same applies to the next sentence, which states that 300,000 RUB corresponds to 2,500 USD according to an article published again in 2017 - once again a random USD/RUB ratio which has nothing to do with 2017 reality. Gorgedweller (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THis looks like OR. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may very well be. Either someone failed to understand the article they cited, or the authors of the article are really bad at math. 12:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Or that was not the exchange rate in 2017, care to link to a source for it? Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian source about the groups origins

https://styler-rbc-ua.translate.goog/rus/zhizn/stalo-izvestno-voznikla-chvk-vagner-boeviki-1520445072.html?_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=el&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:F03E:E177:15E6:22E2 (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of info post 2023

There is no info presented here about the groups activities after 2023 2A02:587:E83F:DEAA:10B3:9D14:330A:1B94 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are only still active in Belarus and the CAR. Everywhere else they joined either the Akhmat Special Forces or the MoD's Africa Corps. EkoGraf (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Wagner Group's far-right association in the lead

Should the group's far-right association be mentioned somewhere in the article lead? --TylerBurden (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes This is something that not only is covered on the article and in line with WP:LEAD, but also has significant wider coverage in WP:RS. We do not shy away from including these links of different groups involved in the Russia-Ukraine war, such as the Azov Brigade, so I don't see how it's WP:DUE to make Wagner an exception. TylerBurden (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No It's been documented that the organization as a whole is not far-right and is not ideologically driven, but a mercenary organization (driven by profit). Rather, one of it's commanders is alleged to be far-right and one of its sub-units has been described as far-right, but this represents only a few hundred people out of 50,000-85,000 that Wagner had at its peak. The few far-right elements are already explained on in-depth in the main body of the article. The previous discussion on excluding this mention in the lead can be found here [1] where consensus was that it should not be in the lead. Editors from that discussion should be included in this new RfC in case they have changed their minds or have something new to add to the discussion. @Jabbi @Srijanx22 @Slatersteven @LouMichel @Mhorg. PS If a new consensus is found to re-instate the mention of the far-right elements, the sentence that was previously used in the lead and formulated through a previous consensus should be used once again (with sources). EkoGraf (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably going to be difficult for Mhorg (who argued the links should not be included) to participate, given that they are topic banned from Eastern Europe, broadly construed. Also noting these arguments are not based on policy or guidelines, the discussion is not about saying that the Wagner Group is one thing or the other, but mentioning in the lead what is extensively featured in the article itself as you yourself mention.
Per WP:LEAD: ″The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.″ Wagner's far-right associations are certainly a prominent controversy, and an important feature of the article. It makes no sense hiding it from readers looking for a neutral overview. TylerBurden (talk) 19:23, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes as it seems to be plenty of RS have made the connection, and (as pointed out) there is an issue of party here. Ther is also a question mark (to my mind) if it was ever really a mercenary organization so much as an unofficial branch of the Russian armed forces. Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The group obviously is in a meaningful sense right wing, in that it is aligned with the Putin regime; but describing it as a far-right group (or "far-right–associated group", which is scrupulous at the cost of being weaselly) in the lead gives the impression that Wagner is more ideological than I think it is. You may argue that the ideology is implicit: Wagner is intentionally silent on ideological questions precisely to conceal, or to make deniable, its far-right ideology; but I think it has to matter that the group doesn't have an explicit political program. Compare to a group like the Red Brigades, which couldn't do anything without telling everyone what its political objectives were. Not in the lead, I think. Regulov (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Yes. Per TylerBurden, below. I see no reason the edit TylerBurden proposes shouldn't stand. Regulov (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the proposal is not to describe the group in Wikivoice in the immediate lead as far-right, but to include the far-right elements somewhere fitting.
An example would be the edit I initially made which changed the following sentence:
"Wagner operatives have been accused of war crimes including murder, torture, rape and robbery of civilians, as well as torturing and killing accused deserters."
to
"Wagner members have been linked to the far-right, and have been accused of war crimes including murder, torture, rape and robbery of civilians."
Perhaps I should have been more clear about this. TylerBurden (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that. Regulov (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it's just in that form, I also have no problem with it, but only if other editors agree as well. EkoGraf (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Group is a money driven mercenary org.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - It is a group made up of paid mercenaries as per the reliable sources. There is no particular ideology that plays a significant role in their activities. Koshuri (グ) 05:34, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the ideology of Wagner members have played enough of a significant role for reliable sources to extensively cover them, keep in mind that WP:CON isn't a vote, so making blanket statements like "they're just paid mercs, nothing to see here" is not in line with basic Wikipedia policy like WP:NPOV, given that it is Wikipedia's duty to cover topics based on prominence in WP:RS, not editor opinion. It would be a more fruitful discussion and better conditions for the eventual closer to see the arguments of both sides if you could provide some actually policy backed arguments. TylerBurden (talk) 16:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's an entire section in the body, so it's reasonable to get a brief mention in the lead. The objections people make (that it's not entirely far-right; that they're driven by profit, etc) can be included as part of that mention - obviously we shouldn't, and don't need to, say that they're entirely far-right! But those facts don't contradict the existence of far-right elements, and given that they have enough coverage to justify an entire section, a single brief sentence in the lead noting them seems reasonable. --Aquillion (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wagner_Group
Marcações: