Talk:Russian National Unity

Paragraphs removed from the main article

Although RNU supports Russian officers who were accused and tried for alleged atrocities in Chechnya against civil population, and organizes meetings and public advocacy for them, many view the position of RNU as pro-Islamic. The main principle of the organization is anti-Semitism and as such, it supports Islamic anti-Semitic activities, including full support for Arab nationalists in fight against Israel. It also had close ties with extremely-antisemitic "Russian Islamic Committee". The aim of the party is to expulse all Jews to Israel and then destroy the state and push all Jews into the sea.

Despite the extreme anti-Semitism, the organization cannot be called extremely anti-American or anti-Western (even its official website is hosted in the United States). Many followers speak English, German, and other Western and Asian languages.

RNU largely conducts work with youth, mostly hidden, educating them in an anti-semitic manner. Regular lectures, classes, demonstrations of films, and physical training take place. The instructors dispel naive nationalist, racist, anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic views of young followers, providing well-established ideology instead.

For example, the instructors do not describe the "Protocols of Elders of Zion" as authoritative document; just the opposite, they recognize it as marked up, making the views of the followers less vulnerable to anti-fascist arguments. Israeli and Jewish press, as well as liberal analysts are also allowed and sometimes recommended for reading not only in negative aspect, so for those who do not know the ideology of RNU, the organization may not seem antisemitic at first glance.

A signicant principle of the organization is relative freedom in political and religious views and discussions of the followers. For example, followers can be supporters of Hitler or Stalin, be anti- or pro-Western, be Orthodox, neo-Paganist, Buddhist or Muslim. Often an instructor watches over followers' discussion, allowing their anti-Semitic views to develop freely and intervenes strictly to avoid some mistakes in understanding of the party's ideology, or to turn the discussion in proper direction.

There is also a variety of work with businesses, state officials, military and secret services. The supporting businessmen are awarded certificates of merit and other honours. The organization's tactic is to avoid direct violence of the law at present stage of fight. There were even instances when officials allowed RNU to take part in street patrol and other collaborations with the police; military training facilities were also used. Often state and industrial officials give RNU places for meetings, such as conference-halls, help to print literature, make uniforms with industrial standards, make badges, stickers, buckletes, copy CDs and video cassetes and other materials. Several arts of war classes with RNU instructors associated with state schools were opened.

This article is in desperate need of editing

This article has a pro-fascist bias, which as well as being unpleasant is also contrary to the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. If someone can adjust this, please do! 87.127.137.165 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not neutral

The article har obviously been rewritten by someone who's pro-nazi. It should be locked from further editing until someone cleans it up or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skickahit10 (talk • contribs) 14:34, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Someone seems to have added what was probably a poor translation of a symphasizer's biography of the organization as the 'history' section. Lot of praise from neo-nazi's for it [1]. Nimmo 10:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it has been neutralized since December 2007. In fact (and I can't believe I'm saying this), the current version had some anti-RNE bias - whose idea is it that it's outlawed? Anyhow, is anyone against removing the NPOV tag? --Illythr (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Active again

To me it seems like this organisation is very much active as a terrorist organisation in Ukraine these days [2]. Närking (talk) 06:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine is full of various in-house far-right terrorist organizations, so that does not wonder me.89.1.57.202 (talk) 22:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't these dim Nazi wannabe's get that the NSDAP exterminated Slavs as untermensch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9D40:12F0:5556:9E7E:F0D0:FD4D (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russian National Unity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140105072133/http://rusnation.org/ to http://www.rusnation.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Russian National Unity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100615034620/http://rne-center.org:80/ to http://rne-center.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading edits

A user has recently made edits suggesting that the RNU is no longer active in Russia. However, it is clear from external government sources (cited) that the formal "banning" of the RNU did not affect the group's functioning or structure within Russia. It appears to have been "for show." As such, I edited the page farther down to say that the group had been "banned," and included a quote from a Canadian government report which described the group's continued functioning within Russia. Additionally, I removed the sentence in the introduction which suggested that the group had been banned since 2003, since that statement was ~half true and required qualification. I didn't think it made sense to include that all in the introduction.

I have edited the Introduction such that it includes a mention of the 2003 "ban" as well as the quote from the Canadian government report, however I believe that these statements would be better left out of the introduction altogether and should be in the History section. Meteoritekid (talk)

The article itself makes it very clear that these edits are misleading: if the RNU disbanded in 2003, they could not have participated in the 2014 invasion of Donetsk / Crimea, as is described and cited in the History section of the article. Meteoritekid (talk)

Refuting each of your points as follow:

A user has recently made edits suggesting that the RNU is no longer active in Russia.: No one said it.

However, it is clear from external government sources (cited) that the formal "banning" of the RNU did not affect the group's functioning or structure within Russia. It is common for fringe groups to go underground, use different names, seek revival, and its not a big deal.

As such, I edited the page farther down to say that the group had been "banned," and included a quote from a Canadian government report which described the group's continued functioning within Russia.: It does not contradict the fact that the organization has been banned in several regions and is entirely 'unregistered'. So WP:UNDUE.

however I believe that these statements would be better left out of the introduction altogether and should be in the History section.: No. It should be on the lead that the fringe group has been banned in places unless there is a direct contradiction from WP:RS that it is not banned or is finally registered.

if the RNU disbanded in 2003, they could not have participated in the 2014 invasion of Donetsk / Crimea, as is described and cited in the History section of the article.: Again, members of fringe group participating in some activity does not mean that they are participating in an organized manner. In general, every group has a mentality of hyping their activities. You need to avoid relying on this opinion of yours since you have only got a link to their own vk.com (primary source) profile to make claims about it. We would need a WP:RS before we can consider their activity to be "significant" like you claimed in your edit. TolWol56 (talk) 04:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your edits here are misleading and refute referenced edits to this page made by others users over months. The Canadian government report noted that the RNU is banned in some regions but is still legally registered in most of Russia. Your other comments here are completely unsubstantiated, and disagree with a significant portion of the "History" section of this article. I think we're going to need to get admins in on this. Meteoritekid (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Throwing empty assertions won't help you. The source does not say it is "legally registered". Stop misrepresenting the sources. TolWol56 (talk) 04:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That is, frankly, not true. See pages 3-4 of the 2013 Canadian report, under the section: "Relations with Government." The RNU is clearly still legal and registered across 95%+ of Russia, having only been banned in a few municipalities (Omsk, Moscow, Yekaterinburg, and Karelia). Again, I would request that an administrator intervene with this page. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Still no mention of being legally registered. TolWol56 (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

That assertion cuts both ways. If you're going to claim that I can't prove it is registered, I would point out that you cannot prove it is unregistered, and any comments regarding its registration or lack thereof should simply be omitted until concrete evidence is found either way. Problem solved. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I would add that that, as of January 1, 2020, there are 20,846 municipal divisions in Russia, including 1,673 municipal districts, 635 urban okrugs, and 33 municipal okrugs. Using the fact that it has been banned in 4 municipalities to suggest that the group has been banned "across Russia" is extremely misleading. Meteoritekid (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about your "assertion" per WP:OR. It is more sensible to say that it was never registered outside the places where it has been banned thus it makes no sense for you to falsely claim about their existence outside the banned regions. Problem solved. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

If you do not know if it is registered or not, stating "it was never registered" is misleading and qualifies as (un-cited) WP:OR. The group clearly exists and was documented participating in the War in Donbas as recently as 2014, "registered" or not. I am refraining from editing this page until an admin reviews these edits and whether or not you are using alternate accounts to avoid the 3 reversion rule. Meteoritekid (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence if it was registered even there. You ask for input then allege others of deception to hide your incompetence. TolWol56 (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested above that any mention of the group being registered or unregistered be removed. The current sentence:

>Russian National Unity...is an unregistered neo-Nazi organization based in Russia and formerly operating in states with Russian-speaking populations.

-- is *wrong.* If we do not know if it is registered or not, this article should not claim that it is or is not registered. And, regardless of whether or not it is registered, the RNU currently exists and is operating.

That sentence should be corrected to:

>Russian National Unity...is a neo-Nazi organization based in Russia and operating in states with Russian-speaking populations.

That statement is objectively true and solves the problems we have both brought up.

Your edits are clearly slanted towards suggesting that the RNU has not existed since 2003, which is demonstrably false. Again, I would hope that an admin sees what is going on here and steps in. Meteoritekid (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Everyone know it is unregistered per WP:RS such as justice.gov which say "RNU is officially not registered there" and also per apnews.com which say "Members of the movement had tried repeatedly to register with authorities, but were refused". When it is not even registered how their activities can be considered effective unless documented by secondary reliable sources and not their own social media accounts? At this stage, you are alone with these personal baseless views that contradict reality. TolWol56 (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

In the report, "RNU is officially not registered there," applied to the city of Voronezh and only that city. Not all of Russia. Your above statement is misleading. The AP article you link to suggests that the group was also banned in "Primorye," or Primorsky Krai. One sparsely populated province. Those two regions together account for approximately 3 million people, or 2% of the population of Russia. If we add them to the four aforementioned regions, including Moscow, the bans would cover to approximately 21 million Russians, or approximately 15% of the country's inhabitants.

What about the other 85% of Russia?

Additionally, the 2013 Canadian Government report repeatedly stated that being formally registered or not did not affect the group's existence or ability to function. That is not WP:OR or WP:RS; it is a fact:

>According to Izvestiya, activities of the RNU in Voronezh include holding congresses and plastering leaflets on poles, even though the RNU is officially not registered there (11 Feb. 2004). Results of a study of extremist groups done by the Union of Councils for Soviet Jews (UCSJ) in 2002 showed that the RNU accompanied local police in Voronezh, Bryansk and Yaroslavl in their patrols of train stations and local streets to "keep order" (New York Times 1 June 2002).

>Despite Moscow's ban on it, as of 2002 evidence of the RNU's continued influence in the city was evident in the openly displayed uniforms and symbols of its members who continued to hold rallies, distribute leaflets with contact info (Bigotry Monitor 8 Mar. 2002; ibid. 21 Dec. 2001) and post RNU leaflets in public places around the city (ibid. 8 Feb. 2002).

>[the] RNU has already been banned in Moscow, Yekaterinburg and Karelia ... in all of those places the organization has continued to function without any trouble. After the court bans were imposed on the RNU chapters, their leaders either changed the group's name...or else just went right on operating, saying that RNU was a public organization and didn't need to be registered (ibid.)

You are claiming that the group is unregistered across Russia based on a paucity of information, and you are mischaracterizing the contents of the Canadian report. I will repeat myself: If we do not know if the RNU is registered or not, this article should not claim that it is or is not registered. And, regardless of whether or not it is registered, the RNU currently exists and is operating, and the article should reflect that fact. Meteoritekid (talk) 07:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The article accurately reflects what those reliable sources say that this "is an unregistered neo-Nazi[1][2][3][4][5] organization based in Russia". Your argument could work only if article said this this "is a defunct neo-Nazi[1][2][3][4][5] organization which was based in Russia". But that isn't what the article say. TolWol56 (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The source states that the RNU is banned in 4 municipalities of the 20,000+ in Russia. It does not state that the organization is "unregistered" throughout Russia. Your above statement is factually incorrect and unjustified. The latter part of your above comment does not make sense. The group is not defunct, the Canadian report says as much, and other references cited in this article show that the RNU was active as recently as 2014.

I would again ask for an admin to review what is going on here. This is blatant pro-Russian propaganda, being carried out with the intent to claim that Russia does not have active neo-Nazi groups, despite all evidence to the contrary. It is whitewashing. Meteoritekid (talk) 08:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Source does not say that the RNU is banned in 4 municipalities of the 20,000+ in Russia. Clearly you failed to understand what what I said. TolWol56 (talk) 21:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I came here because I saw your posting on ANI. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, and your addition clearly threw in a heap of your commentary / analysis that is not supported by any source. I think you should chill out a little bit and reconsider this discussion, coming to it with the idea that you're having an honest disagreement and that the people you're talking to are operating in good faith. --JBL (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

E.g. I see in the discussion at ANI that you are both accusing each other of white-washing. Like, sure, I guess it's possible that one of you is secretly a neo-nazi, but isn't it more likely that you're having a misunderstanding that could best be solved by de-personalizing and engaging in a constructive process of trying to use the best possible sources to most accurately characterize the status of the group? --JBL (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

1) TolWol56 came at this page by flagging my original edits as vandalism and leaving a note on my user talk page without any discussion here or anywhere else. My initial comments on the ANI thread simply asked what the warning meant and asked what I should do about it. TolWol56 immediately accused me of whitewashing, etc. I had to look the term up to see its formal definition on Wikipedia, and, frankly, I believe what they're doing is exactly that. I was attacked and accused of operating in bad faith from the start.

2) I cited Alexander Barkashov's profile VK because he posted photos and videos in June 2021 showing emblazoned RNU militia members sitting on armored vehicles and in front of destroyed buildings, with text describing the group's actions in Donetsk. As I originally wrote, "Photographs and videos posted by RNU leader Alexander Barkashov on the Russian social media website VK confirm that RNU members have been active in Russian separatist militias in Donetsk and Crimea from 2014 through at least June 2021." This is a widely accepted fact: Neo-Nazi Russian nationalist exposes how Russia’s leaders sent them to Ukraine to kill Ukrainians, Smear and Loathing: A Close Look at Accusations of Ukrainian Anti‐​Semitism, etc. The posts I cited simply extended the RNU's documented activities in the region from ~2016-7 to June 2021. And there are numerous references to these neo-nazi separatist groups participating in the current invasion of Ukraine, as components of the Military of the Donetsk People's Republic during the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

After being told that the VK reference might not be permissible per Wikipedia's rules, I conceded that I would be fine with it being removed in the ANI thread, however this very Wikipedia article already contained references to the RNU's involvement in Donetsk through 2014: Ukraine Crisis: Who Are the Russian Neo-Nazi Groups Fighting with Separatists?. So, again, the current introduction, which strongly suggests that the RNU was absent across all of Russia by 2003, is misleading.

3) The introduction as it is currently written strongly suggests that the RNU was banned across ~all of Russia by 2003, when the evidence we have suggests that it was banned across ~15% of the country at that time, and the Canadian report plainly states, repeatedly, that the group continued to operate unaffected despite any bans, anyway. See the block quotes above.

And TolWol56 goes further, claiming that the RNU is an "unregistered" organization across all of Russia. We know that it cannot be registered in approximately 15% of the country, where it has been banned. But the group has not been publicly banned by the Kremlin, across all of Russia. Russia has done that to certain groups, but they have not done it to the RNU.

This whole argument is very strange to me. What TolWol56 is doing would be like citing a news article about the recent abortion restrictions passed in Texas to claim something like "abortions are now banned across all of the US." It is misleading.

My workaround was the above proposal. TolWol56 wanted:

>Russian National Unity...is an unregistered neo-Nazi organization based in Russia and formerly operating in states with Russian-speaking populations.

That statement is both presumptive and wrong. If we do not know if/where the RNU is registered, this article should not claim that it is or is not registered across all of Russia. And, regardless of whether or not it is registered, the RNU currently exists and is operating. As I said above, that sentence should be corrected to:

>Russian National Unity...is a neo-Nazi organization based in Russia and operating in states with Russian-speaking populations.

That statement is objectively true and omits any assumptions.

4) I believe there is clear motive for what is going on. I have seen a number of tweets and social media posts arguing about the Azov Battalion and RNU as Ukrainian versus Russian neo-nazi organizations. Pro-Russian / Pro-Putin sources have quoted the introduction of this article as evidence that Russia "no longer has any Nazis" and that "the RNU has not existed since 2003." This article is currently being used to support the propaganda that Putin is "de-nazifying Ukraine."

Why does the introduction of this article currently suggest that the group hasn't existed since 2003? If the group hasn't existed since 2003, how were they fighting a war in 2014? It is misleading. Meteoritekid (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that both of you should stop talking about each other and instead talk about sources. --JBL (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

We can't claim that this group is registered, active and carrying out activities by depending on their years-old social media posts just because you want to make a false balance with Neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine to settle your social media scores.

Stop writing WP:WALLOFTEXT. No one is going to read them since your entire argument relies on distortion, misrepresentation of sources and WP:OR.

Article already mentioned the group's presence in Donbass, but it doesn't mean they become registered. Probably they were brown nosing Russian government, but failed. If their participation was so significant like you claim then find scholarly sources on the subject to verify your claims. There are tons of scholarly sources about Donbass conflict out there. TolWol56 (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You should stop personalizing this dispute. --JBL (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I should avoid explaining in lengths unless he wants to respect WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NPA. TolWol56 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I linked to 6 references in my last reply here that were not "social media sources," including several other Wikipedia pages with numerous vetted references of their own. Several of these sources clearly state that the NRU actively participated in the War in Donbas, and at least one of the new articles I just added confirm that the NRU and Alexander Barkashov were active in the conflict and in policy-making in Donetsk well after the initial 2014 invasion.

You keep saying that I claim the group is registered. I am not claiming that the group is registered. However, you are claiming it is unregistered across all of Russia. That is a big claim. Kindly show me that the Russian government has banned the RNU throughout the country, as it has banned other organizations.

If you cannot find proof of that, we should change the article so that it does not claim that the group is banned across Russia, because it does not appear to be universally banned.

One of my earlier edits toe the article suggested that the RNU was known to be banned in just 6 municipalities, of Russia's 20,000+. That is what the current evidence and sources tell us. I would be open to additional evidence if you have any.

Please tell me why this is not acceptable to you. Meteoritekid (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You synthesized the Wikipedia pages that are not reliable sources itself. A blanket ban applies only to organizations registered on a national level, not unregistered fringe groups like this one. Your own conclusions violate WP:OR. 

This talk page is not for solving your confusion about the group. Read WP:NOTAFORUM. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

>You synthesized the Wikipedia pages that are not reliable sources itself.

The other 4 sources I linked should be sufficient.

>A blanket ban applies only to organizations registered on a national level, not unregistered fringe groups like this one. Your own conclusions violate WP:OR.

The claim you make here isn't even WP:OR. It's an unjustified assertion. If the organization is not banned on a national level and it is only banned in ~6 municipalities, then it is not "banned" countrywide, and it may or may not be registered provincially (more on this below). While it is not an admissible reference according to you, Wikipedia.ru's page on the RNU says as much (translated):

>"Alexander Barkashov continued to head the RNU (All-Russian Public Patriotic Movement "Russian National Unity") without state registration, retaining the regional organizations of Belarus and Russia - Moscow, Belgorod, Bryansk, Nizhny Novgorod, Kurgan and a number of others. Regional branches in St. Petersburg and Kostroma were also restored."

If that is correct, organizations like the RNU can be registered nationally (i.e. by the state) or regionally, and that several branches are registered regionally. Which would mean that a) saying it is "banned" countrywide is misleading, and b) even stating that it is "unregistered" is misleading, if it is registered in...at least that many municipalities. According to that page, it has even returned to Moscow.

>This talk page is not for solving your confusion about the group.

There is no confusion. The current version of the article is unquestionably misleading and suggests that the group has not existed since 2003. It is wrong. Meteoritekid (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia is not a reliable source. WP:ONUS is on you to prove the validity of your edits than demand 'evidence' from others.

Your argument reads like this: "Germany never lost WW2, because they never even fought in South America, North America in a 'World War' and their forces signed surrender treaty only in Germany." If the source said "Germany lost WW2" and you don't have the source to say that "Germany didn't lose WW2 but in fact won WW2" then you should just drop it and move on.

This should be enough for resolving your unnecessary questions:

"In 1999, at the initiative of Moscow Mayor Y. Luzhkov, the court canceled the state registration of RNU in the Moscow region. Attempts to achieve nationwide registration also failed due to opposition from the authorities."[3]

See what other reliable and scholarly sources say about its existence:

• "A characteristic example of this was Russian National Unity - broken up from within, it ceased to exist within six months (18 June 2003)."[4]
• "One of the most commented on was Russian National Unity"... who... "never mustered the five per cent support needed to get into parliament before its final split in 2001".[5]
• "Soon afterwards the Moscow headquarter of the party was closed and the organization practically liquidated."[6]
• "the RNE was of substantial organizational strength before its breakup in late 2000 and was estimated to have had, on the eve of its fracture, approximately 20,000 to 25,000 members."[7]
• "through to the neo-nazi organization Russkoe natsional'noe yedinstvo (Russian National Unity, RNE), formerly the largest neo-Nazi group in the country but now divided into several subgroups"[8]
• "Russian National Unity underwent an internal coup d'etat in 2000. Several regional leaders decided to exclude Alexander Barkashov from his position as leader of the party, splitting up into multiple factions, none of which was able to step in to play a unifying role." And: "Barkashov, who had legal troubles for "hooliganism" in 2005, created a new party bearing his name in December of the following year but had no real success."[9]

Now here is another great academic source that debunks the claims that this "defunct" group played a role in Donbass:

• "This "brown" reading of Novorossiya was amplified by the media hype surrounding the alleged rebirth of Barkashov's Russian National Unity (RNE) party alongside the Donbas insurgency. The RNE is a unique case of a defunct nationalist organization whose name became such a brand that it can be instantly reactivated, based only on its faded glory." And it concludes that "these links are mentioned by unreliable Ukrainian sources and the movement's Facebook page displays no particular link to the RNE."[10]

Unless you can find sources that argue against these facts, we will have to treat it as a dead group per above WP:RS.

Let me make it crystal clear that you have no reliable sources to prove: 1) the group is nationally registered), 2) the group was ever registered anywhere, 3) the group did anything significant since it was banned nearly 20 years ago (former volunteers claiming or being reported to have fought in Donbas does not prove revival). TolWol56 (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Per above, I feel compelled to ask you to stop writing WP:WALLOFTEXT. Regardless, I will respond with due diligence:

Your reference, 3 tells us that the group was banned in Moscow in 1999. That is not new information; we already knew that from the 2013 Canadian report and both of us refer to that fact above, repeatedly.

Your next reference, this one is a mirror for the same 2013 Canadian report we have both referred to so many times in this thread. They are the same exact document. It seems rather misleading to present it as a new source, here.

Additionally: the quote from it you include above explicitly addressed the regional bans we have already discussed above. We know the group was banned in a few municipalities. You appear to be claiming that the quote applies to all of Russia, which is misleading.

That quote was also immediately followed by this one: "[the] RNU has already been banned in Moscow, Yekaterinburg and Karelia ... in all of those places the organization has continued to function without any trouble. After the court bans were imposed on the RNU chapters, their leaders either changed the group's name ... or else just went right on operating, saying that RNU was a public organization and didn't need to be registered (ibid.)"

So, again, if you're going to claim that the RNU was "banned" in this Wikipedia article, that statement needs to be qualified to be accurate. The group was only banned from formally registering as a political organization in a small minority of Russian municipalities, and those bans did not extend to the group's functioning or activities. Stating that the group has been "banned" is misleading. I find that I am repeating my comments from above.

Since we have ample evidence that the group existed as recently as the mid-2010s 1 2 3, even if someone said that the RNU ceased to exist ca. 2000, events that have transpired since then have proved them wrong 4: "Russian volunteers who were actively involved in the protests in Kharkov and Odessa in spring 2014, which were themselves provocations, and subsequently fought in eastern Ukraine include activists of Aleksandr Barkashov’s RNE, Aleksandr Dugin’s Eurasian Union of Youth, Stanislav Vorobev’s RID and other groups." References from the Russian Wikipedia page confirm this as well 1 2.

I would add that the 2013 Canadian report clearly describes the RNU's fracture and decline in the late 1990s (as your quotes describe), but the report goes on to say: "In April 2002, deputy chief of the Russian Preventive Operations Department reported that the number of active RNU members had been rising (ITAR TASS 10 Apr. 2002) and although the United Kingdom Home Office considered membership figures unreliable, it reported that the RNU claimed tens of thousands of members in many regions of Russia (UK Apr. 2002). Also in 2002, ITAR-TASS news agency reported that there were twenty-two RNU associations operating in the Russian Federation (ITAR TASS 23 Oct. 2002) and the FSU Monitor stated that the Astrakhan Region's RNU branch [alone] had 500 members (FSU Monitor 5 Feb. 2002)."

In other words, the ~1999-2002 sources you cite to claim that the group was in decline or no longer existed after the year ~2000 stop short of the group's 2002-2003 resurgence. The Canadian report also suggests that the RNU was nationally registered prior to 2002: "In 2002 the Russian Ministry of Justice set out to re-register all political parties in Russia and despite its extreme nature, according to one of the members of the Liberal Russia party, because RNU was not acting in direct opposition to the ruling party RNU would probably be granted a legal address." I could not find a concrete source stating that the group was or was not nationally registered after that point. Since the group appears to be registered in a number of the municipalities it has not been banned in (i.e. 85%+ of Russia), the Wikipedia article for the RNU should not say that the organization is "registered" or "unregistered," because using blanket language like that for a group that can be nationally and/or locally "registered" is misleading. We know that the RNU has been locally "registered" in the past, and current sources say that the group is registered in Moscow, Belgorod, Bryansk, Belarus, Nizhny Novgorod, Kurgan, "and a number of others." If you wanted to add a separate summary and timeline of the RNU's legal status throughout Russia in a section below the introduction, that would make more sense. Including a questionable claim like "the group is unregistered" in the introduction of the Wikipedia article for the group simply does not make sense. That statement is half true, at best.

Your next reference, 6 again confirms that the RNU's Moscow headquarters was closed in 1999. Again, that is not new information; we knew that from the same original Canadian report, and you cited the same fact above, with 3.

I cannot access the Google Book you cite as your next reference, however searching for those quotes turned them up in a completely different book (see page 58), not book you linked to in your comment. That is very strange. The 2009 book the quotes are actually from also suggests that the RNU splintered into multiple different neo-nazi organizations in the early 2000s and claims that it was ~defunct after that period, but, again, we have evidence of the group's activity well after 2009 1 2 3 4.

The last document you linked to, accessible here, is again quoted in a misleading fashion. The same book also says, "The RNU's prestige would be revived with the 2014 Ukrainian war. The only other movement that could compete with the RNE in “controlling the streets” was the National Bolsheviks."

It goes on to say: "The movement’s website...was relaunched...with the crisis in Ukraine. Many central figures in Donetsk have referred, directly or indirectly, to the RNE. The most famous of them, Pavel Gubarev, a prominent spokesman with multiple titles (leader of the Donbas militia, governor of the Donetsk People’s Republic, its foreign affairs minister, and the founder of the Novorossiya party), claimed to lead the RNE section in Donetsk." In other words, a few lines after your quote, the same source claims that one of the most prominent leaders of the Russian separatists in Donetsk publicly stated that he was leading the RNU/RNE.

I understand that it is Wikipedia policy to assume good faith, but your above comment reads as gish gallop to me. Meteoritekid (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Then you are clearly not focusing on the sources and the policies I cited.

It is relevant that the group was unregistered and was banned by Moscow in 1999, after which it broke up and died. This is what all the cited sources say.

Your claim that Since the group appears to be registered in a number of the municipalities it has not been banned in (i.e. 85%+ of Russia) violates WP:OR and is baseless since they were never registered anywhere. You would need WP:RS to enforce this view of yours.

These sources I provided are far more reliable than justice.gov which does not exactly contradict each other since Justice.gov also supports the fact that this group has been broken into many other groups which are insignificant.

You said above RNU splintered into multiple different neo-nazi organizations in the early 2000s and claims that it was ~defunct after that period, but, again, but that's it! You should stop right there! There is no need of a "but, again" unless you have reliable source contradicting the information directly.

I will call out the falsification of source you did when you said "{{tq| because the source does not say that at all.[11] Yes it said "and the founder of the Novorossiya party), claimed to lead the RNE section in Donetsk," but it ends the paragraph with: ""The fact that barkashov did celebrate the insurgents' actions on his Facebook page does not mean that they took orders from him." It seems that you purposefully omitted it because it debunks your entire basis of the argument.[12]

We evaluate information by the source's strength and expertise. I don't see any source here which can be considered more reliable than Marlene Laruelle who is an expert in Eastern Europe, Russia and USSR. Unless you have a reliable academic source like that which debunk the information from this academic source, you should consider dropping the matter already.

@Nil Einne: Kindly share your view about this simple concern that an expert academic source has more weight than the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH being done by Meteoritekid. TolWol56 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@Meteoritekid: please see WP:EDITXY and WP:SAMPLEER. It is hard to understand what is being discussed here. --Renat 18:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

@RenatUK: Meteoritekid thinks that his claims, largely relying on information selectively picked from unreliable sources (social media, Russian wikipedia, etc.), collected to create a conclusion which is not supported directly by any reliable sources in violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH is enough for rejecting the information coming from academic sources. To be very clear, he admits above that the reliable source said that "RNU splintered into multiple different neo-nazi organizations in the early 2000s and claims that it was ~defunct after that period, but, again". When he said "but, again" he got back to his WP:OR that has no basis or support from academic sources. See his last edit to the article where he made up (WP:OR) that the group does "not appear to have been banned in the majority of Russia", contrary to the sourced fact the group was already dead soon after the ban in 1999 by Moscow. This user is not sticking to sources but using his own debunked and inaccurate calculations to dispute academic sources. TolWol56 (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Enough [WP:OR] and misleading half quotes.

"[the] RNU has already been banned in Moscow, Yekaterinburg and Karelia ... in all of those places the organization has continued to function without any trouble. After the court bans were imposed on the RNU chapters, their leaders either changed the group's name ... or else just went right on operating, saying that RNU was a public organization and didn't need to be registered."1

"In April 2002, deputy chief of the Russian Preventive Operations Department reported that the number of active RNU members had been rising (ITAR TASS 10 Apr. 2002) and although the United Kingdom Home Office considered membership figures unreliable, it reported that the RNU claimed tens of thousands of members in many regions of Russia (UK Apr. 2002). Also in 2002, ITAR-TASS news agency reported that there were twenty-two RNU associations operating in the Russian Federation (ITAR TASS 23 Oct. 2002) and the FSU Monitor stated that the Astrakhan Region's RNU branch [alone] had 500 members (FSU Monitor 5 Feb. 2002)."1

"Russian volunteers who were actively involved in the protests in Kharkov and Odessa in spring 2014, which were themselves provocations, and subsequently fought in eastern Ukraine include activists of Aleksandr Barkashov’s RNE, Aleksandr Dugin’s Eurasian Union of Youth, Stanislav Vorobev’s RID and other groups."2

"The RNU's prestige would be revived with the 2014 Ukrainian war. The only other movement that could compete with the RNE in “controlling the streets” was the National Bolsheviks...The movement’s website...was relaunched...with the crisis in Ukraine. Many central figures in Donetsk have referred, directly or indirectly, to the RNE. The most famous of them, Pavel Gubarev, a prominent spokesman with multiple titles (leader of the Donbas militia, governor of the Donetsk People’s Republic, its foreign affairs minister, and the founder of the Novorossiya party), claimed to lead the RNE section in Donetsk."3 -Marlene Laruelle

"Pavel Gubarev, who began the separatist uprising in Donetsk March 2014 by briefly proclaiming himself the “People’s Governor” and hoisting a Russian flag over the city government building. Photos quickly surfaced showing Gubarev in the uniform of the militant group Russian National Unity, whose emblem bears an unmistakable resemblance to the swastika. The group’s leader, Aleksandr Barkashov, was also in close contact with the Donetsk rebels, vowing to help them fight “the vicious Kiev junta.”4

"...many of the Russian militants in prominent positions or involved in the fighting in Donbas had neo-Nazi or far-right views. Those involved in fighting Ukrainians in Donbas included Alexander Barkashov, head of the neo-Nazi Russian National Unity party and other members of his party."5

"Zisels says the most powerful far-right unit is the Russian National Unity (RNU) movement, led by ultra-nationalist Aleksandr Barkashov. Barkashov visited Ukraine twice this year, in March and May, and is currently based in Donetsk. This paramilitary organisation, which advocates the expulsion of non-Russians from the country, was founded in 1990. Its red-and-white emblem resembles the swastika icon used by the German Nazi party in the 1930s and 1940s. Barkashov's son is fighting in separatist groups in eastern Ukraine, says Zisels.6

[Translated] "RNU since 2000 to the present: Alexander Barkashov continued to lead the RNU (All-Russian Public Patriotic Movement "Russian National Unity") without federal registration, retaining the regional organizations of Moscow, Belgorod, Bryansk, Belarus, Nizhny Novgorod, Kurgan and a number of others. Also restored regional offices in St. Petersburg and Kostroma."7

Meteoritekid (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Source 1 is Justice.gov, which was published in 2004[13] and cites the book "Nazism in Russia" which was written in 2001 and published in January 2002![14] Given the fact that Barkashov was jailed 3 years later in 2005 and started his own religious group in 2006, it is clear that a lot has changed. We can't rely on this source because it is too outdated. Nevertheless, it does not contradict the fact that the group died and converted into insignificant groups.

Source 2 makes a passing mention that "include activists of Aleksandr Barkashov's RNE", which you are misusing in wrong context. On page 280 it says "many of them have previous links with Russian National Unity"[15] which means that they are no longer affiliated with RNE, a banned group.

Source 3 is Marlene Laruelle who ends the paragraph by saying "The fact that Barkashov did celebrate the insurgents' actions on his Facebook page does not mean that they took orders from him."[16] Thus debunks your false claims about revival in 2014.

Source 5 is "Kharkiv Human Rights Protection Group", an unreliable activist source who again speaks about false rumors of their contribution in 2014 war but this has been already debunked by Laruelle.

Source 6 is Ibtimes which provides a passing mention and Ibtimes is a dubious source per Wikipedia community[17] and their information is already superseded and debunked by Marlene Laruelle.

Source 7 is outright unreliable mirroring Russian wikipedia which has 25 pending versions and this paragraph is unsourced there.

Clearly you are not sticking to reliable sources but repeating your own debunked and inaccurate calculations by selectively picking information and misrepresenting sources that are largely outdated or unreliable. TolWol56 (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Source 1 was "acceptable" when you cited it multiple times above. You are now claiming that it is unreliable because you don't like what it says when it is quoted in full. Your above comment is WP:OR, and the source still corroborates the existence and operation of the RNU in 2002, well after 1999, which is when you claim the group dissolved.

Your comment on Source 2 is again WP:OR, and you are quoting a different section of the book where it talks about Russian alt-right groups in general...which is why it's from a different page, in a different chapter. It is true that there are other Russian alt-right groups affiliated with the RNU that are not RNU. That has no bearing on the continued existence of the RNU.

Your comment on Source 3 is again WP:OR, and I have not claimed that the group was revived in 2014. All of the above sources tell us that the group never dissolved following the limited 1999 "bans," including Marlene Laruelle's other comments, as quoted above. Ignoring 90% of what someone says in favor of taking a short quote out of context does not make sense.

Again:

"The RNU's prestige would be revived with the 2014 Ukrainian war. The only other movement that could compete with the RNE in “controlling the streets” was the National Bolsheviks...The movement’s website...was relaunched...with the crisis in Ukraine. Many central figures in Donetsk have referred, directly or indirectly, to the RNE. The most famous of them, Pavel Gubarev, a prominent spokesman with multiple titles (leader of the Donbas militia, governor of the Donetsk People’s Republic, its foreign affairs minister, and the founder of the Novorossiya party), claimed to lead the RNE section in Donetsk."3

Source 4 you did not address.

Source 5 Your comments here are WP:OR, and are unjustified claims.

Source 6 You are mischaracterizing the comments made by the Wikipedia community, where the consensus is that Ibtimes is a usable source. Anyone can click on the link you included to see that. Regardless, it is one source out of 7 in my above comment, and it simply corroborates the other 6.

Source 7 See this source for a complete list of RNU regional organizations through late 2000. Per that history of the RNU, there were literally dozens of regional RNU organizations that survived past the 1999 "bans" and the group's 2000 schism. It confirms that branches in "Voronezh...St. Petersburg...Amur, Magadan, Primorsky, Sakhalin and Khabarovsky, and...Estonia" continued past 2000. "In contrast to the passive behavior of the center, in recent years, in some regions, local RNU organizations were quite active. In spite of prohibitions and sometimes open confrontation with regional authorities (and in some places and [with their help], thanks to their sympathy) the Barkashovites were able to build fully capable cells of the builders of the future “Russian order”. In bypassing instructions from the CA, regional organizations made [their] own propaganda products, took part in elections, [and] staged performances that were not always sanctioned by the authorities."

All of the sources we have both quoted agree: "In general, the activity of the RNU OOPD is far from being as high as in the 1990s, but the movement exists and continues its educational and propaganda activities."8 Meteoritekid (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That time we had no other source than the outdated "source 1" but now that we have more dated and actual academic sources thats why you need to move on. Stop citing the pages that you don't understand, such as WP:OR when you are citing unreliable sources and cherrypicking information to suite your POV which contradicts reality. Citing a pdf from 2000 which does not even support your POV is again proving that you still don't understand WP:RS. You frequently cited social media page from VK.com which itself say that RNU is banned and they reformed into many other organizations while Alexander's new group is unrelated to Neo-Nazi and extremist ideology of RNU because his new group names "Alexa der Badmashi" is religious. That is what your last source (rusbas), an unreliable WP:SPS, also seems to be supporting. All dated sources agree that RNU itself died in 2000 and split. Rest is irrelevant. TolWol56 (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of wiki-lawyering going on here, but the core issue I think if Marlene Laruelle is authorative enough to superceede all other sources in general, and if the favourite quote "mentioned in unreliable Ukrainian sources" can be used to dismiss all other sources. For instance, note 38 states "38 In the Donbass region, the RNE organized the small but highly effective group Russkaia pravoslavnaia armiia (Russian Orthodox army), which was de facto under the control of RNE member Pavel Gubarev, by Gubarev’s own account". As ROA was founded in 2014, it means RNE was operative at that point. Whether it was resurrected, a temporary gathering of core leadership or never ceased outside the political system can obviously not be established from the source. Furthermore, in an interview published in 2021, Barkashov claims he still leads it" I created the most famous Russian nationalist organization more than 30 years ago, back in the USSR, and it still exists, I still lead it. ". Certainly a source of lesser weight, but he does claim that the intercepted call about the rigged referendum is authentic, which combined is far more than a Facebook comment. As I see it, until the scholars can establish the final version of the events, the article should include the different views in accordance to wiki-policy. BP OMowe (talk) 10:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

late to the party

You are late to the party. See the last paragraph at Russian National Unity#History which sums up post-breakup activities based on high-quality sources. >>> Extorc.talk 17:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I might be late, but there still are some discrepancies between the sources that should be addressed. Orttung gives example of organisations being banned locally while allowed to operate on a federal level, and state RNU was banned in Moscow in 1999. Laurelle says the RNU website went dormant first in 2006, six years after the organisation supposedly was defunct, as well as it indeed being resurrected in the 2014 Crimea/Donbas conflict after having been defunct, though exact time was not possible to establish. "A RNE office is said to have been opened in Donetsk in the early months of the insurrection". This is not covered at all in the history section.

This source does not mention RNU/RNE at all on page 86. Closest reference there is this quote: "that despite state-sponsored nationalism the position of Russian far right does not stand in-line with the position of Russian authorities, trying to suppress the Russian nationalists". Organisation going defunct in the year 2000 was The memory (Pamyat, that Barakshov claims to have been part of before founding RNU) on page 96. Later on the same page, it is said that the RNU political PARTY ceased to exist shortly after getting banned from the elections, but nothing about the rest of the RNU movement. After that, they are not mentioned again. Final source, Saunders, says RNU was banned in Mosocw in 1999, and that Barkashov lost control a year later, with nothing about the further fate of RNU. Saunders, written in 2010(?) thus does not cover the Barkashov involvment in 2014 which suggests that either the loss of control can have been exaggerated in that Barkashov retained influence of parts of RNU, or that he regained control later on when the turmoil in Ukraine provided an opportunity, or that the opposition fraction(s) in RNU simply splintered off. Simply no way to tell from these sources.

Summary of sources (including those I posted previously):

• RNU at some time between 1999 and 2013 was defunct, but was resurrected around the time of the Euromaidan and Crimea annexation.
• Barkashov's involvement and level of control throughout the time period of 1999 and 219 remains unclear.

BP OMowe (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC) BP OMowe (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The article has already addressed that. Remember that Laurelle describes any claims of RNU revival to be a myth as noted above. This on page 11 (not 86) says: "afterwards the Moscow headquarter of the party was closed and the organization practically liquidated". >>> Extorc.talk 21:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No, it has not, as that does not adhere to what is said in the sources.

The source you quote (also specifically mentioned in my previous post) talks about the Russian Nationalist Unity Party, which may or may not be a political branch of the RNU, either local in Moscow or federal, but nothing is specified by the source and thus we can only tell that RNUP no longer exists.

Laurelle on the other hand establish that RNU indeed was defunct for an unspecified time between 2006 when their website went inactive, and 2014 when the site was relaunched, that an unconfirmed RNU office was opened in Donetsk, and RNU being an unique example of an organisation that based on past reputation could be instantly reactivated. So what the source, Laurelle, says is that is that RNU indeed was revived, but there are no reliable sources for when the Donbas connections were established (sentence prior note 80).

Verin, the current commander of Russian Orthodox Army is not the founder, whom on the other hand could be directly connected to Barkashov without any Facebook analysis according to the sources found there (which includes an article by Laurelle).

So, with less that new sources are found to support the current text in the article, the text needs to be changed to be in line with the sources.

BP OMowe (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

People are going to take less interest in this discussion if you are going to continue falsifying the sources. Laruelle described the chapter as "The myth of the RNE renaissance" on the very same page.

Laruelle is enforcing this view since 2015. See this too where she notes "these links are mentioned by unreliable Ukrainian sources" and also notes "this inconsistent media hype on the alleged rebirth of the RNU, with almost no open sources to confirm".

This group always wanted to become a political party but its registration was refused every time. Lots of people register their domain name for 10 years. If their company expired in 1 year but the domain didn't expire for the next 9 years, it would never mean that their company was staying alive for another 9 years.

Hope you understand now that why your demarcation and your WP:OR are highly problematic. Also see WP:NOTAFORUM and don't use this talk page for solving your confusion about the group. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Please, DO explain how discussing the SOURCES on the talk page constitute WP:OR, or how WP:NOTAFORUM refers to discussions of how the sources has been used in the articles. As for falsifying sources:

Mikhail Verin, commander of the “Russian Orthodox Army,” also is suspected of being close to Barkashov, but these links are mentioned by unreliable Ukrainian sources,

So, if we're to stick to the sources, the "unreliable Ukrainian sources" part is only applicable to the specific relation between those two specific people, Do you agree that is the way sources should be treated, or do yoiuhave a different opinion?

BP OMowe (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

If you exactly interpret what sources say then it is not WP:OR but if you are using your own views over the sources then it is WP:OR. Laruelle apparently supersedes other sources and I haven't seen any academic sources challenging her views that's why we need to stop here. >>> Extorc.talk 18:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Extorc, I know what Original Research is, what I wanted was an answer from ArvindPalaskar how that does not fall under WP:WL while in general ignoring the Ad hominem also presented in favour for a specific question on the standards of interpretation of the sources.

"In 1999, at the initiative of Moscow Mayor Y. Luzhkov, the court canceled the state registration of RNU in the Moscow region."

Would this refer to the municipality or the oblast? BP OMowe (talk) 21:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on 9 March 2022

Remove the following WP:OR sourced to unreliable primary source:

"Photographs and videos posted by RNU leader Alexander Barkashov on the Russian social media website VK confirm that RNU members have been active in Russian separatist militias in Donetsk and Crimea from 2014 through at least June 2021.[19]"

Apparently the person who added it today also agreed above "After being told that the VK reference might not be permissible per Wikipedia's rules, I conceded that". Ping protecting admin Cwmhiraeth. TolWol56 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like an admin to confirm that the reference and statement violate Wikipedia policy before it is removed. Meteoritekid (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

And that edit was not added today; it is several days old. The page is protected and that edit could not have been added today. Meteoritekid (talk) 22:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

It didn't exist before your 9 March addition. I support the request and also agree that VK.com (WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS) can't be used to make claim about the group's activities. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

My mistake, I was thinking of this edit, added on March 1st. The UTC timestamps threw me off; for me, it was the day prior. I would still like a moderator to review. If the source is permissible, I would ask that it stays in the article. Meteoritekid (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

As already mentioned at ANI, there is no such thing as an administrative or moderator review of a WP:content dispute. Please work to resolving the dispute yourself by articulating why you believe the statement is supported by WP:reliable sources based on our policies and guidelines, especially WP:PRIMARY and WP:SPS. If you cannot articulate that, then you should withdraw your objection. If you really can't resolve the dispute, you can use some form of WP:Dispute resolution but none of these involving asking a moderator or administrative to issue some sort of ruling, that's simply not how things work. In this instance, WP:RSN is probably a good place to seek feedback if necessary since the dispute seems to primarily relate to the use of a social media account. All that being said, I also suggest the edit request is marked as answered for now since it seems there is a dispute meaning it is unlikely it can be considered uncontroversial WP:EDITXY. Nil Einne (talk) 01:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done by Cwmhiraeth. TolWol56 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)