Talk:Internal Troops of Russia

Against merging

• I think the article justifies itself enough to be separate from the article about Internal Troops in general.Superzohar Talk 05:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose too. A resulting article would be too large and inconsistent. 95.132.116.243 (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Please, someone help me. In the information box next to the flag there is that coding that appears. But I can't find where it is to edit it out and it's quite annoying. Let's fix that and we can start working on other details.Dmanrock29 (talk) 05:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

History

There's a very large gap in history between when it was a Gendarmie in 1836 and the modern interior troops. The entire communist period, for example, is simply ignored. Is that gap going to be filled in?? ` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.159.69 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Rewrite of entire article

This article has been rewritten in its entirety due to the fact that that the National Guard of Russia did not exist until April 5, 2016. Any attempt to merge other Russian ministries with the National Guard, including their history (i.e. Ministry of Interior, OMON, SOPR, etc.) cannot be accepted as correct due to this new entity having its own unique history, which I’ve begun documenting with this rewrite. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

you cant just blank an article because a new service was made. If it was renamed, then adjust, if its new, make a separate article. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 17:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Black Future: Thank you for your input on National Guard of Russia, however, my rewrite of the entire article was absolutely correct as whomever first created this article (and there is no better way to say it) made the entire thing up.

For example: The emblem of the front page of this article can be considered a very cruel joke because whomever created it took the Coat of arms of Russia and superimposed it on the Prussian, German Empire and Nazi Iron Cross (the Ukrainian national guard uses the Iron Cross). Anyone believing that the Russian’s would use a Nazi symbol on anything just doesn’t know correct history. (go to Google images and the only place you’ll find this absurd emblem referenced is on Wikipedia)

Secondly, and as I wrote and substantially referenced in the rewrite of this article, before April 5, 2016, there was no such thing as a National Guard of Russia.

Thirdly, the article as I found it was nothing more than a mishmash of at least 15 current and historical Russian policing and military units having nothing more in common than they were all Russian…e.g. it would be like someone created a United States national guard article describing the history of every local police force, every state police force and every federal police force.

Please restore this article to its original rewrite I did yesterday. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your response. Your rewrite was not correct, you should have made a new article rather than removing all the old article on the Interior Troops. You say that the flag was fake and a "Nazi flag" - but that's the logo for the Internal Troops. Ie, here on wiki, or here's a medal And here are more Interior Troops marching with the "Iron Cross Nazi" flag you described here

More importantly though, The problem now is that by renaming the article, all Internal Troops link to the National Guard, which isn't part of the Ministry of Interior! Again, you took a long existing police force in Russia and nuked it, and replaced it with the National Guard, which is a newly formed military unit that has nothing to do with the MVD.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax and Amatulic, Can you please review the issues arising with this article? Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Picomtn (with cc to Amatulic). My snap judgment is to agree with Black Future, but I have only ruminated on this for a moment. Here are the page names that must be addressed when landing on this page so as not to be a WP:EASTEREGG. This page was started in 2008 and there is status quo ante to consider.

Picomtn, you did the right thing by starting this discussion (actually you started it as a statement), but for rewrites it is best to take a kinder, gentler approach. There is no deadline on Wikipedia. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 17:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: I understand your concerns, however, how can I make this much plainer...this is an entirely made up article having no basis in fact whatsoever. How can this be stated more gently? Picomtn (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Picomtn. I don't know why, but your statement of this is an entirely made up article having no basis in fact whatsoever reminds me of when detective Mark Fuhrman, while under oath, said "I have never used the F-word". I am dismissing your all-inclusive statement, without investigating its merit. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: The editor who undid my rewrite wrote: Make a new article, don't blank the old one, which is historical at worst. How can this be done when the new article would have to have this articles name? I've got one idea I'll work on now, we'll see how that goes. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

How can this be done? Make an article with the name "National Guard of Russia" and leave the Interior Troops article alone. Easy. Why overwrite the historical Interior Troops article? That's what I don't get here.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Toddy1: (cc Checkingfax ) I'm going to revert back to the original (even though it is completly made up) and try another way to make this article truthful...but will include the removal of the highly racist and offensive, and again made up, Iron Cross emblem. Please bear with while I work on this. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hi @Toddy1: (cc Checkingfax ) Please see my latest rewrite of this article and, if you'd be so kind, give me your thoughts on same. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You cannot use a 2009 citation for the organisational structure of something created in April 2016. As rewritten the article looks like WP:OR. The 12:34, 6 April 2016‎ version had the virtue of being backed by relevant citations.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Toddy1: (cc Checkingfax ) Please read my new rewrite and you'll see I've corrected this glaring error. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Toddy1. There is no version ending with a time stamp of :34 but this permalink shows only one total inline citation in the middle of the article. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 19:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Our computers must work differently. This 12:34, 6 April 2016‎ Picomtn (talk | contribs) is how it shows on my computer.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Version of 12:34, 6 April 2016‎ Picomtn (talk | contribs) has four citations:

1. "Putin orders creation of National Guard to fight terrorism, organized crime". RT (Russia). 5 April 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2016.
2. "Putin submits to State Duma bill on National Guard troops". TASS (Russia). 6 April 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2016.
3. "Russia to form National Guard to answer new challenges - report". RT (Russia). 2 April 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2016.
4. "Former chief of Putin's security service appointed Russian National Guard chief — Kremlin". TASS (Russia). 5 April 2016. Retrieved 6 April 2016.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Made up article? You decide.

Hi @Checkingfax: ( cc Toddy1 ) Please allow me to be more expansive on how and why I said this was a made up article. Firstly, the sole reference substantiating this article before I rewrote it was: This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the Library of Congress Country Studies.

This sole reference, as you know, is a circular one pointing to no outside sources substantiating, let alone proving, anything that was written in this article, which is why I’m going to remove it.

With all that being true, the main fact of this article was that whoever created it used the term National Guard of Russia as an overall description of various Russian internal military and police forces—none of whom were ever called by that term.

Please notice that I’m not ascribing either deception and/or ill intent, rather I’m pointing out the fact that the person who wrote this article had no knowledge of what they were writing about.

Where I do ascribe ill intent, though, is in the made up emblem that does not exist—let alone for a National Guard of Russia that only came into existence this week.

Please understand too, these are critical issues involving this article as there are too many to count domestic and international implications to Putin’s creation of this force—e.g. NATO’s response to it. (And there will be one!)

With this being so, and because so many journalists and students do their initial research on a subject by first checking its WP page, and because of the turmoil caused in Russia because of the creation of this force (and I’ll expand this article to reflect this), this article needs to be right. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi, Picomtn. You pointed out two things. Please do not make blanket arguments going forward if you want me to dig deeper. A golf clap for bringing this to my attention. Carry on.

This is an important article, but not groundbreaking like the Panama Papers. That article was posted and went nuts within 9 minutes.

Here are the stats for this article. It has only had this name for 2 days. So, you need to respect its history. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: Now I'm confused—if this article was just created two days ago, then how come its revision history goes back to 2008? I’m almost afraid to ask if this article had its name changed two days ago, and if so, what was its previous name? And yes, the Panama Papers article is most certainly not an article for newbie’s such as me. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Picomtn. As an aside, can you please perish the leaning single quote marks?

The article had a previous name that was germane to its contents but has now been renamed to this title as of yesterday.

Somebody jumped on creating a WP article for the PP within nine minutes of the news breaking, and instantly the page started getting tens of thousands of page views, as the search engines quickly index WP pages. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Picomtn. The article was called Internal Troops of Russia until the 5th as seen in this edit. So, you need to honor that legacy going forward. I find the old patches interesting. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: Is there a way to change that article back to its previous name leaving this alone? It that can be done, I'll do the clean up on it to make it correct and leave out the National Guard references it used incorrectly. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Picomtn. I am guessing that all the scattered troops will not exist separately and will now be rebranded under the National Guard label? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Picomtn. Here is the text of the original page when it was created in 2009. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: ( cc Toddy1 ) I think I see where whoever originally wrote this article got confused, see this reference: Neil Baumgardner, Russian Armed Forces Order of Battle, see bottom of page. Now I don’t know for sure, but I believe this person confused the 247th 'Cossack' Guards Airborne Regiment and the 331st Guards Airborne Regiment with being like America’s National Guard—but which they certainly are/were not. Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Picomtn. Why are you stuck on who the original author is? This article was launched eight years ago and has had 236 edits and many editors. I think Superzohar would take umbrage at how you have assassinated the character of this article. Cool your jets, eh? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Checkingfax: Point taken, and my jets are turned off now. Thanks, as always. Picomtn (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Picomtn. Jets are fine, but afterburners hurt. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 20:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Picomtn, I noticed on the Ministry of Interior article you made edits that told people the entire Ministry was dissolved. This never EVER happened. It concerns me that you don't entirely grasp what these ministries and units are. That you called the Ministry logo a "Nazi cross" before, and think that the ministry doesn't exist, makes me think maybe you should be reading these sources better before making wide reaching edits. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 22:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Split from the Interior Troops article

It seems, if I'm reading the history right this article replaced the Interior Troops article. National Guard should be its own thing. All Interior Troops links from before are now linking here. Some mod needs to do some crafty moving magic and restoring the old article. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 04:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

okay I fixed it, but the talk page for the national guard page is messed up if an admin could help. National Guard of Russia is its own article as its a new military unit.--BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 01:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Black Future: Thank you so much for fixing this error I created in the first place, and I'll do my best to fix the other article too. Picomtn (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Black Future (with cc to Picomtn). I think you went about this all wrong. You nuked a page that is getting thousands of page views per day because it is in the news. It is also in the middle of a WP:In the news nomination (see previous thread and see top of page). You should have created your new work onto the Internal Troops of Russia redirect, then we would already have both articles. What possessed you to get so antsy? Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: Black Future‍—‌I see you have not nuked the page. My apologies. I saw the page history and it says you moved the page which does nuke the page. However, you did a copy/paste move and those are not allowed. At this point, AFAIK, the best you can do is try to provide attribution for all the edits that went into the National Guard of Russia page that are now "lost". See: Wikipedia:Moving a page#Before moving a page (specifically: Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so fragments the edit history.) and Wikipedia:Moving a page#Swapping two pages. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

SUGGESTION: Black Future‍—‌At this juncture, my suggestion would be to perform a WP:dummy edit with a wikilinked edit summary on each page stating that the previous (x number) of edits were copied from the [[page name]] on (y date and time), and then I would place this {{copied}} template (with parameters filled out) on each article's talk page, plus I would put an {{help me admin}} template on this talk page at the top of this section to call an admin here for assistance in straightening out the issue you raised. Click on the Copied template's blue link to see the parameters it requires to dress it. Good luck, and good job! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for being sloppy! At the worst only a couple days of edit history was lost, not a huge split massacre --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 00:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Nazi symbols

On both the Internal Troops of Russia and Internal Troops pages there is a German Nazi Iron Cross emblem having depicted over it the Coat of arms of Russia claiming it is the Internal Troops flag and emblem…which I’ve removed from both.

To understand this issue fully, the correct acronyms I’m using for this clarification are: Internal Troops (VV) and Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD).

This emblem as it appears on these articles has listed as its reference an .ru domain that falsely claims it is the Official website of the Internal Troops of the Interior Ministry.

There can be no official website of VV troops because they don’t exist and were abolished by Federal Law No 3-FZ On Police in 2011.

That is why on the official MVD site their contact email is a Russian government one (ministry@mid.ru) while on this false website their Press Office email address (pressvv@yandex.ru) is from the Russian Internet company Yandex and fails WP:RS on too many other issues to list here.

As to the issue(s) involved in whoever created this fake emblem combining the racist Nazi Iron Cross with a symbol of Russia I won’t speculate on, but with the many issues involving Russia today there are many reasons that can be speculated upon.

Internally though, Putin has done everything in his power since 1999 to destroy the VV…and with his establishment of the National Guard of Russia the last preverbal nail in the coffin for the VV was hammered in…which their past members and leaders are not, and never have been, happy about.

Also to note, though some Russian VV troops, prior to 2011, did work under the MVD…this is NOT their emblem…this is.

Also, this is NOT the emblem for Police of Russia, or Vityaz (MVD), or OMON, or SOBR, or Foreign Intelligence Service (Russia), or Federal Security Service, or any unit of the Russian Armed Forces.

In fact…this emblem is entirely made up as the Iron Cross is a German Nazi symbol and there is no way whatsoever Russia would EVER allow such an offensive emblem for any of their forces.

The Iron Cross is, however, the symbol for the National Guard of Ukraine…which can be understood by reading the articles about Stepan Bandera, Svoboda (political party) (and many others).

Here is a list of the REAL symbols used by the VV when they existed:

Logistic Support units of the Internal Ministry of Russia—Winged Dog

Office for protection of important public facilities and cargo—Lion

Moscow District—Falcon

Northwestern District—Sphinx

Volga District—Deer

North Caucasian District—Horse

Ural District—Salamander

Eastern District—Tiger

Siberian District—Bear

And to be 100% accurate about this subject…the ONLY time Russia made an Iron Cross emblem was during World War II to put on the bodies of dead German Nazi soldiers that had printed on them: for murder and robbery.

Thanks. Picomtn (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, there certainly was a flag of Internal Troops, adopted by the President at the end of 2015. See this decree (in Russian). But it isn't the same flag as removed one. The removed flag featured COA of Russia, while actual IT flag featured Ministry of Internal Affairs emblem. --Seryo93 (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Seryo93: Thank you very much for your clarification of this issue and providing the correct emblem. Picomtn (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I found it. The removed flag is like a banner of Internal Troops (except aspect ratio), adopted in 2002 (not to be confused with flag, which was adopted in 2015). --Seryo93 (talk) 11:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Seryo93: Again, thank you so much helping with this. Picomtn (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Здравствуй @Seryo93: Вы можете присоединиться к беседе с E737 на русской википедии об этом знаке? (раздел Пожалуйста, помогите мне из Америки)? Единственное упоминание еще в состоянии основать принадлежит шведскому ордена масонов - Георгиевском Кресте Picomtn (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Internal Troops of the Soviet Union

There is a link to Internal Troops of the Soviet Union in the article's text, but it's just a redirect to this same article. Did the two get merged at some point and whoever did it forgot to remove such links? MarqFJA87 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)