Talk:Denis Kapustin (militant)

Sharing some currently unrealized plans or ideas that I may act on later, unless someone else could help out:

• Providing an overview of the article content in the lede.
• Further improving the "Football hooliganism" section to make it more chronological. Right now it's a mix of facts, and some of them, including how Kapustin is characterized or how he describes his views, look out of place. I'm also not too happy with my mention of Kapustin's decreased interest in street fights being followed by his participation in the 2016 riots. Y
• We need a sentence or two on the formation of the RVC in the body rather than just the lede. Y
• Possibly a note on Kapustin describing himself as a former skinhead. Very unsure as to where this could go. Most of the sources I'm aware of do not talk about it. Y
• A note on him being fluent in Russian, English, and German could be easily added to Early life, but I don't know if this is due or relevant. Just something I've seen in other articles here on Wikipedia.

Daisy Blue (talk) 07:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

• Moving or removing the part on his podcast with Robert Rundo out of the Ukraine section. Possibly merging with the existing mention of the Rise Above Movement under Influence. There's also a Huffpost article saying Rundo has a White Rex tattoo. Unsure if due. Daisy Blue (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2026 (UTC) Y

  I agree the podcast with Rundo should be put together with the other mention of the Rise Above Movement, as it's not relevant to Ukraine. I think the tattoo could be due because it shows Kapustin's influence and connections with other far-right movements. Helpful Cat {talk} 02:38, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  One other thing I couldn't immediately figure out is how to word it without using the present tense, considering even a tattoo can be blacked out or removed with a laser. Daisy Blue (talk) 06:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  "HuffPost reported in 2018 that Rundo had a White Rex tattoo"? Helpful Cat {talk} 07:17, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the idea. ProPublica reports on it as well though. Maybe something like

  According to Mother Jones, Kapustin's White Rex has inspired groups like the American Rise Above Movement. Its leader, Robert Rundo, has been reported to have a White Rex tattoo and co-hosted a podcast with Kapustin.

  Hopefully the parts of the last sentence being based on separate sources wouldn't violate WP:SYNTH. We should try making everything cohesive, as opposed to looking like a thrown together collection of disjointed facts, such as the The false reports of death were part of the special operation part we currently have under Staged death. All Featured articles read like a story rather than that. Daisy Blue (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think that's good. I don't think it's WP:SYNTH at all, it's just listing two facts without drawing any conclusions, no different from listing those facts in different sentences. Yeah, there's definitely room to improve the flow and cohesion of the article. Helpful Cat {talk} 16:16, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

@My very best wishes I didn't even catch that you've changed long-standing content without any kind of discussion. He has been described as a neo-nazi in RSes. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:39, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The section "Political views" was literally only his own, self-published denial of being a neo-Nazi. I removed it, WP:MANDY. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

MANDY is merely an essay, and there is WP:NOTMANDY. Also, why ignore the prior discussion as if it does not exist? Moreover, Al Jazeera (marked as reliable on Wikipedia) and other sources quoting Kapustin doesn't make them a self-published source, which Wikipedia defines as follows:

Self-published material, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum postings, and social media postings Daisy Blue (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we have a biography article on Wikipedia where the "Political views" section includes only a self-description by the subject. I mean, we usually rely on what reliable sources say about the subject, and not what the subjects say about themselves. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:25, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

The rule of thumb via WP:DUE is to reflect what is in the reliable sources. If they overwhelmingly quoted Kapustin, I think we'd need to go by that. In this case though, his self-description is present across multiple reliable sources, and I'd argue the issue of the articles' own descriptions not being included is just that nobody's got to do it, same as I noted in that earlier discussion about the neo-Nazi label having to be in-text attributed. Daisy Blue (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Sources calling him a neo-Nazi do not always include his denial.

• Radio Libery/Radio Free Europe: North Rhine-Westphalia state, which called him "one of the most influential neo-Nazi activists and the creator of a professional fighting subculture."
• Novaya Gazeta: A former football hooligan and neo-Nazi activist from Moscow

He is also banned from the Schengen area (the whole of EU) for being a neo-nazi. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 15:45, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

As others have said, I think we can and probably should include his denial because WP:DENIALS is part of WP:BLP, which is a policy unlike the essay WP:MANDY. However, I agree that the "political views" section shouldn't consist only of his denial. Can we find more sources that speak to his specific beliefs, such as manifestos, speeches or statements? The article currently has a lack of these.

Otherwise, we could merge that paragraph into the "football hooliganism and MMA" section, where most of the material about his far-right and/or neo-Nazi activities currently is. Helpful Cat {talk} 05:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I've seen mentions of the RVC manifesto, but that's separate from Kapustin himself. Regarding Kapustin's recent views, all I can think of is a PBS news report that not only challenges the idea of him not raising his hand in the Hitler salute but also quotes him saying that he believes in the Great Replacement, among other things. There is also the part where he says he's fighting for democracy regardless of whether he is a neo-Nazi. Given that this overview is quite rare among all the other sources, including the Illiberalism paper, which is the type of source that's regarded as the most reliable by Wikipedia, I'd just worry about undue weight.

His political views aren't necessarily related to hooliganism and MMA, so listing them under that section would be unreasonable. Besides, as I noted in my edit summary for that heading, it was inspired by the best articles of Wikipedia, like David Bowie#Political views. The main difference is that there wasn't as much information in the section, but it still had the potential of being expanded in the future. Daisy Blue (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

A more common thread across the articles on him, though I've already touched on this in the Wikipedia article, is that he says he no longer believes street violence is the answer:

“It’s easier for me to say what I detest, oppose in the modern world than to name my personal political views,” he adds. “I consider myself a big part of the right-wing movement. But when we say right-wing movement, what does that mean? Would that mean me agitating for beating up immigrants or things like that? No, I’m a grown up person. And if I had my time as a youngster fighting with immigrants on the street, that time is long gone. We were thinking the immigrant is the enemy. This is not the problem. The problem is Putin’s government,” he adds. Daisy Blue (talk) 08:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those, I think they're good for the article. I've expanded the "political views" section; let me know what you think. Regarding undue weight, I don't think that's an issue, as descriptions of Kapustin's political views in his own words when those political views are a major aspect of his notability are surely almost always WP:DUE in the article about him. Helpful Cat {talk} 12:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Still too much whitewashing of his views. Nowhere in the Political views section do I see that he's been described as a "neo-nazi", which is well-supported by secondary reliable sources. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I have based my additions so far on his own statements about his views, which were missing from the article. I don't see how there is any whitewashing. Feel free to add more sources calling him a neo-Nazi, which you correctly point out are widely available.

The "political views" section should include both his own statements - which provide the most detail (not all neo-Nazis are exactly alike...for example, his statements about antisemitism, street violence, and Putin are probably areas where he differs from other neo-Nazis) - and secondary sources' evaluation of his views (which is where the classification of him as a neo-Nazi usually appears). Again, feel free to add the latter yourself, or move it from elsewhere in the article. Helpful Cat {talk} 12:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

In the PBS source he says that he "might be" a neo-nazi: I might be a right-wing nationalist, conservative, or neo-Nazi, as you label me, OK, might be. That part wasn't included, while him calling himself conservative was. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 12:55, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Jack Hewson: Whether or not you describe your politics as white nationalist or as neo-Nazi, many people watching this would think of that as being abhorrent. Can you justify your position?
Denis Kapustin: I have said many times already in my interviews I might be a right-wing nationalist, conservative, or neo-Nazi, as you label me, OK, might be. But I am right now fighting for democracy.
Right now, I'm fighting for your freedoms as well. We might not be the good guys, but we're definitely fighting for the good cause.

"as you label me"

That is him saying that even if people think he is a neo-Nazi, and even if he accepts that accusation, people should still support him because he is (in his words) "fighting for the good cause". That is not the same as him accepting that he actually is or "might be" a neo-Nazi, which he consistently denies in all other statements (as the interviewer points out in that same PBS source: "Kapustin claims that he is not neo-Nazi"). Helpful Cat {talk} 13:18, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said, whitewashing. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 13:32, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course, it's his description of himself. Once again, feel free to add secondary sources that aren't self-serving. Helpful Cat {talk} 14:03, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Why should so much space be given to his own descriptions of himself? TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Because, as I said less than two hours ago:

"The "political views" section should include both his own statements - which provide the most detail (not all neo-Nazis are exactly alike...for example, his statements about antisemitism, street violence, and Putin are probably areas where he differs from other neo-Nazis) - and secondary sources' evaluation of his views (which is where the classification of him as a neo-Nazi usually appears)."

His statements provide the most detail about his actual views, and are clearly WP:DUE in the "political views" section in his article. I did not add the obviously self-serving statement we are discussing into the article (that he thinks people should support him even if he ~theoretically were~ a neo-Nazi, because he's fighting for a good cause). Helpful Cat {talk} 14:11, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but until I added the bit from the Radio Liberty article, the Political views section consisted only of his own statements about himself. That is hardly balanced. In your own words, the statements are "self-serving". There are plenty of secondary sources that discuss his political views, there really is no need to rely so heavily on his interviews. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:17, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

The statements I added by him - that he believes in the Great Replacement; that he has a history of "bashing immigrants in the street"; that he hates Muslims instead of Jews, and opposes Putin because he thinks Putin is too tolerant of Muslims - are hardly flattering or self-serving at all.

All secondary sources that discuss his views will also be based on his own statements - what else would they draw on? Notice that the quote from Radio Liberty you added calling him "one of the most influential neo-Nazi activists" doesn't actually add that much, because his influence in the neo-Nazi and far-right political scene is already described extensively throughout the article. It's his own statements that provide depth about what specifically he believes in, which is the focus of the "political views" section.

The point of the "political views" section is to elaborate on his political views; repeating superficially over and over "X, Y, Z sources say he's a neo-Nazi", when this is already covered in the article, adds less value than going into detail about his actual beliefs.

"Yes, but until I added the bit from the Radio Liberty article, the Political views section consisted only of his own statements about himself"

And until I added his (unflattering) statements about his political views, that section consisted only of his denial of being a neo-Nazi. Wikipedia is a volunteer project; one person doesn't have to add everything. Helpful Cat {talk} 14:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but we should be careful how we include it and we should avoid editorialising. It shouldn't be a whole paragraph either, a single sentence should do. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you mean his denial or his political views? Helpful Cat {talk} 10:09, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

His denial. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 10:11, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The actual denial is only one sentence anyway. I've edited that paragraph a bit (replacing "patriotic" with "conservative" in his self-description, which seems a bit less self-serving), and have also added the PBS source Daisy Blue found above that shows him apparently doing a Nazi salute in 2013 (contradicting his statement that he doesn't do that). Helpful Cat {talk} 12:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed some time ago on this talk page, and no one objected to the change. He was indeed accused of being neo-Nazi and denied it, which was described on the page. However, the majority of main-stream "Western" sources described his actions before the war as "far-right" activism (i.e. as in the title of an article in Reuters here). I would not rely too much on Russian language sources. Looking from my perspective, "far-right" is practically the same as neo-Nazi, just a more neutral, non-propaganda wording. My very best wishes (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

This has been discussed some time ago on this talk page,

The change was made a month ago. I don't see any discussion preceding it.

I would not rely too much on Russian language sources

Radio Liberty is a Russian language source?

He was indeed accused of being neo-Nazi and denied it,

Of course he did. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 16:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Here is the section with discussion . Yes, this is a source for Russian-speaking readers. I am not saying it is unreliable, just that I would prefer other sources like Reuters. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this is a source for Russian-speaking readers.

Then why is it in English if it is for Russian-speaking readers?

I would prefer other sources like Reuters.

In the discussion you linked, which was started by an account with 17 edits and should have been removed (GS/RUSUKR) and not answered, Daisy Blue provided a bunch of Western sources, one of which is Reuters. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:02, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• In the discussion above (), another participant provided a number of different sources. Some of them call him "neo-Nazi", others call him "extremist", "right-wing Russian nationalist", "a well-known far-right figure", "a Russian nationalist", " far-right activist" or simply do not provide any labels, including BBC . Should he be called a neo-Nazi as a fact in the first phrase of the lead? I would say no, describing him as a "far-right" would be more neutral. As a reminder, WP:BLP rules apply to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

  As long as he remains banned from the EU, we can assume that relevant authorities (who have done their due dilligence because these bans do not happen often) still consider him a neo-nazi. European authorities are particularly relevant here because his activity is in Europe, so they are most familiar with his politics and activity. I also don't see any source contradicting the neo-nazi label (other than himself). TurboSuperA+_[talk] 09:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Even European media describe hims as "far-right" and primarily as "anti-Kremlin fighter" . So should we. My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

By my count of Daisy Blue's sources above, of those that comment on his ideology, ten call him a neo-Nazi, two call him far-right, one calls him an extreme right-wing nationalist, one calls him a nationalist, one calls him an extremist, and one gives an attributed neo-Nazi and white supremacist. I am fine with attributing the "neo-Nazi" part per MOS:CONTROVERSIAL ("widely considered"?), but since this seems like by far the most common label, it should be included in some form. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, other sources labeling him something other than "neo-nazi" does not mean they dispute he is a neo-nazi. Neo-nazism falls under far right. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:17, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think attribution is necessary when that is the overwhelmingly most common label. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 14:20, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree it should not be necessary and checking other prominent neo-Nazis it seems to not be done elsewhere (David Duke, Christopher Cantwell, Richard B. Spencer, etc. all directly say neo-Nazi) but the policy as written seems to suggest it needs to be attributed ("are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution"). LordCollaboration (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

I suppose another question is whether it needs to be attributed in the lead, or if attribution in the body is sufficient for use in the lead. Helpful Cat {talk} 19:26, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

There is no bright-line separating neo-Nazis from merely far-right. I don't think it matters too much whether he's describes as a neo-Nazi in the first sentence or elsewhere in the lede. Note though that the whitewashing of various our sons of a bitch is a thing. Alaexis_¿question? 12:05, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

More relevant is the bias in WP. On such subjects, I occasionally compare the English and Russian versions of a page, i.e. ru:Никитин, Денис, especially in the lead. If English version is more pro-Russian or anti-Ukrainian than even Russian language version, I find this problematic. This page is one of such examples. My very best wishes (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

FYI

 – This topic is also being discussed at WP:NPOV/N#Denis Kapustin.

Helpful Cat {talk} 19:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• More importantly, he was not defined as neo-Nazi by majority of recent sources. I am doing a Google search for "Denis Kapustin" and looking only at RS. What I see?

1. Kyiv faked the death of a Russian far-right activist fighting in its ranks against the Kremlin.
2. : Ukraine staged the death of a high-ranked Russian fighting on Kyiv’s side to prevent him being killed on Moscow’s orders (no qualification at all!)
3. : The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens (yes, that is how he should be described on the page)
4. : How Ukraine's military intelligence faked the death of Denis Kapustin, a Russian commander fighting for Kyiv

Actually, none of these most recent RS called him a "neo-Nazi" as something he is mostly known for. If anything, he is mostly known as "The founder and commander of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit of Russian citizens" - as one of these sources say. There is a similar trend among recent sources provided by Turbo at WP:NPOVNB. He said this recent source calls him neo-Nazi . No, it does not. It says The founder and leader of the Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC), a far-right paramilitary unit fighting alongside Kyiv’s army. My very best wishes (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems like this question might be well suited for an RfC. Coffeeurbanite (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

@TurboSuperA+, could you explain your edit removing Kapustin's thoughts on antisemitism as irrelevant? What makes them distinct from the other views presented in that paragraph? They all are instances of PBS interviewing him. Daisy Blue (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Not understanding someone else's position is not a political view. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:27, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Why not move the part if it's about the section title? Modifying the section title to be more inclusive is also an option. However, I would argue that him commenting on Islam for example, which is currently included, is just as unrelated or related to politics as him commenting on antisemitism. Helpful Cat being the author appears to be of the same opinion. Daisy Blue (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not about the section title. Him saying he doesn't understand something doesn't tell us anything about him, it's not encyclopaedic, it's just fluff. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 20:51, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Someone known for being a neo-Nazi distancing himself from antisemitism and saying that other extremists are too antisemitic is clearly relevant and not "fluff". In case you think again that this is whitewashing him, his statements show he focuses his hate on Muslims rather than Jews, which is not better, and as I said above not a flattering statement. Helpful Cat {talk} 00:03, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

He doesn't distance himself from antisemitism. One of the people in the interview even says: "Whether antisemitic or not, he has a longstanding hostility towards migrants". And what Kapustin actually says is: "I spoke a lot with the guys who seem to share the same ideology as I do from United States, and they have some sort of a complete obsession with Jews, like Jews control everything.I don't understand that thing. I have -- I don't have a problem with actually any ethnicity." The sentence I removed from the article was He has said he does not understand the focus on antisemitism of his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology. That fails WP:V because what he said was he doesn't understand the focus on Jews. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

He doesn't understand why other extremists are obsessed with Jews and think they control everything. Obsessively thinking Jews control everything is antisemitism, and he doesn't understand why other extremists are so focused on it.

"One of the people in the interview even says: 'Whether antisemitic or not, he has a longstanding hostility towards migrants'

Yes, the interviewer says that because Kapustin tried to distance himself from antisemitism. Please read again.

Denis Kapustin: I spoke a lot with the guys who seem to share the same ideology as I do from United States, and they have some sort of a complete obsession with Jews, like Jews control everything.
I don't understand that thing. I have -- I don't have a problem with actually any ethnicity.
Jack Hewson: Whether antisemitic or not, he has a longstanding hostility towards migrants, particularly Muslims. This is him speaking in 2017.

Kapustin says he does not understand why other extremists are so antisemitic, therefore trying to distance himself from antisemitism. The interviewer responds that even if Kapustin is not antisemitic, he is hostile to migrants, particularly Muslims. It is very difficult to understand how you are reading the source. Helpful Cat {talk} 05:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Obsessively thinking Jews control everything is antisemitism

That's WP:OR. We don't know if that is the definiton of antisemitism he goes by.

Kapustin says he does not understand why other extremists are so antisemitic

No, he doesn't.

It is very difficult to understand how you are reading the source.

I am reading what it says. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:29, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

...I hope you are not suggesting that obsessively thinking Jews control everything is not antisemitic.

If you want to stick perfectly to his wording, we can write: He has said he does not understand why his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology have an "obsession" with Jews and believe "Jews control everything". But I would keep the wikilink to antisemitism, because again, thinking Jews control everything is obviously antisemitism, and it is unfortunate that I have to say that. Helpful Cat {talk} 05:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Stop trying to twist my words and imply things that aren't true, WP:AGF. You implying that I could be antisemitic is a personal attack and I will not tolerate it. I said we don't know if that's his definition of antisemitism. Not understanding something is not a political view. And of course he's going to say stuff like that for an interview with PBS, WP:MANDY. He'd probably say something different if he was interviewed for the Daily Stormer. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:51, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

"Stop trying to twist my words"

Very ironic.

Kapustin says he doesn't understand why other extremists are obsessed with the belief that Jews control everything. He says he has no problem with "any ethnicity". The interviewer says that whether he is antisemitic or not - therefore clearly making the WP:SKYBLUE connection that thinking Jews control everything is antisemitic, and that by distancing himself from that belief, Kapustin is distancing himself from antisemitism - he is hostile to migrants, especially Muslims.

You have no reasoned objection to the latest wording I have proposed, so I will add it back in.

"And of course he's going to say stuff like that for an interview with PBS, WP:MANDY. He'd probably say something different if he was interviewed for the Daily Stormer."

We have been through this. WP:MANDY is an essay; Kapustin's focus on hating Muslims rather than Jews is not actually flattering; and if you do find sources where he makes antisemitic remarks, feel free to add them in. I have already made these three same points in this discussion, and am tired of repeating myself endlessly. Helpful Cat {talk} 06:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

therefore

WP:SYNTH.

if you do find sources where he makes antisemitic remarks

How about him being a fucking neo-nazi. lmao

I have already made these three same points in this discussion, and am tired of repeating myself endlessly.

If you keep repeating the same bad argument that doesn't make it good. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:28, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The interviewer makes the connection immediately after Kapustin's remark, within the same source. That is not WP:SYNTH.

"How about him being a fucking neo-nazi. lmao"

So it should be easy to find sources where he makes antisemitic remarks, right? Why don't you add them then?

As I said above, not all far-right extremists or even neo-Nazis have exactly identical beliefs. This one has apparently chosen to focus on Muslims rather than Jews. Saying that is not whitewashing him because hating Muslims is not better.

"If you keep repeating the same bad argument that doesn't make it good."

Ditto. Helpful Cat {talk} 06:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

So it should be easy to find sources where he makes antisemitic remarks, right?

Why should it be?

This one has apparently chosen to focus on Muslims rather than Jews.

...according to a single interview for PBS. If he is so against antisemitism, then it should be easy to find more sources that discuss his apparent opposition to antisemitism. It is just as likely that he chose to deny it in order to make his beliefs more palatable. Just because WP:MANDY is an essay that doesn't make what it says any less correct. But WP:BLPSELFPUB is policy and the first point says not to include content that is not unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. I am saying it is unduly self-serving. In the previous discussion you seemed to agree it is self-serving, too. I think it isn't WP:DUE because it appears in a single interview and it is not supported by any secondary sources. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 06:50, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

"Why should it be?"

Well, because in your words, he's a "fucking neo-nazi. lmao"

Your second paragraph is a clearer explanation of your objection (and I'm glad you've finally accepted that he was trying to distance himself from antisemitism: "If he is so against antisemitism, then it should be easy to find more sources that discuss his apparent opposition to antisemitism. It is just as likely that he chose to deny it in order to make his beliefs more palatable.")

I have two responses:

1. His statement distancing himself from antisemitism is not necessarily "unduly self-serving", because as I've noted several times, hating Muslims instead of Jews is not better.

2. Even if his statement is self-serving, and we question its sincerity - which I think is reasonable - it's still notable that he wants to portray himself as not antisemitic. Antisemitism is usually a key part of neo-Nazism, and many neo-Nazi activists openly espouse it rather than denying it. (See WP:NOTMANDY: "many people who hold certain positions will readily admit that they are white nationalists, anti-vaccination activists, and so forth.")

If Kapustin is choosing to portray himself as not antisemitic, that is a notable aspect of his public persona as a far-right political activist that we should include, without needing to make any claims about what he truly believes in his private thoughts. Public personas matter: if the leader of a movement makes a public statement that the movement will focus on hating X group instead of Y, that changes the direction of the movement and is notable whether or not the leader still hates Y group in their heart. Helpful Cat {talk} 07:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

it's still notable that he wants to portray himself as not antisemitic.

But he isn't, not in that interview, anyway. He says he doesn't understand why American neo-nazis are "obsessed with Jews" and their belief that "Jews control everything". Neither of those things are necessary conditions of being an antisemite. One doesn't need to think that Jews control the world to hate them. He hates Muslims; would it be reasonable to assume he thinks they control the world? Of course not.

If Kapustin is choosing to portray himself as not antisemitic,

That makes his statements "unduly self-serving". Why is it encyclopaedic to include what he wants to portray himself as? Wikipedia is not a place for promotion or cleaning one's public image.

if the leader of a movement makes a public statement that the movement will focus on hating X group instead of Y,

His personal beliefs don't say anything about his group's beliefs. Note that he doesn't say "I am not antisemitic" in the interview. He gives a non-answer, shifting focus on American neo-nazis. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 07:32, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Why insist on relying on an essay or guidelines that have no relation to the subjects at hand? As I noted in a discussion with you just recently on this page, the Wikipedia guideline on self-published sources is on things like websites published by the subject, not by reliable sources like PBS (or Al Jazeera in the other instance) interviewing them and clearly being editorial about which parts of the whole interview to publish. Similarly, WP:PROMO is not applicable because we're not relying on any media or even a press release associated with Kapustin, and there's no evidence of Kapustin having edited this article. If you feel that the wording isn't a proper summary or if it reads as promotional, it would be more productive to propose a different way to summarize the part rather than remove it.

Saying a form of "Blaming the Jews doesn't make sense to me" may not be the strongest form of condemnation, but it's a statement, especially when it's immediately followed by "I don't have a problem with actually any ethnicity." and the interviewing reporter treating it as related to antisemitism. Daisy Blue (talk) 10:39, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Neither of those things are necessary conditions of being an antisemite. One doesn't need to think that Jews control the world to hate them.

True. Fortunately, I never wrote in the article that Kapustin denounces antisemitism or said he does not hate Jews. The original wording I added was: He has said he does not understand the focus on antisemitism of his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology. "Focus on antisemitism" is a very reasonable paraphrasing of "complete obsession with Jews". The next version I added, which you removed again, was: He has said he does not understand why his American counterparts who "seem to share" his ideology have an "obsession" with Jews and believe "Jews control everything". Both versions are completely accurate.

That makes his statements "unduly self-serving". Why is it encyclopaedic to include what he wants to portray himself as? Wikipedia is not a place for promotion or cleaning one's public image.

As I have just explained, the public persona of a political figure is notable in itself. Activists are notable for the views they choose to promote.

All we can know about any public figure is through their words and deeds. Look at any "political views" section or article: Harrison Ford#Political views, David Bowie#Political views, Political positions of Nigel Farage, Political positions of Mitt Romney (picking some random examples). All these are based on the subject's statements and actions, because what else could they be based on? And surely each subject made/did many of these statements/actions with the intention of appearing in a positive light, because that is what public figures do.

That does not mean we remove everything that could be favourable to that public figure. It does mean we include both positive and negative information (so this article includes both Kapustin's denial that he is a neo-Nazi, and information about his activity in neo-Nazi and far-right organisations). It also means we avoid taking statements uncritically (e.g. by attributing statements; and if a subject said they support X, but an RS points out that their policies have been anti-X, we would include the contradiction).

His personal beliefs don't say anything about his group's beliefs.

Obviously, that was an example. Activists, whether they are individuals or groups, are notable for the views they choose to promote.

Note that he doesn't say "I am not antisemitic" in the interview.

See my first paragraph.

Incidentally, far-right activists publicly shifting from antisemitism to Islamophobia is not as outlandish as you think it is. See National Rally#Opinions on the Holocaust, and relations with Jewish groups (another article), or British National Party#Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, for example. That does not make them any less far-right; they have just changed their focus. You seem to be assuming that including Kapustin's statement about antisemitism is a defence of him, but this is not the case. Helpful Cat {talk} 12:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This seems relevant. Also, we're not just quoting his personal blog - the PBS also found it notable. Alaexis_¿question? 15:09, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Other editors agree with you, so it should be included. I'm not going to object or revert any more. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 19:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Y Restored per consensus. Helpful Cat {talk} 04:32, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

• Surely, his criticism of antisemitic rightists in the United States is important, and it must be included to the page. Just as him saying "I don't have a problem with actually any ethnicity.". My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that adding the "ethnicity" part may be important for WP:DUE. Just as with the PBS report itself, it will then be up to the reader whether to believe Kapustin when they see that alongside the other views noted in the article. Turbo has brought up "whitewashing" on multiple occasions, but if anything, omitting that part and the one on fighting for democracy leaves practically no nuance despite it being present in reports on Kapustin in recent years. Daisy Blue (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

I just added a link to his recent interview to Yuri Dud - it has 3+ million views already, and with political events followed . Dud' grilled him so much. Based on the responses in the video, the subject is obviously an apologist of Nazi and has rather twisted understanding of history. But again, it is probably more important what he actually does right now. My very best wishes (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

What is special about this interview compared to the other interviews though? Point 1 of WP:LINKSTOAVOID refers to Featured articles for guidance on what should be included, but if we look at a Featured article like Lady Gaga, Mitt Romney, or Liz Truss - all random examples of living people - there is not a single interview included under External links. Daisy Blue (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a full transcript of the interview, for ease of translation? I've found this partial one from Meduza. Rather than putting it under external links, I think this could be a great source for the political views section. The timestamp labels seem highly relevant. Helpful Cat🐈(talk) 04:11, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this link is helpful for anyone like myself who knows Russian and interested in the subject, but I do not mind removing it or using it for referencing along with other more direct sources, whatever you guys suggest. My very best wishes (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

There are many interviews with Kapustin where he replies in Russian. Here are just some from verified or reputable YouTube channels: , , , , , . Either way, there is not much value in interviews in Russian on the English Wikipedia. I'd remove the link, especially now that I've used it as a reference. Daisy Blue (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ZavichBlazer (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2026 (UTC) I wanna change so that the word "jewish" would be blue and will teleport you to an article about jewish people

 Done jolielover♥talk 13:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jolielover, going by MOS:OVERLINK, major examples of [Nationalities, ethnicities or identities (e.g., British, Japanese, Turkish, African American, Nigerian)] should generally not be linked, so I'm not sure that is right. Daisy Blue (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it was a bold edit based on the fact that it does seem especially relevant in this case and could aid viewers. I'm fine with someone reverting it. jolielover♥talk 06:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC)