Talk:Semyon Pegov

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vandalism[edit]

This is obviously being vandalized. Can it be protected? 2A02:2454:9877:8300:B93A:56CD:F680:FED6 (talk) 01:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. 68.21.155.188 (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The lede summarizes the article. Most of this article is about the fake and staged stuff he posted. Please stop removing this summary from the lede. Volunteer Marek 21:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. You removed this scholarly source that says "Pegov is one of a number of Russian war reporters who has gained phenomenal popularity in the course of the wars in Ukraine and Syria" and the source tells us that he is mainly known for being a war reporter, not as journalist. Furthermore, I do not understand why put 'journalist' in this way. It seems like a way of making fun of this person.
2. You used one article from Pjotr Sauer[1] to call this person a 'propagandist'. I think we need multiple, heavy sources (preferably avoiding Ukrainian sources and sticking to Western ones) to describe him in this harsh way. If this Pegov is called a 'propagandist' by most reliable media, then we can call him that too, certainly not because a journalist decides to call him like that. Mhorg (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source describes Russian war propaganda. The phrase you quote outside its conetxt may suggest Pegov were a new Hemingway. Xx236 (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The paper was written in 2018, so 'Pegov was'. The world has changed since that time. Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem writing in the body of the article that he works for Russian state propaganda. At the same time you are denying that Pegov was a famous war reporter... for many years, and still continues to do this work, albeit embedded in the Russian armed forces. And you are doing this despite the fact that there are scholarly sources to prove it. Why that source was removed? Mhorg (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You want you have "Russian propagandist Semyon Pegov" https://apa.az/en/europe/russian-propagandist-semyon-pegov-stepped-on-a-landmine-and-wounded-near-donetsk-387850 Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://euroweeklynews.com/2022/10/24/pushilin-poses-with-semen-pegov-aka-wargonzo/ Michael MacKay wrote on Twitter: “The notorious Russian propagandist, Semen “Wargonzo” Pegov, was wounded near temporarily-occupied Donetsk by the detonation of an anti-personnel mine placed by Russian forces.” Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same Michael MacKay that writes "In the Battle of Bakhmut, Ukrainian defenders repulsed attacks by the Russian fascist invaders in the direction of Yakovlivka"[2] I cannot say whether this person is a reliable source, whether he is an expert on the subject. But at least we could rely on some academics who treat these issues with more impartiality and in slightly more academic terms? Mhorg (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The famous Russian propagandist Semen Pegov https://censor.net/en/n3375730 Xx236 (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Censor.net[3] does not seem to be a reliable source. Could you bring known Western sources that use this derogatory term profusely? Mhorg (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who in the West cares about Russian propaganda officers? If he is not known, to be removed. Xx236 (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/23/2130716/-Infamous-Russian-propagandist-WarGonzo-wounded-near-Donetsk Infamous Russian propagandist WarGonzo wounded near Donetsk Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/wargonzoo Субъективный взгляд на войну и оружие. He declares is is not neutral. Xx236 (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dailykos is a RS? We can certainly write that he is connected with the Russian state, but the term "propagandist" is excessive when put in the lede. Mhorg (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should avoid using StopFake as a source[edit]

As reported in, among others, this NYT article,[4] the 'StopFake' group is said to have a biased attitude towards fact-checking, as well as having ended up in a scandal in which some of their members are said to be close to "nationalist" circles: "A Ukrainian news outlet, Zaborona, published an article this month citing photographs of a prominent StopFake member meeting with nationalist figures, including a white-power rock musician whose lyrics deny the Holocaust.". Accordingly, I am going to remove this source from the article. Mhorg (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This statement by Human Rights Watch is also important.[5] Mhorg (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Biased does not mean not reliable. Just should be attributed. Volunteer Marek 15:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please obtain the consensus here before restoring that part.
2. You also restored an OR, on the "phosphorus munitions" part. Be more careful. Mhorg (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that source is fine, especially with attribution. Yes, sure, many journalists meet with "nationalist figures" and other unsavory characters, interview such people, etc. Such is their work. It does mean they make unreliable reporting. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you need to read the Human Rights Watch source better. They were not journalistic acquaintances but political acquaintances. Mhorg (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it. StopFake was criticized by Zaborona ("Defense"), another biased Ukrainian news site. But I think they both can be used for sourcing. What is missing here? Examples of StopFake making false claims. Because only that would mean it is an unreliable source per WP:RS (the fact-checking and accuracy). My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 April 2023[edit]

Please revise the page title to Semyon, and other references to "semen" as it is obviously not neutral and inaccurate 96.51.131.14 (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. M.Bitton (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged Rumors that Pegov was killed (Unconfirmed)[edit]

According to unconfimed rumors circulating on both social media and even in online publications/newspapers, Pegov may have been killed very recently. I was wondering if perhaps a sentence or two could be added noting there are rumors circulating that he was killed.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ukraine-situation-report-russia-making-push-in-east

"On June 19, footage of a trench raid conducted by the Special Operations Forces (Ukraine) caused rumors to circulate that Pegov was amongst the Russians killed during the attack." Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He died 19.06.2023, please update information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CE:2F37:A09E:296C:65CC:1461:123A (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems pointless to add it if it's just a rumour. If he's actually dead, I'm sure it won't be too long until it's properly confirmed. 130.234.128.122 (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When doing research, it is more likely that he is dead than alive. I believe using his Twitter with old photo as a source of Ukrainan fake news is not ok. Wikipedia should be the source that do not write facts unless they are proven. I would suggest we edit the situation as it is - not absolutely confirmed either way. If there is a video of him, which can be dated after this alleged death, then its fake news. Both sides are using all the ways to spread their agenda, so we have to be very careful. 217.140.204.204 (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most OSINT now believes he is dead. No proof of life has been released since the video of the ~19th.
While the main page does not need to be updated with unconfirmed information, right now it is effectively just restating russian propaganda. 184.164.126.146 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the Russian MOD stated he is currently in a hospital in lughandk without brain activity. I think we know too little factual information as of right now to adequately state anything other than wargonzo having been shot in combat. Varjagen (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly looks like him in the footage, but nothing has been confirmed one way or the other. He also hasn't appeared to dispell rumors either. We'll have to wait and see. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I think the current edits are good, like that there are rumors that he died, but that his account is disputing his alleged death. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This VK page shows same picture that his account posted to supposedly claim he is alive. The picture is at least few days older than his twitter post, while others are claiming it is much older, from a movie filmed in 2022. In either case, this casts serious doubts to validity of this last Twitter update and should not be used as definitive proof that he is alive and Ukrainian sources are fake. Javelinbellbottoms (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be more clearly formulated what presumably happend to him? As a non native speaker the current text does not give me enough info or clearly say why his twitter account needed to say he was alive. The "alleged fake reports from Ukrainian media" does not cover the fact that the rumour is about him being 'dead'. Why else say that he is alive? The quoted text is way too vague, call a spade a spade. At least say statement x was given because of rumour -> cause-effect.Jdh009 (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://funker530.com/video/nsfw-russian-soldiers-gunned-down-point-blank-in-trench/
@ 1:45 Boorbono7 (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently he is "brain dead" in a hospital if sources are to be believed, though again no official confirmation from his twitter account. That said the current edit should be revised a bit to include when and how he was allegedly wounded/killed Sunnyediting99 (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He took 4 rounds to the head and neck point blank. 2603:7080:F440:37:A9BD:C8C8:304:DBB7 (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of biased language[edit]

Using the word Russian aggression against Georgia and Ukraine. Rabolisk (talk) 15:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modified wikilinks such as article names. Mhorg (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A removal[edit]

  • [6] - Contrary to edit summary, this is sourced to an article by Guardian [7] and a database [8] by Free Russia Forum. Both qualify as RS. The New Voice of Ukraine is also an OK source. Why not? opensanctions.org - I am less sure, but potentially also a legitimate source. My very best wishes (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Propagandist" is a derogatory and unprofessional term to call an embedded war journalist as there are many. And the only good source a see is The Guardian. We can write that the material he produces is controlled by the Russian state or something like that, no problem, if the sources say so. Mhorg (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter if we think something was derogatory. It only matters what RS say. We have Category:Propagandists and even Category:Murderers. No, I believe that at least two (possibly three) other sources are RS even if "biased". Why do you think they are poor sources? Are they known for poor fact checking? My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Claims that it is a "derogatory" or "unprofessional" term are only based on your opinion. Propagandist is an occupation some people officially hold and it is not considered derogatory by any of these sources: merriam-webster, collinsdictionary, cambridge.
You also need to provide proof that the western Guardian [9], a Russian Free Russia Forum [10], and a database [11] that is listing out sanctions imposed by the EU, Switzerland, and Ukraine are 'biased' if you claim this as the reason for the removal. Woodardemmie (talk) 04:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, having a number of dissimilar sources (Guardian, "Free Russia", databases) saying the same only makes the claim more reliable. And, yes, all Russian "milbloggers" are essentially propagandists, as these sources say. This is because: (a) they are openly working to support a specific position that the war by Russia is just, there are no atrocities by Russian army in Ukraine, etc., and (b) many of them are working for the Russian MoD, under the control of GRU (as this page says), etc. They had certain editorial independence during the beginning of the war, but the state control is much tighter now, after the arrest of Igor Girkin and assassination of Prigozhin, who where two most notable producers of YouTube records criticizing the conduct of the war by the Russian government as "Russian patriots", similar to that by more typical Russian "milbloggers", such as Pegov. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Semyon_Pegov&oldid=1204569729"