# Talk:Igor Mangushev

@CT55555: I hit an edit conflict with you when trying to create the page. There's some good detail I've found on pre-invasion activities, and I'll be adding it shortly. Great minds think alike! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

How interesting. I wonder what your draft looked like, I'm curious to see. I'm glad you are able to expand this one further. CT55555(talk) 17:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I was directly creating it in the mainspace, so that's now lost; basically all of the material on the involvement in the war was in yours (though there's a few sources that I might add in if need be). I've also put this up for RD on ITN; it seems ready IMO. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The linked article Illegal immigration#Terminology discuses why using this term to describe people is problematic and probably incorrect, suggesting undocumented migrants. I don't know if WP:MOS addresses this, but I find that convincing. @Red-tailed hawk would you agree to a change?  CT55555(talk) 18:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I've changed to "illegal migrants", the term used in the source to describe the raid itself. There is a difference in connotation between a (transient) migrant and an immigrant, and the source uses "illegal migrant", so I'd prefer to stick to the source. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainain government seems to have a website that lists his birthday. It's consistent with other source, and it's what UkWiki is using to source the birthday, but I haven't encountered this before on EnWiki. Any thoughts on whether the source is reliable for the birth date of this man? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Reading this via Google translates tells me that this organisation is an independent non governmental organisation. It has a complaint process in case information is not accurate. It talks in general terms about where it gets its information from. I would assume it to be not neutral for most information about Russian militia members, however as birth date is fairly non controversial, I would weakly support using this source in this specific context, but that is just informed opinion, not me pointing to any policy or guideline. CT55555(talk) 19:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Ok. I've added it to the article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

An IP editor has twice removed the details that he was shot in the back of the head with the edit summary "This kind of information is not crucial and you won't find it in any other articles. It is biased in the sense either a) that it is almost 'celebrating' that this man was 'shot in the back of his head' (if written by a user from, let's say, Ukraine) OR b) that it's making him a martyr for having been 'shot in the back of his head' (if written by a user from Russia). An encyclopedia is supposed to rise above that.)". Diff
What other articles do or do not do, I don't consider relevant, so here is my analysis of what the reliable sources say:

BBC "shot in the head at close range" and "shot at close range with a 9mm bullet fired into the top of his head at an angle of 45 degrees" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64566582
Moscow Times "gunshot wound to the head" https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/02/08/pro-war-russian-nationalist-executed-in-eastern-ukraine-a80171 (I think Moscow Times is reliable, the database isn't clear)
In the context of his death being described as a possible execution, his manner of death does seem relevant to the article. I think we should report what reliable sources say with neutrality (neither celebrating or martyring) So I propose to add that he was shot in the head at close range. The "back of" bit actually doesn't seem to be widely reported. Seeking consensus for this. CT55555(talk) 14:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Note: @Red-tailed hawk reverted the IP edit, which I support. CT55555(talk) 16:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The "back of" is more widely reported in Russian sources. RIA gives затылочно-теменную область, which in English is Occipito-Parietal region (i.e. the back of one's head). The Insider puts it in their headline and in the very first sentence of coverage. It adds precision to the article, in my view, and I don't think that the IP's concerns are warranted here. Also, it's technically block evasion, as this is Russo-Ukrainian war topic and only ECP editors should be editing it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, you've said it all yourself here - you don't understand what encyclopedias are supposed to include. Proof #1: 'What other articles do or do not do, I don't consider relevant' & Proof #2: You are quoting how newspapers (or other media) articles. One of the main points of having an encyclopedia is to summarize all the IMPORTANT data and not simply copy something from the current/daily report. If you find the style of death so important, which I don't disagree with, then you can simply replace 'he was killed' by 'he was executed'. The actual phrasing 'was shot in the back of the head' is definitely inappropriate here and you can argue about this till you're blue in the face and you still won't be in the right. I couldn't be bothered to log in for this edit, but I bet you you'd change your condescending tone a little if discussing this with a registered user/editor (which I am). Anyway, keep riding your high horse, I don't really care. Sooner or later, someone will drag you down from it and your landing will be hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Please sign your comments and be more civil. CT55555(talk) 00:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
More civil? How was I uncivil, snowflake? This is exactly why I stopped donating to Wikipedia a few years ago. Jimmy Wales and his bunch have allowed the extreme Left to hijack Wikipedia for own purposes and this article is just another great proof of that. There's no pluralism, no debate. It's your way or the highway. Just remember, each extremist movement usually ends up being obliterated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Further namecalling or other incivility will result in you losing your ability to edit. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Name-calling? To consider 'snowflake' name-calling, you'd have to be really, really weak mentally. LMAO.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Are you unable to speak respectfully like a normal human being? Super Ψ Dro 13:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
They won't be speaking here at all for the next 6 months. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Do editors think this article is ready for a good article nomination? @Red-tailed hawk? CT55555(talk) 16:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There are a few scholarly sources that I was going to add today regarding his involvement in Russia's military-industrial complex prior to nominating it for GA, and then I was going to rewrite the lead to comply with MOS:LEAD. I think we're very close, but not quite there yet. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:34, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'm glad I checked. I'll not take that step without a positive signal from you. CT55555(talk) 16:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm also thinking now that we should probably have more about his early life/education before we nom for GA. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Ideally yes. Although I suspect his early life isn't well documented, based on my searches.  I've got 4 GAs so far, two are biographies and both were probably lower quality than the article currently is. CT55555(talk) 23:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@CT55555: I've added the academic sourcing. There were a few things that flagged his name on google scholar that just wound up not being as useful as I had hoped, alas. Feel free to make the nom. I would ask that you include me in a comment as a co-nom, if you would be ok with doing so. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I just found some stuff on Wikipedia Library about the "Holy Russia Party". I'm not sure if that is an alternative translation of Svetlaya Rus or if he is also affiliated with a political party that we've missed so far. What do you think?
Also, I nominate a few GAs today and it is just one line of code and I'm not sure how to add you, if you know, maybe you want to do the nomination?  CT55555(talk) 03:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Holy Russia Party is possibly(?) Holy Rus (organization), which was created by by Ivan Otrakovsky. My best guess is that they are two related but distinct groups that have a similar name, but... I'm also not sure if I ought open a merge request between that and Svetlaya Rus (Holy Rus is Свята́я Русь, while Svetlaya Rus is Светлая Русь). I think Holy Rus and Svetlaya Rus are different, and absent sources treating them as the same I'm not sure we need include it here.
Would you be willing to drop links to the items that mention the "Holy Russia Party"? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Based on what I read in the above link, Holy Rus and Svetlaya Rus are certainly different. The source that identified Igor Mangushev as the leader said "Earlier, the leader of the Holy Russia party, Igor Mangushev, told Interfax"
INTERFAX. Ten guest workers detained in Moscow with fake papers - agency. Central Asia Business News, [s. l.], p. 1, 10 nov. 2011. Disponível em: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bwh&AN=67161061&site=eds-live&scope=site. Acesso em: 10 fev. 2023.
CT55555(talk) 04:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah that's him. I'm now very confused as to if that was a mistranslation when the source was given the name of the group or if we've got a duplicate article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I read enough about their activities to feel moderately confident they are two separate things. One is church stuff, another is chasing immigrants through impoverished housing and snitching on them to cops. CT55555(talk) 04:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Also I think you could just include my name in the comment as a co-nom. The bot won't auto-track it (I'll have to figure out how to get credit from the bot op), but it should be enough to just mark it in a comment for now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
You are the #1 author by content of this https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Igor_Mangushev but I don't think there is any official tracking of who gets credit for a GA. You can claim this one and ought to and I think it's normal for more than one person to be able to describe themselves as a contributor.  CT55555(talk) 04:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
There technically is now (the bot ranks you based on your ratio of GAs to GA reviews performed when deciding where in a section to list you), but I'm thinking more for WP:WIKICUP purposes. I'm currently at zero and I'd like to make it out of the first round this year if I can help it. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 08:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@User:Super_Dromaeosaurus you changed words in the lede from the Russo-Ukraine war (2014 start) to the 2022 invasion in the lead, but he was part of the wider/longer war. So I think that was in error? CT55555(talk) 13:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't. Check it again [1]. Super Ψ Dro 13:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry. My bad. I think it always had that 2022 part in the lede, you just made that clearer by adding the "2022". Is that right? Do others agree it should be the wider (2014-starting) war? i.e. he was fighting since 2014, his role didn't start when the war escalated. CT55555(talk) 13:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I have no opinion on that. But Russian invasion of Ukraine redirects to 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. My edits intended to put the target page directly. Super Ψ Dro 13:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't love the use of "2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine", given that it's, ya know, 2023 and he was active this year.  But it's more a matter of preference than anything else — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
That is a fair point, but I find it even more strange that we frame a war that started in 2014 as a 2022 thing. That said, while I can see clearly that he was active in the war since 2014, I only see commentary of his drone work occurring in 2023. So I guess the update is correct, it just seems odd that a fighter in a war that started in 2014, who was been fighting it from 2014 to 2023, is framed as taking part in a 2022 thing. Obviously this isn't the venue to change wikipedia's framing of the war, but I do think dropping the 2022 was better. CT55555(talk) 18:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Second paragraph, "In addition to his military actives" should be "In addition to his military activities"
Best wishes,
Neil WadoNeil (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

thanks. i fixed it. CT55555(talk) 12:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)