Talk:Alexander Litvinenko/Archive 3

Replaced fair use images.

I have replaced the recently deleted photos of Litvinenko - I have made 100% sure that we have all of the 'fair use' templates in place this time. Whoever uploaded them last time REALLY needs to check out the rules for the uploading of images under fair use because having to do all of this over again is a PITA! SteveBaker (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Biophys deletion of sourced content

Please stop deleting sourced content just because you do not agree with it, you are violating WP:NPOV.--Miyokan (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

These claims have been already included in main body of this article. If not, please include. There is no need to duplicate them in Introduction. Let's keep Introduction concise. BTW, what exactly deleted content are you talking about? Let's discuss it. Biophys (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPOV. You do not get to decide what information gets inserted into the lead. The theme of Biophys contributions is anti-Russian government/establishment, so I am not surprised at this behaviour here where he deleted 'the other side' of the story. The information you deleted is necessary to balance the other information currently there. The lead as it stands now could hardly be called 'concise' and your argument that there is no need to duplicate them in the introduction is a way of cherry picking the information you want to go into the lead. You say that "These claims have been already included in main body of this article." but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the body of the article, and the information currently there is also mentioned in the body of the article so your argument has no merit. Users can see your various deletions here. [1] [2]--Miyokan (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

All factual information and claims are included in the article and in the Introduction (briefly). Please formulate exactly what important is missing.Biophys (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already provided diffs of your vandalism [3] [4]. The administrator was too hasty in protecting this article, there is nothing to do but wait until the protection expires.--Miyokan (talk) 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I said: the claims in these segments are already included in the article and in the Introduction. What exactly was not included?Biophys (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC) More sources: [5],[6],[7]. Biophys (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edits

I am working toward consensus here to include all sourced view. But Miyokan just reverted my last good faith edit without any discussion (so I had to revert him back). Please talk here rather than revert.Biophys (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The sentence, The views of Litvinenko were sometimes described as "conspiracy theories" in publications that appear before his poisoning is not workable, it directly implies that these sources changed their positions after Litvinenko's poisoning. There is no indication that these sources changed their positions after Litvinenko's poisoning. A person's position is not presumed changed after an event unless he declares it so. Cite from those sources after Litvinenko's poisoning which renounce their calling it a 'conspiracy theory'. Similarly, However these theories gain much credence after his death is not sourced from those sources, please cite where those sources which described it as a conspiracy theory where they say that those theories gained much credence after Litvinenko's death.--Miyokan (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But I did just that. All initially cited sourced were published before his death. Then I cited book "Death of a Dissident" published after his death. It claims something opposite. So, the statement was supported. I suggest that you stop reverting my edits and wait for opinions of others.Biophys (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC) This needs to be clarified. Some of the sources you cited were published before his death (but the date of their publication was indicated incorrectly in the article). Other sources were published after his death, but they do not claim his views to be a conspiracy theory. Biophys (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There have been no sources provided that assert that those 8 sources which have described those as "conspiracy theories" have changed their positions. Death of a Dissident is written by one of the "conspiracy theorists". If those 8 sources which described it as a conspiracy theory believed so much that Litvinenko's poisoning changes everything then cite where they have changed their position after his poisoning. Yes, all those sources have referred to say that the theory that the Russian government orchestrated the apartment bombings is or has been referred to as a "conspiracy theory".--Miyokan (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of your sources do not claim this to be a "conspiracy theory".Biophys (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I removed the disputed conjecture.Biophys (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If this dispute continue, one should simply add "support" and "criticism" sections for each of his assertions, such as "Claim that Putin was a pedophile" ("criticism" and "support"), "Claim that Putin ordered assassination of Anna Politkovskaya" ("criticism" and "support"), and so on.Biophys (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your unilateral reverts conducted without any discussion.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Biophys' deletion of sourced counterarguments

When you have many sources, much much more credible than Alexander Litvinenko and co., including The New York Times, The Times, The Washington Post, Princeton University referring to it as a "conspiracy theory" then its clear that that is the most accepted view. This shows that involvement of the Russian gov. is a WP:FRINGE view, and is currently given way too much weight in both the lead and throughout this article. "However" is on the list of Wikipedia:Words to avoid because it implies one version is favoured over the other, and why did you delete the quote from the Washington Times. And why did you remove the fact that Death of a Dissident was published by Litvinenko's wife. These deletions/manipulation/hiding away of the counterarguments are all a clear violation of WP:NPOV.--Miyokan (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Let's summarize "Pro" and "Contra" views".

You just avoided several points I made. "However" is on the list of Wikipedia:Words to avoid because it implies one version is favoured over the other, and why did you delete the quote from the Washington Times. And why did you remove the fact that Death of a Dissident was published by Litvinenko's wife.--Miyokan (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Pro

Several notable proffessionals claiming the involvenet of FSB to be the case: 1 - FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, 2 - Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter, 3 - member of Russian Duma Sergei Yushenkov, 4 notable historian Felshtinsky, 5 - political scientist Pribylovsky. 6 In addition, we have U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John McCain telling that " There remain credible allegations that Russia's FSB had a hand in carrying out these attacks" [8]. Some of these people have written books on the sibject and they are notable experts.

Contra

A bunch of non-notable journalists claim this to be a "conspiracy theory". They claim it only in publications between 2000 and 2005, before the murder of Litvinenko. So, all your sources are grossly outdated.

This qualifies the case as a "controversy", not as a "conspiracy theory". Biophys (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact

Whether or not it is a conspiracy is not the issue, however the DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact, supported by many sources, much much more credible than Alexander Litvinenko and co., including

• The Washinton Times,
• The New York Times,
• The Times,
• Princeton University, etc.

have referred to it as a "conspiracy theory".--Miyokan (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not grossly outdated, if your only argument that the death of Litvinenko somehow "proved" the "conspiracy theory" then show me where those sources have changed their mind and said so.--Miyokan (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the problem? All your sources are currently included in this article.Biophys (talk) 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you have deleted/manipulated the counterarguments. You avoided several points I made. "However" is on the list of Wikipedia:Words to avoid because it implies one version is favoured over the other, and why did you delete the quote from the Washington Times. And why did you remove the fact that Death of a Dissident was published by Litvinenko's wife.--Miyokan (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what exactly did I "manipulate"? In these context "however" only means the presence of two different views. Authors of the book are included in references. It is pretty obvious that Marina is his wife. But I do not mind to mention this and exclude "however". No problem.Biophys (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Work with Introduction

Someone left a label that "Introduction is too long", and he is probably right. I made it shorter by leaving only materials directly related to Litvinenko and his claims (he is mostly notable for his claims and poisoning). For example, Lugovoy ordeal definitely does not belong to introduction. If someone disagree, let's post objections here, wait for opinions of others, and discuss rather than restore to RR warring.Biophys (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the same situation as the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning article, it is an all or nothing approach. Either keep that information in the lead, or leave Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ва́льтерович Литвине́нко) (30 August 1962[1][2] – 23 November 2006) was a lieutenant-colonel in the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, and later a Russian dissident and writer. - and move the rest to the body of the article.--Miyokan (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So you argue that introduction must be very short, and you made it huge?!. You conradict yourself here. Please take a look at any other BLP article in WP, such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi for example. An introduction must explain in a few phrases why this person is notable. That is exactly what I did. He is notable for his claims about FSB and his poisoning, allegedly by agents of the same FSB. Everything else indeed can go as you said. Please note that I have made these changes to find a compromise with you. The analogy with "poisoning" article is wrong. This article is BLP; hence it must explain why this person is notable.Biophys (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The introduction was already huge before I added vital NPOV information. Deleting information like his claims have been described as "conspiracy theories" by numerous mainstream sources, while leaving stuff like The assassination of Litvinenko, allegedly by Russian agents, was "the most compelling proof" of all his theories according to his biography book [10]:"By doing so he gave credence to all his previous theories, delivering justice for the tenants of the bombed apartment blocks, the Moscow theater-goers, Yushenkov, Shchekochikhin, and Anna Politkovskaya, and the half-exterminated nation of Chechnya, exposing their killers for the whole world to see." is hardly NPOV.--Miyokan (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So, I made it short as you requested by removing information that is not about Litvinenko but about Lugovoy. The segment you cited is about Litvinenko, and it explains why Litvinenko is notable.Biophys (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I made phrase you do not like shorter. Looking for a compromise...Biophys (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That was just an example I gave.--Miyokan (talk) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So, you did not provide any arguments but deleted exactly that phrase [9]!Biophys (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to recent RR warring between several users, I included all claims made by Litvinineko, such as Zawahiri, pedophile and Prodi (based on words by Trofimov). If you disgree or anything is missing, let's discuss it here.Biophys (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you also please give me 20 minutes for editing to avoid edit conflict? Thanks.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC) O'K, I finished for now, although I could add much more. If you want to insert something in Introduction, please state it here and wait for discussion and consensus building.Biophys (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You said you included all claims in the intro, but you took out the ones about al-qaeda training and the London bombings. You also removed the allegations of him being recruited by MI6, which is a pretty important piece of info. And lastly, you removed an NPOV addition to the pedophilia section, and clarification in the terrorism section about who Ayman al-Zawahiri is. Krawndawg (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with editing in the paedophile claim. It's not something he much eleborated on and having compared Putin with Chikatilo raises doubts on how serious he was since not all paedophiles are child murderers or rapists. Questioning Putin's sexuality is meant as an insult, but isnt necessarily critcism of the government since being a paedophile isnt even illegal.

If you're going to include an insult he posted on the internet directed at a government official you might as well include for example how he called someone at the McDonald's a bitch. Something like that certainly shouldn't be included in the introduction of a man's entire life, but instead somewhere in the article.

Miyokan said "these claims are important as they are quite fantastic, questioning the credibility of his other claims" which indicates that hes trying to add it in just to to make him and all his books appear less credible. WP:LEAD says "Do not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them." I think it applies to this case for sure and I vote to exclude it. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

He wrote a serious article on the issue. Your claims that he wasn't being serious is completely baseless. People don't write articles and get them published if they're not serious. Krawndawg (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not baseless and it's only a tiny detail of all his work so it shouldn't belong in the lead. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a significant claim that he made, so it should be in the lead, along with the rest of his significant claims. Krawndawg (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a claim far different than all his other claims and could have been meant as a simple insult so it shouldn't be in the lead. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it different than all his other claims? All of his claims are about bad things that Putin is involved with. Again, people don't publish mere "insults", what a ridiculous claim. It's not like he just made a comment to a reporter or something, he wrote an entire detailed article on it. Krawndawg (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's different because all his other allegations are about crimes commited by the FSB, and unless he had alleged that the FSB kidnapped young boys from the philipines, Putin's sexuality is not critcism of the FSB. He wrote a _short_ article on it thats all. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Pietervhuis that claim about paedophile can be excluded as relatively unimportant (although probably true) to shorten the introduction. Claim about Prodi can be removed too as "secondary" (it acually came from Trofimov; Litvinenko knew nothing about it). If anything about the aleged islamist terrorist training by FSB is missing, please tell what exactly is missing (with sources). This was included. As about alledged MI6 involvement, this is a controversial and strongly disputed claim (which was not made by Litvinenko) that can not be included in Introduction.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC). This is aricle about Litvinenko. Therefore, all his claims however controversial they are, might be included Introduction. As about controversial claims by other people, they can be included in the body of the article, but not in Introduction.Biophys (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a decisiove argument by Pietervhuis. The sexual oientation of Putin does not belong to the introduction.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You only think it's a decisive argument because you don't want any information in the intro that might discredit him. It's a major claim, and as such, belongs in the intro with the rest of his claims. He wrote an article on it, it wasn't a "joke" or an "insult". This has nothing to do with Putins sexuality or whether or not its true, it has to do with a claim he made that got lots of attention. There's a section devoted to it. Krawndawg (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

And you only want to add information in the intro to discredit him. It got lots of attention? That's new to me. I've seen a few biographies and documentaries about him and it was never quoted. You don't know if it wasn't an insult, you're just guessing, but it seems obvious to me, and the average reader, that Litvinenko doesn't seriously believe Putin is a serial rapist and serial killer like Chikatilo. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to add the information because it's completely relevant and paints a full picture of the type of claims he made. If his own words discredit him, then so be it, that's not up to us to decide, he's the one who wrote them. If it was a joke, he would have said "haha, just kidding", and perhaps apologized to the President. Did that happen? Again, your assertions of it not being serious are unfounded and flat out ridiculous. Krawndawg (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It's completely IRrelevant. Litvinenko is known for the criticism of the FSB and the Russian government, not for his comments on peoples sexuality. As such those comments are only details and don't belong in the introduction. You're wondering why he never commented about it later on? Well maybe because a few months after those comments he was murdered. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The argument by Pietervhuis is pretty much neutral. Let's remove it from introduction. This claim is not especially notable or relevant.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, lets not. The claim is one of his more well known ones. Just look at how many google hits it gets. Pietervhuis is not neutral by any means, just like you're not, and you don't have consensus to remove this relevant information which has been restored by multiple people time and time again. Krawndawg (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Time[10] CBC[11] NBC[12] Daily Mail[13] The Guardian[14] The Rolling Stone[15] etc..This is a well known, relevant claim. Krawndawg (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with you either. You, and others trying to add the phrase, aren't less neutral than me on this subject. The links you're providing pretty much back up my arguments, because none of the biographies have the sex claims in their introduction. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the claim is well sourced, but as Pietervhuis pointed out, this is of very minor significance, compare to other claims. If to look through Litvinenko books, he tells, for example, that Putin (when he was FSB boss) and others have been providing a protection for drug trafficers from Afganistan (which is also much less important than blowing up the Moscow buildings), but he did not write anything about Putin's pedophilia there. Thus, it does not belong to the Introduction. I personally do not care much, but Pietervhuis is right.Biophys (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the claim will stay in the lead just as his other claims are per WP:NPOV.--Miyokan (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Great" argument: "Of course the claim will stay in the lead" [because I like it?]Biophys (talk) 02:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Beslan

If you want to include something about Beslan incident - please do, but with all supporting references (not a blog!) and as a separate section.Biophys (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I made a quick follow-up and found this [16]. Should we use it? Those are allegedly statements by Russian officials.Biophys (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research

This sentence is original research: " His allegations about Putin's pedophilia were fueled by an episode when he suddenly kissed a little boy to his belly"

Considering he wrote that article because of what Putin did, after he did it, it makes no sense to say that Putins actions fueled the allegations. Krawndawg (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Furthermore, point out in the article where they mention that the incident made suspicions of paedophilia, they don't.--Miyokan (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please relax. If we are going to be so confrontational, someone will create an article Accusations of Putin of paedophilia and who knows what else. Do you want that? I do not.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Confrontational? Would you rather we just revert without discussing or explaining our reasoning? Krawndawg (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I did no mean the reasoning above (the statement above has been removed any way). I mean the attitude. Let's be more forthcoming. Your most recent edits were reasonable I think.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits

According to WP:Verifiability, "exceptional" claims require multiple reliable sources. The MI6 involvement claim is "exeptional" and came from only one source. Moreover, this claim was strongly disputed by his wife and Goldfarb. Therefore, it does not belong here. In addition, you deleted words of his wife and Goldfarb, leaving only the disputed claim itself. This is violation not only WP:Verifiability, but also WP:NPOV. As about Litvinenko accusations that Putin personally oredered murder of Politkovskaya, that was on his videotape widely available on YuTube. So, this is referenced and even a matter of fact (I mean the claim by Litvinenko).Biophys (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

So why did you remove his accusation of Prodi being a friend of the KGB? It's a direct quote from a BBC article. Krawndawg (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This BBC article does not provides any detail. What exactly Litvinenko said about Prodi? What accusations? Why? This BBC article tells nothing about that. But according to other sources, Litvinenko knew nothing about Prodi except something that Trofimov said. Therefore, claim that you inserted is not right with regard to both Prodi and Litvinenko. If Litvinenko said something more concrete about Prodi, please explain what it is per sources.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it provides detail, there is no policy that says a credible source must provide X amount of detail for it to be inserted into an article. BBC said something of significance and published it, and that's all that matters. What other sources say is irrelevant, because the BBC is the one who claims to have dug up these "top secret files". WP:V says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Krawndawg (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding his "warning" to Anna, I changed it to make clear that he "claimed" to have warned her. The video isn't of him warning her prior to her death, it's of him saying he warned her, after she was killed. There's a big difference between predicting and claiming to have predicted. Krawndawg (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your second comment. As about the first, our goal is to provide an objective picture after studing/using a variety of sources. Blind citation of a single source does not serve WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your latest edit. All sourced relevant info kept intact. Goldfarb's crusade against Putin is irrelevant. And Zharkov mentions Litvinenko by name, which is evident if you click on linky and actually read the source. RJ CG (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I included the statement by Zharkov. I cited statements about alleged Litvinenko involvement with MI6, not about Putin. If an author of this statement is trying to connect the MI6/Litvinenko allegations with Putin - this is not my fault.Biophys (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If this line of arguments continues, we will be looking at a separate article Russian propaganda campaign against Alexander Litvinenko.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Once you prove to community it's notability, go with it. While you are working with it, could you also compile "Berezovsky's propaganda campaign against Russian government"? BTW, draft name for your article borders on racism, as in "distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin", so you would need to change it. Thank you in advance, RJ CG (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review my edits. I had been extremely careful to keep fact that both Mrs. Litvinenko and Mr. Goldfarb deny MI6's involvement in the article. I see no point to include whole hate-filled diatribes here. If you are so desperate to broadcast Mr. Goldfarb's views, 1st sentence of his statement could be there (although it does not add anything to content I posted). RJ CG (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you simply deleted two perfectly sourced and relevant views (by Litvinenko wife and his co-author Goldfarb) for the third time today, while I included your text about Zharkov and tried to develop it further.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but you reverted my edits 4 times during last 24 hours. Although you can always pin your hopes on political biases of admins... Sometimes it even works... RJ CG (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Any diffs showing that I reverted you four times? I did not. To the contrary, I was looking for a compromise. I believe these M6 allegations should be excluded all together as unreliable. But since you insisted, I ageed to include them, but then we must fairly represent all sourced views on this subject. I agreed to include all absurd accusations by your sources (including that Litvinenko was going to kill Putin, not vice versa), but you repeatedly deleted views by Litvinenko wife and Goldfarb. Biophys (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you're citing WP:NPOV, then please take into account that accusing something of being "POV" isn't a valid reason to remove content from an article. It states:

• Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed.

But that said, I don't see how you could call it POV. They said they found evidence, and presented us with it. What's so biased about that? Unless you're saying they made the whole thing up..?Krawndawg (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

---

In the mean time, please refrain from removing single claims that don't coincide with your personal bias on what should or should not be mentioned in the intro. Krawndawg (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And you please don't try to sneekingly insert them. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't me who reinserted it in the first place. Maybe you should take a hint. This article has seen enough edit warring. Krawndawg (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You said "enough edit warring". So that is why you just undid the change by Pietervhuis that we have previously discussed and decided to make?Biophys (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Because he was the one making an edit without consensus, on top of the fact that no one has given a legit reason to remove it. Krawndawg (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with Pietervhuis above that alleged Putin's pedophilia should be removed from introduction as not relevant there (all legit reasons have been provided). That is what I mean.Biophys (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And you've been disagreed with, not just by me. You have not provided a legit reason to remove it either. A widely known claim a person made, has its own section devoted to it, well sourced, belongs in intro. Your opinion that it's irrelevant is irrelevant, because the facts speak for themselves. But this has already been argued which means I'm wasting my time arguing with you, yet again. Krawndawg (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just like you've been disagreed with by us. This article isn't yours. We've already explained why it doesn't belong in the lead. If you're tired of arguing then don't, but then don't revert edits or insert controversial stuff either. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You haven't explained a thing. All you two have said is "It's irrelevant". Well I'm sorry, but that's not a legit argument at all. If it were irrelevant it wouldn't be found in such a large amount of news articles and it wouldn't get tens of thousands of google hits. By that logic I could just delete the whole Illness and poisoning section because it's "irrelevant". This isn't a matter of inserting "controversial" stuff. It's sourced factual information with its own section devoted to it. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to delete it from an article. Krawndawg (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes so everything I said came down to "It's irrelevant". I see you've drawn a conclusion by not addressing my arguments at all! - PietervHuis (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I forgot the "It discredits his other claims" argument. Krawndawg (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually that was Miyokan's argument. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Maybe a good idea is to simply remove all his allegations from the introduction and save them for the rest of the article. People keep adding everything he has ever claimed or alleged concerning the FSB or Russia, but that's the same as placing a musicians entire discography in the introduction. If we can't reach consensus on what and what not to include, maybe just a reference to his two books and how he was a criticus of Putin's regime would be best. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I removed all those contentious claims from introduction. Perhaps it will help to stop edit warring.Biophys (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Russiablog

Russiablog is an internet portal of The Real Russia Project, organized by the Discovery Institute. It is not "personal blog", but should be treated as internet media outlet. It's reliability is unproven, but this is plague affecting whole group of Litvinenko- (should I say Berezovsky-) related articles, largely based on single-financed group of books, considered "conspiracy theories" by independent researchers and even by more respectable media outlets. At least, unlike paid agitator Goldfarb, Russiablog has no apparent axes to grind or money to earn in this story. RJ CG (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Claims of Russia-Al Qaeda connections

I suggest the following. Either "London bombing accusations" should be removed as based on unreliable sources (as I initially suggested), or let's combine all Russia-Al Qaeda materials together. This is not skeweing of a material, but combining different materials on the same subject. Both pieces are about Al Qaeda and Ayman al-Zawahiri. That is why they belong to the same section.Biophys (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It was not me who inserted accusations about Russia-Al Qaeda connections. It was you and RJ_CG. I only did formatting here.Biophys (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Litvinenko accused the FSB of being involved in the London bombings. In a completely unrelated event, Al-qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombings. No where at any point did Litvinenko imply that the Al-qaeda members who claimed responsibility for the attacks were tied to the FSB agents. He didn't mention Al-qaeda at all in regards to the London bombings. You're trying to tie these two things together, that's blatant skewing of factual information and absolutely deceitful.

They are two completely separate claims, therefor deserve their own sections. His mention of Al-Zawahiri and alleged connections to al-qaeda are fine where they are in their current section. Making another section based on the same thing is redundant. It's also deceitful by implying that Litvinenko made a connection between KGB and Al-qaeda regarding the London bombings, which he didn't.

And chechenpress is not an unreliable source. Are you claiming they made the whole interview up? Krawndawg (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I may agree that Chechenpress article is a reliable source. But I did not make anything redundant. I did not add anything. I combined two pieces together because they are both about FSB-Al Qaeda connection, according to Litvinenko. Should we bring this FSB-Al Qaeda thing to WP:Dispute resolution? Biophys (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, they are two completely separate, unrelated claims therefor They deserve their own sections. Go right ahead and bring it up there if you wish. Krawndawg (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In the both statements Litvinenko accuses FSB of connections with Islamic terrorists - Al Qaeda.Biophys (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that you changed what I had originally inserted into the article and input your out of order interpretation.

DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE COPY PASTED:

• The correspondent: Alexander, who, in your opinion, is the originator of this terrorist attack?

• A. Litvinenko: You know, I have spoken about it earlier and I shall say now, that I know only one organization, which has made terrorism the main tool of solving of political problems. It is the Russian special services. The KGB was engaged in terrorism for many years, and, in mass terrorism.

No where, at any point, does Litvinenko connect the FSB with Al-qaeda in regards to the London attacks. No where. Your changing of that paragraph is more proof pointing to your dishonest and biased editing. You replaced his actual response, word for word, with your own biased interpretation which was not part of his response. What the hell?Krawndawg (talk) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You just changed it again! I am seriously on the verge of reporting you this is absolutely ridiculous.Krawndawg (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I just removed this Russia-Al qaeda connection, since you disputed this. I think that was right connection (Litvinenko suggested that FSB might be responsible for the bombings, and Al-qaeda claimed responsibility). But I am looking for a compromise here, as everyone can see from edit history. And I will be looking for a compromise as long as it takes.Biophys (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You changed his response. You changed what he said word for word with your own little biased "version". Please explain why I have to repeat myself two or three times to you all the time? Is there a reason or are you just a troll? There is nothing to compromise. We insert all relevant, factual information. Removing sourced information isn't "compromising", its censoring. Changing someones response to a question beyond recognition is not "compromising", it's LYING.Krawndawg (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

O'K, then let's restore eveything as it was.Biophys (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean delete relevant sourced information for no reason at all? No. Here's a better idea, stop lying and stop making deceitful edits. Krawndawg (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look at my last attempt to find a compromise. I now included each claim in a separate section, just as you requested.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You changed his response a third time. This is the third time you've tried to insert a lie into the article. Revert yourself please. Krawndawg (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What lies? Take it easy, you're on fire. A fact is he often linked the FSB with Al-Qaeda, and when he claims an Al-Qaeda attack is linked to the FSB this may be noted. Him linking Al-Zawahiri for example, who took responsibility for the bombings - - PietervHuis (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Claim about Russian services using terrorism

Resolved

 – Let's move on to more important issues. --Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 01:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. I do not understand what is the problem with current version. He asked not to combine two presumably unrelated claims, and they are placed in separate sections. There is no any wrong citation in present version.Biophys (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is the fact that you continually delete his actual quotes for some unknown reason, and replace them with an unneeded commentary. Let him speak for himself in this article. Maybe we're trying to cram too much info into one page. Perhaps we need a List of Litvinenko's conspiracies article. Krawndawg (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, please leave his quotes alone. Let him speak for himself. Yes, saying that the Russian special services are the only organization that uses terrorism to solve political problems is an extremely ignorant thing to say, and yes, that is very important to show everyone regardless of whether or not you like it. Krawndawg (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It has already been agreed upon to keep the London bombings in their own section, as they are a completely separate claim from his others. Further, he never even mentions Al-qaeda connections along with his London bombing accusations at all. There is no connection whatsoever, except for the connections you draw yourself ie. original research.

Please stop taking such hostility with your edits. See: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Do not make edits to "get back at me" as your edit summary comment implied. This isn't some war, so please enough of the attitude. This is not about you, this is about keeping readers as well informed as possible on every angle, whether it be on Litvininkos side or against. Trying to hide important information by removing their sections is dishonest, as is removing questionable quotes just because you don't like them.Krawndawg (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice if you actually contributed to this discussion, too. Can you justify your constant removal of an important quote? Can you justify merging two sections that are not directly related? You yourself split the sections up a few days ago, why the change of heart, if not simply an act of trolling?Krawndawg (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again trying to remove the same quote? What is your deal man? You still haven't even responded here, yet you continue to push the same issue with no explanation. The quote is important, therefore it stays. There is no valid reason to remove it. If we want to start deleting things because they're "speculation" we'd have to get rid of half this entire article. Heck if you really want, bring it up at dispute resolutions if you really think it doesn't belong and it's that important to you. Don't just delete important, sourced information though. Krawndawg (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This claim in pure speculation. He did not tell anything specific and provided no detail. Obviously, he did not know anything. Such speculations are not encyclopedic comtent and should be removed from WP articles. Actually, this claim should be removed completely. I tried to find a compromise and included partial citation.Biophys (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not pure speculation, it's a claim and a direct quote. He's a former secret service agent saying that the Russian secret services are the only ones who use terrorism to solve political problems. That's an outrageous claim that puts the rest of his claims into perspective. The quote needs to stay, it's important. I'll repeat myself, if you honestly believe that keeping the quote breaks wiki policy, get a third opinion on the matter. If you're not willing to do so, I'm not going to allow sourced information to be removed just because you don't like it. Krawndawg (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

With regard to you last comment. No, that is not important for me personally. But WP is not a place for garbage. Not every sourced information belongs to WP, please read what WP is not. This is a non-notable and unsupported by any evidence claim (I mean the claim that Russian secret services organized London bombings).Biophys (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not important for you personally, yet you just can't stand for that one little quote to be left alone? Sounds more like you just don't want a discrediting quote on his page because it might make people rethink the validity of his others. The quote is very notable, it's an outrageous claim. I'm going to get a third opinion myself. Krawndawg (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So, you just made a new title for this discussion: "Claim about Russian services being the only group to use terrorism to solve political problems", although the deleted segment was about London bombings. Obviously, there are numerous terrorist organizations in the world. Everyone knows that. Litvinenko knew that too. So, why insert this absurd to WP?Biophys (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the text concerning the bombings. It should be noted that Litvinenko's words were before Al-Qaeda had claimed responsibility for the attacks. But your (Krawndawg) version insists that he claimed that he believed the FSB was directly involved in the bombing. It's not a statement he has ever elaborated on, and there's a possibility that he was actually hinting at FSB / Al-Qaeda ties since he more often made such statements. More-over, citations like this is not something he can elaborate on since a year later he was murdered. As such, I agree that if the text stays other information or possibilities may be further explained, like adding how it's not something he could elaborate on and the possibility that he meant FSB / Al-Qaeda ties. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You have added nothing of value to this argument. It doesn't matter what you think he might have been "hinting" at, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Your personal speculation is of no importance. He made a quote, the quote is notable, therefor it should stay. You can take his quote however you want, but keep it to yourself, don't try to push your POV into the article. Al-qaeda claimed responsibility OVER A YEAR before he got poisoned. He had an entire year to backtrack his comments and explain himself. You're insisting that we start ruining this article with original research speculation? No..how about we just post the facts as they are, straight from their sources. Krawndawg (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It does matter what I think because this page isn't yours, but ours. A year? Is there some sort of timelimit? The man didn't know he was going to get murdered. Are you desperately trying to find quotes shortly before his death to try and discredit him and his work because you have a personal grudge with him? Maybe Litvinenko already believe Al-Qaeda was co-oporating? Impossible! Because according to your interpretation he actually believed FSB agents planted the bomb right? You're guessing just as much as us. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Another important fact is that the interview in which he alleged the Al-Zawahiri connection and the interview in which he alleged the FSB - London bombings were from the same month. In fact, he repated these claims in the same exact interview with FAKT, so I'll adjust it because in that interview he did link Al-Qaeda to the bombings. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And in regard to the latest edit to post the full quote, that's fine with me. I just shortened it because I didn't think the rest was relevant since it's not directly about the London bombings. But that's fine. Krawndawg (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Krawndawg, you asked for third opinion; you received third opinion of Pietervhuis, which is not in your favor; and then you simply reverted me. This does not look good.Biophys (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pietervhuis is not a third opinion. "Third opinions must be neutral. If you have previously had dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response, do not offer a third opinion on that dispute." Krawndawg (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with that, but if you are right, you should not ask third (RfC) opinion - this is only for disputes involving two participants.Biophys (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The dispute about the quote only involved two people when I made the request. And of course you don't agree with wikipedia policy. It's abundantly clear that you don't respect the policies here by looking at how often you've been warned on your talk page. Krawndawg (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So have you, only he doesn't delete those warnings. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In third opinion- The claim seems relevant to me, as said in the edit summary, the first quote should stand since you seemed to compromise on that. However, the second quote seemed a little irrelevant. I really don't agree with either editors but for the sake of compromise the first quote should stand. Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 01:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So, do you mean that last version made by Pietervhuis is O'K?. I would agree with it. Also, any your critical comments are very welcome.Biophys (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What second quote do you mean? The one where he mentions Tony Blair? Or where he mentions Zawahiri? (just curious) I'm fine with the way it is now and I hope Krawndawg is too. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by second quote I mean the one about Tony Blair, I beleve the current reversion is fine and hopefully we can concitter this resolved. Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 12:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Berezovsky

I just realized that no where in this article does it mention that Boris Berezovsky sponsored and funded Litvinenkos books. That seems like a pretty important detail that we missed, considering the things Berezovsky has said in the past about wanting to take down the Russian government, and that he has been trying to tarnish the image of Putin. Krawndawg (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that all what Litvinenko wanted to do too? From who he received money isn't very relevant unless it's Saudi Arabia - PietervHuis (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Litvinenko didn't vow to "take the government by force", which may or may not include disinformation. That's why it's relevant to connect the dots here. Krawndawg (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Should there also be mention that the Polonium traces were also found at the Emirates Stadium of Arsenal FC - a football club which Boris Berezovsky has a significant investment in and Berezovsky's claims that Putin had tried to assassinate him in London on another occasion? Wiki link of Berezovski page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky#Alleged_2007_plot

Whitehaven?

I'm pretty sure he wasn't living in Whitehaven, Cumbria! --85.189.4.33 (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Spy

Currently the infobox portaits him as a spy, but, he was an ex-spy. In the ten years before his death he was a writer, not a spy, so that infobox would serve much better. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Paedophile claims removed as WP:BLP

I have removed the complete section relating to Litvinenko's accusation of Putin being a paedophile. I have put this at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Alexander_Litvinenko.2FVladimir_Putin for comment from other users. I also enquired with other editors on IRC regarding WP:BLP concerns, and I was directed by several users to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision. In particular these sections; Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Biographies_of_living_persons, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Problems_with_biographies_of_living_persons and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons. In order for this section to have a presence in this article, it needs to be discussed within the confines of WP:BLP; regardless of it being in Litvinenko's article, it is still a potential WP:BLP problem for Vladimir Putin. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you posted this to BLP noticeboard, you should wait for opinions of several users. So far, only I replied and explained that material should stay in the body of the article (not in introduction) per previous consensus achieved at this talk page.Biophys (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have explained what is wrong with the information at the BLP noticeboard (link above). As the policy WP:BLP and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Biographies_of_living_persons state:

In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

Just because Litvinenko made the accusation, does not make it suitable for an encyclopaedia, particularly as no reputable media source ran the story. The other references (such as Daily Mail) have not repeated the accusation, but have rather clearly stated that it is unsubstantiated accusation on the part of Litvinenko. As Litvinenko was openly prone to nuttery; remember he openly accused Putin of being responsible for the London bombings, we can't just include BLP information into this article, just because some terrorist/separatist Chechen website prints all Litvinenko accusations, and particularly when other media has said it is unsubstantiated. The use of other people also making the same accusations should not be mentioned in an attempt to give Litvinenko's accusation any degree of additional weight.

On an somewhat related point, I also find it highly convenient that both this article and his poisoning article totally gloss over the point that Litvinenko openly accused Scaramella of being behind his poisoning, and it wasn't until Berezovsky visited Litvinenko in hospital, that the poisoning was pinned on Putin; most likely at the behest of Berezovsky himself. Yet we have two articles which attempt to prove Putin's guilt. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to judge if any accusations are true. As soon as notable accusations were made by person L in multiple sources, they can be included in article about this person L. It was not enough to remove all negative information from biography of Putin. Now you are removing accusations from articles about people (Litvinenko and Borovik) who have been allegedly killed precisely for making these accusations...Biophys (talk) 05:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We aren't here to judge whether accusations are true, just as we aren't here to give a sounding board to every piece of nuttery that some guy utters. IF his accusations belong in the article, they have to be his accusations and his accusations alone and they have to be presented in the most absolutely natural way. The case for the inclusion in this article of potential BLP information needs to be discussed, and consensus amongst editors at large reached for its inclusion and the form of wording it should take, and this is before any such information is included in the article. I have pointed out why I have removed the section, inline with WP:BLP and the linked arbcom, and it needs to be discussed why it should be here. So I will open the floor. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

chechenpress is not 'some terrorist website', chechens aren't terrorist, and the website was that of the government in exile. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind seeing the paedophile accusations removed. They're not very important, and don't deserve their own section. At the same time I don't see how, if included, it violates BLP. Putin has been accused have much worse 'crimes' than paedophilia, such as large scale war crimes and genocide, by human rights groups. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am, believe it or not, in full support of having Litvinenko's claims in his article; for it shows that the guy was prone to nuttery. I also support the inclusion of claims made that Putin was behind the London bombings. Let's include all this guys nuttery. However, it has to be done in such a way that there is no WP:BLP. As to Chechenpress, one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, hence why I specifically say terrorist/separatist, depending on where ones opinion lies. However, I would question Chechenpress being used as a reliable source for this or any other article; perhaps that needs to be raised on the WP:RS noticeboard. Either way, the claim needs to be rewritten in an absolute NPOV way. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well Akhmed Zakayev was friends with Litvinenko, and his dad (they walked hand in hand during his funeral) so the site isn't too distant. I don't agree that Litvinenko's doubtful assertions somehow discredit his books, but that's a matter of opinion. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Grey Fox-9589, although the "paedophile claim" is relatively unimportant from your or my position, Litvinenko perhaps was killed on the order from Putin precisely for making this claim. Russian politics is driven by personal animosities and feelings much more than in Europe. Do you know what kind of reading Stalin enjoyed the most? Lists of people to be shot. Stalin knew all people in the lists, and marked some of them to spare and others to be shot. He also requested some of those people to be beaten to death. Russia n-Georgian war happened for many reasons, but one of them was the personal dislike of Saakashvili by Putin. Saakashvili called him "LilliPutin" (he is much higher than Putin). This is it. Saakashvili became his personal enemy, and Putin does not forgive anything. Anna Politkovskaya called Putin "Akaky Akakievich" to emphasize his insignificance ("Brezhnev was a distasteful figure. Andropov bloody... Chernenko was dumb and Russians disliked Gorbachev... Here is their apotheosis. Tomorrow their bpdyguard from Echelon 25 - the man in the security cordon when VIP motorcades drive by - Akaky Akakievich Putin II will strut down the red carpet of the Kremlin throne room... Tomorrow a KGB snoop ... will have had his revenge", from Putin's Russia, page 270). Litvinenko called Putin "Kremlin's Chikatilo" (the pedophile). You know the rest. This should stay.Biophys (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't mind it in the article either. I think it's rather inconvenient to dedicate new sections to every theory Litvinenko wrote about. For the sake of creating a nice article it's better to create a section called "other theories" or something like that, otherwise this article will never become a good article. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Biophys (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand WP:BLP Biophys. As I said in the revision of the removal of said information, Polish a turd, it's still a turd. Move BLP to another section, it's still BLP. There has been no attempt to present this in an NPOV way. In the next 24 hours I will attempt to present it in an NPOV way and will put it on the talk page for discussion first. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 05:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutral rewording

I have worked on this, and this is what I have come up with. If this can be agreed to be NPOV, then let's insert it.

In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile, and compared Putin to Andrei Chikatilo. Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia. The claims have been called "wild", and "sensational and unsubstantiated" in the British media. A report by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, in which the author states that Litvinenko was a "one-man disinformation bureau", suggests the claim was made with "no evidence to support" it, and further stated that this claim, and Litvinenko's claim that the FSB was behind the Beslan school hostage crisis, was accepted without challenge by the British media. Litvinenko made the allegation after Putin kissed a boy on his belly whilst stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds on 28 June 2006. The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice...There is nothing behind it." It has been suggested that the incident was a "clumsy attempt" to soften Putin's image in the lead-up the 32nd G8 Summit which was held in Saint Petersburg in July 2006.

• Having been asked my opinion on the whole debate and having read the proposed revision above, I wholeheartedly support it. It covers and references both sides of the story without skewing it either way or raising any BLP-related red flags. Good job.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Current version:

In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile. He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,. His allegations came after Putin had kissed a little boy on his belly while stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds. Putin commented: "I tell you honestly, I just wanted to stroke him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. There is nothing behind it."

It is shorter and makes clear attributions of all claims ("he wrote" and so on.). But perhaps we can start from Russiavia version and make it shorter.Biophys (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The problems with the version as it was inserted include: 1) It is was in no way neutral by providing all sides of an opinion. 2) It presented unsubstantiated assertion as fact (i.e. among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia). 3) It included detail not related to the claim, remember this is real BLP territory here, and that Trofimov was assassinated and Borovik died in a plane crash, is not connected to Litvinenko's claim; as I mentioned on Borovik's article talk page to you, media will blame Purple People Eaters for anything as a conspiracy theory is always good to sell copy. Feel free to tweak what I wrote, but I do believe it is totally NPOV; it doesn't promote one POV over any other. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind a reaction from the bbc calling the allegations "unsubstantiated" or whatever, but the comment about Litvinenko being a "one-man disinformation bureau" comes from an editorial and is of no use, it's just the opinion of a single man. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree.Biophys (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, "one-man disinformation bureau" comes from scholarly analysis by the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom; the Defence Academy is the British equivalent of West Point or Duntroon. It is different to editorial content; it is a peer-reviewed journal. Whether the "one-man disinformation bureau" belongs here or not, well let's decide, but this article as a whole needs such information, because whilst the media lapped up Litvinenko's nuttery, scholars for the most part have not. Just to make up a list of other claims he's made, we have, Putin has ties with Al-Qaeda, Putin was involved in the London bombings, Russian special services carried out shootings in Armenian parliament in 1999. Remember, anyone can write a book and get it published. However, not everyone can write for a peer-reviewed journal, and having a look at the other Russian publications by the CSRC, they are very balanced and objective. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 19:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That article is defenitely an editorial Russavia. It's says at the disclaimer: "The views expressed in this paper are entirely and solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect official thinking and policy either of Her Majesty’s Government or of the Ministry of Defence." It's a cherry picked opinion too, because there's also scholars who do respect Mr. Litvinenko's work. You're making a Caricature out of Litvinenko. He believes the FSB had ties with al-qaeda, and as such were indirectly involved with the london bombings. This is based on al-Zarqawi's trip to Russia. I don't necessarily believe this, but it certainly doesn't discredit all his other work. There's many people who've made similar accusations in the past, such as American politicians who accused Saddam Hussein of having ties with al-Qaeda, that are still respected even though there's never been any evidence. In fact Putin has made unfounded allegations like that himself, without providing evidence, such as pointing his fingers at the chechen governemnt with having anything to do with the apartment bombings and al-Qaeda. Furthermore if Litvinenko was that unimportant he wouldn't have been murdered by someone whose in the Russian government now would he? Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The disclaimer is due to it being published by the Defence Academy, which is a part of the government hierarchy in Britain. Having a look at this article, it is in dire need of a complete shake-up, as almost everything Litvinenko uttered is presented as mere fact; but as with American politicians who accused Saddam Hussein, those claims are presented as claims with counter-claims; that is what is needed here, in order for it to even begin to reach NPOV. But let's concentrate on this one contentious claim first, yes? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're aiming at "criticism of alexander litvinenko"? I don't see the use, since he was just a writer, not a politician. Furthermore he'll never be able to counter criticism because he's been dead for two years, and most criticism you'll find is from after 2006. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, at the moment I am only aiming at getting this one section NPOV. It's funny though what you mention about him being dead so unable to counter criticism, because if you look at his nutter accusations, he always waited until such time as the person was dead so that they couldn't confirm nor deny his accusations. Or such as this claim of Putin being a paedophile, why didn't he make this accusation earlier than 28 June 2006? There are plenty of sources out there which are available for us to use that comment on such things about Litvinenko. But that's for another time. For now, let's just deal with his paedophilia claims. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I doubt he "waited" until people died. According to his version, said person was about to release the accusations himself. What I also mean is that his paedophile claims have only gained attention after he died, so he's never been able to confirm or deny how serious the article was. Perhaps it was just used for slander. Anyway I agree that words such as "alleged paedophilia" and "a week after trying to publish a paper" between quotations can be added to makes things seem less POV. At the same time I hope you're not chosing the path of past pro-Putin editors we've had here who tried to portray Litvinenko as a nutcase (concerning your constant 'nuttery' comments). We're dealing with a person who was murdered because of his work and should write a respectful article about him. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at his writings to see what I mean, when I say that he waited for people to die until he used them as support with his own claims. According to him, Borovik was going to release accusations. However, that person is not here to corroborate his claim, so it is mere conjecture on his part. Unless, it can be demonstrated that Litvinenko made the claim (re: Borovik also going to make his claim) before 28 June 2006. Because it is all too convenient that Litvinenko uses someone else to back up his claim who can't corroborate the veracity of his claim. We can't use other people's potential claims to back up his own claims in the way that is being suggested. As all that he has done is make the claim, and this is why I posted on the WP:RS noticeboard in regards to Chechenpress, because I don't believe that Chechenpress is a reliable source for information; it is only a reliable source to demonstrate that Litvinenko made the claim. You would not have found such an article being printed in a mainstream media outlet, as it would likely would have had a slander lawsuit slapped on it quick smart, because mainstream press has the expectation of fact-checking, and as has been noted, one major thing that was missing from Litvinenko's claim was evidence. This all comes back to WP:BLP. Also, I'm not an undying Putin supporter, I am pro-Russia, and I am not here to portray Litvinenko as a nutcase, even though I personally believe he was (that's irrelevant); for we should provide all POV, within the confines of WP:FIVE, and allow readers to make up their own minds. That is WP:NPOV; and as my suggestion demonstrates, I am capable of presenting information in an WP:NPOV way. So I hope this is the path that you are going to choose. ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no hard and fast evidence that Litvinenko was killed because of his "work". Firstly, what exactly was his work? Apart from slandering Russian public figures from the safety of having asylum in the UK? Additionally, just because he's dead, this does not dictate that we need to write a "respectful" article on him; Adolf Hitler is dead, does this mean we should gloss over his overseeing the attempted extermination of the Jewish race in an attempt to be respectful? Absolutely not. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that it's inconvenient to make a section called "criticism of litvinenko". Usually that's made for important politicians who receive criticism from exceptional sources (such as human rights groups). Imagine how silly it would be if someone created an article called "criticism of adolf hitler". I'd like this to become an objective article, so that users can themselves draw their own conclusions, not one infested by editorials from people who describe litvinenko as either a nutcase or a genius.

Anyway you asked what his work was. He was a writer and a dissident, similar to exiled writers during the Soviet era, who exposed crimes and state terror to the world. It's not true that he never collected any proof for his allegations, he did so very much for the Apartment bombings. Also note that he wasn't given the chance to provide any evidence on his paedophile claims because he was murdered soon after. I don't agree that there's "no hard and fast evidence" that Litvinenko was killed for his work. This was the conclusion drawn by the British investigation units, and since I'm not familiar with any major corruption in Great Britain, I have no reason to doubt their conclusion.

As a sidenote I'd like to say that I applaud that you're proud of your home country. I'm glad to hear that you're not an "undying Putin supporter", but the word undying seems to imply that you do support him or his party partially. I'm proud of my home country too, but when my government is fested with corruption and crimes I'll never stand behind it. What I mean is that you don't have to support your government to be proud of Russia or any other country. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, to get it out of the way, I don't know what makes you think I am Russian. As to the rest of what you wrote above. Of course he had the opportunity to present evidence to prove his claim; the way his claim was written, it suggests that he knew about it for a long time; why did he not make the claim before 28 June 2006? As far as he was concerned, Putin was already out to kill him for a long list of other things, what would one more reason mean to him? He had nothing to lose, and everything to gain. He had all the opportunity in the world to lay out all the evidence on the table in the articles that he wrote and were published by Chechenpress; instead he engaged in "sensational and unsubstantiated" libel. He had a long history of doing just that. He also had ample opportunity before he was poisoned to present the evidence, but that never came. He made a sensational claim, and then moved onto making his next extraordinary claim. So to suggest that he had no opportunity to present his evidence is a copout on his part, and also on your part for suggesting as such. ;) --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I assumed your name Russavia would indicate that you were Russian, but maybe not. Litvinenko perhaps was not able to provide evidence. He want by a witness acount who passed away, and by the belly-kiss incident. From that he drew his own conclusion. And as simple as that may have been, kissing a random kids belly in public isn't exactly normal. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Kissing random babies in public isn't exactly normal either. But politicians do it to score points in the media all the time. Are they all accused of paedophilia and baby rape also? Putin would have been aware that cameras and video cameras were in the area; and as has been suggested by a RS it was likely a clumsy attempt at softening his image in the lead up to the G8 summit, which was less than 3 weeks after the belly kiss. Litvinenko on the other hand put 1 + 1 together and got 3, and published that without any credible evidence of how he reached that magic number, and that fact did not go unnoticed by the media and other sources. But anyway, I'm not here to convince anyone of anything; we simply go by what RS state, and present said info in a NPOV way. So given that, if there's no objections to the inclusion of the information as presented in the article, let's present it. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 04:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say the behaviour is not normal. I actually stated the behaviour is perfectly normal considering what the desired outcome is; publicity. All of these paedophiles know what such behaviour is about. Disclaimer: I am not saying that the people at the linked page, nor Putin, are paedophiles, but am merely using that for effect to show ridiculous innuendo by one editor. We are not here to prove or disprove the theory; we are here to describe what reliable sources says, and reliable source say that Litvinenko's claim was wild, sensational, unsubstantiated, unproven and that he was a one-man disinformation bureau, so we can state it as such. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 22:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have checked this in books. Nothing. This should be removed. If I understand correctly, both Russavia and GreyFox do not object this to be remove. We came to consensus here.Biophys (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I objected, and quite rightly so, to its inclusion in the form it had taken. After I removed it, I posted all of that above, and you argued in favour of its re-inclusion in its unaltered state, and even went so far as to re-insert it in WP:BLP state. I also posted at the RS noticeboard, and you also argued there for its inclusion. But now, that it is included in the article, in a totally NPOV way, you are arguing for its removal? We have multiple reliable sources stating he made the claim (including a link to the claim itself). So the claim does exist, there's no denying that. Could it be that the reason you now want it removed is because we have multiple reliable sources who basically state that Litvinenko was a crackpot? Hmmmm, do you think that could be it? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 00:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources? There's only editorials that describe him as a "crackpot". Something like that is POV as can be. Opinions of single authors are of no use here, the article from the "conflict studies" says it's an editorial at the bottom. Apart from that I don't object your version.Grey Fox (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's simply delete this entire segment as Russavia first suggested and you, Grey Fox-9589, agreed. I do not think it should be here at all. It is not even mentioned in the book "Death of a dissident". End of story.Biophys (talk) 02:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, let's keep it in Biophys. My version is neutrally worded, and is sourced to reliable sources. Perhaps the same reason you are now pushing for it being removed is the same reason "Death of a Dissident" doesn't mention it; because it has the potential to paint Litvinenko in a light which the authors didn't want him to be seen. Additionally, several reliable sources have confirmed he made the statement, and have called him on it. My only concern has been WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and it will continue that way. And it is the same way that you reduced this to this. These are sourced to reliable sources, so there needs to be a solid reason for their removal, now that WP:BLP is no longer a problem. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention, that you also removed the info on Trofimov from this article, without a real reason. Litvinenko made these claims, and they have been held up to scrutiny by some sources, and that information published by reliable sources. I think it speaks words when a military academy of the UK, a country which has been in a war of words with Russia as of late, publishes many objective documents on Russia. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 02:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First, you complain to arbitrators that I violate BLP policy: [17]. But when I fixed the problem (after checking in the book), you reinserted basically the same. No, let's delete the potential BLP problem.Biophys (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine, if you so insist, let's keep it. But we must keep it very short per "due weight".Biophys (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Biophys, I only mentioned this to arbitrators because you mentioned on an arbcom (of which I am not a part, and it will stay that way), that I was "Protecting Vladimir Putin" by "now removing all negative information about Putin not only from his own BLP, but also from biographies of people who were killed allegedly for making accusations against Putin." I posted my response to this at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Russavia in which I stated: "So anyone is welcome to reinsert that accusation against Putin, but it needs to be done in a totally NPOV way." After this discussion restarted, you reinserted the BLP information in exactly the same state. Being very hesitant to revert yourself, in order to stop other accusations against myself, and wanting to keep it out of that arbcom, and not knowing where else to go, I posted something on Kirill Lokshin's talk page. The problem is not the accusation by Litvinenko being presented in his article, because he made it there is no denying that, the problem is the way it was worded and somewhat presented as fact, not an accusation made on the flimsiest of (or no) evidence. You will note on Lokshin's talk page and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#WP:BLP_concerns_and_Biophys I have mentioned the re-insertion of material by yourself, and I do believe it needs to be dealt with; not with a block or any such thing, but with education on WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, etc and how all of these policies blend in with each other in the confines of what we are here to do. I know this does not belong on this talk page, but have posted it here in case other editors see it, to bring them up to speed on it, but will also post it on your talk page, and any further discussion can take place there if you so wish. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I self-reverted (per your request), but modified the text to keep it as short as possible. But you reverted new compromise version again. I would appreciate if you stop following my edits, stop accusing me at all possible noticeboards and talk pages, and stop reverting me when I am trying to comply with your requests. This looks very much like harassment.Biophys (talk) 03:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You modified the text by keeping the entire accusation written as fact, and only added on the fact Putin's statement was via a webcast. You have removed anything even remotely critical of the accusation or Litvinenko in particular. The proof is in the pudding. Original BLP version changed by yourself to this. In fact the entire article has nothing remotely critical of Litvinenko, but that will change within the confines of WP:FIVE, in particular WP:NPOV and WP:V. In regards to your accusation of harrassment, any sane editor or admin will see that this is not the case. But you can be sure, any article that I come across which has WP:BLP concerns will get my attention. As to the general state of this article, let me remind you, Wikipedia is not a tool for advocacy or scandal mongering, nor is it a memorial, and I will continue to edit this or any other article which I see fit, as no-one owns any article on Wikipedia. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 07:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Due to removal of information, I have posted this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_the_Conflict_Studies_Research_Centre_of_the_Defence_Academy_of_the_United_Kingdom_a_reliable_source.3F. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 14:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of article disputed

I am disputing the neutrality of this article, and have placed the requisite tag on the article page. My reasons for this is include:

• Category:Conspiracy theorists has been attempted to be added to the categories in the past it seems, but has been removed. Whilst some regard him as a dissident, others regards him as a conspiracy theorist. I have added it, and hope that it will not be removed. The fact that he is regarded by some as a conspiracy theorist is not mentioned in the article at all. He was as much a conspiracy theorist as he was a dissident or a writer.
• The entire article appears to have been written from the Litvinenko POV, and other POVs are being excluded. Given Grey Fox's comments about wanting a respectful article, I am yet to be convinced that there is not a serious ownership issue with this article. POVs which go against Litvinenko must be allowed to be present in the article, in equal weight to the POVs of Livtinenko himself. If there are conspiracy theories/accusations of his in this article, and they present his POV, if there are dissenters to his POV, this needs to also be presented. If there are articles which contain his theories/accusations, then opposing POV also need to be presented, both here (if there is an outline of his accusations) and on the article in question. Until such time as this obtained, this article will always be POVed and its neutrality will also be called into question accordingly.

I have made some changes to the article which have not been removed, and have made these changes in the interests of NPOV. If the article was presented NPOV like in the first place, this would not have been needed, so I expect that there will be no charges or accusations as to my motives, except for achieving this NPOV. That is a key consideration in WP:AGF. This does not mean that I intend, or would support, changing this article into an attack piece, for that is not what WP is about. Balance of all POV is the key in a collaborative, and this must be achieved if this project is to mean anything. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

What exactly everyone suggests to change in the current version of the article? I just made a few minor changes, mostly to provide better sourcing and make claims more consistent with sources.Biophys (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your multi-sided, whitewashing, "neutral", "compliant", persistent and consistent "Hate Russia" approach. La poet (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The book

Petri, you should not mark the article about the Goldfarb book as "main" article about Litvinenko allegations. The allegations are described in multiple sources beyond this book. We do not have a separate (main) article about Litvineko claimsBiophys (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of what is in the "Dissidence" section now is only sourced by the book. Unless reliable independent sources (not based on the book) can be found, most of the material should be moved to the Death of a Dissident article. Besides, I think it looks nicer when every section has a "Main article" hat text. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This section now has twelve references, including the book. But even is it was referring to only one book, the book and the subject of a book are completely different things.Biophys (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Larussophobe

I have removed a link from the references from the La Russophobe hate-speech blog. It is included in the sources as being a translation source...uh uh...that's a big no-no, for it is not just a translation, it also includes a great rant from the La Russophobe russophobes. Wikipedia is not an avenue for this blog to have their hate speech publicised, translation or not. And even if it were just a translation, it still would not qualify for inclusion as per WP:RS and WP:EL. Please do not re-include it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a source, but only a translation of material published in another reliable source. Our main concern is convenience for the reader. It certainly convenient to have links to third-party English translations. Can you provide at least one reliable source telling that translations there are unreliable or that this place is a "hate site" (as you tell)? If you can, that might change the picture.Biophys (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to provide any such sources, I am going by WP:RS and WP:EL. As this is in essence an external link, and when the link states:

A note from the translator: The following article which I have translated from Novaya Gazeta raises a number of very pertinent questions about what exactly was going on at the Beslan tragedy. If true, and I can see no reason to doubt that it is, the Beslan tragedy may be more a crime of state terrorism than Islamic terrorism. The information, collected by Ella Kesayeva, co-chairman of the All-Russian Voice of Beslan Public Organisation, certainly raises some very nasty doubts and suspicions that this is yet another criminally botched Russian secret police operation along the lines of the Moscow flat bombings, the Nord-Ost theatre debacle, the Litvinenko murder, and so on. In my translation below, I have mostly rendered the interminable and semi-mystical acronyms for the various police, state security, and other legal institutions by their Latin letters. Russian bureaucracy, in law-enforcement too, is labyrinthine. I think that for the most part it is sufficient to remember that any acronym with VD in it means “cops” of one sort or another from the Ministry of the Interior and any acronym with FSB somewhere in it means “KGB goon of one sort or another” from the Federal Security Service. The precise body can be ascertained by those who wish to do so by reconverting the Latin letters into Cyrillic.

This is not a straight translation, and even if it were only a translation, it still does not qualify as per WP:EL and WP:RS which state:

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies).

and

Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.

Furthermore, it is also a WP:COPYVIO. As someone who has gone thru this process, the original Russian article is covered by copyright and owned by Novaya Gazeta, and the copyright to the same piece in other languages is also held by Novaya Gazeta, and there is no evidence that Novaya Gazeta has granted this blog a licence to take their copyrighted works, translate them into English, and publish them. I can tell you that it costs several thousands of dollars a year to obtain such rights for Russian media, as I said, this is something I have done myself.

If people want a translation, they will either have to 1) learn Russian and read the original or 2) use Google translate, yes, they will get a messy translation, but neither of these 2 infringe on author's copyright and comply with WP policies and guidelines. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is not the actual source but merely a convenience link (hence WP:RS does not apply) and not a copyright violation since we do not copy any copyrighted content to WP. "Good" link is something that is convenient and informative for a reader. "Bad" link is something that is not. That is the essence of the existing recommendations.Biophys (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And the link is a WP:LINKVIO. We don't include links to copyright violations for good reason. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced that providing partial translations is a copyright violation.Biophys (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Dorenko

This articles cites Sergey Dorenko's interview. Sergey Dorenko worked on ORT (largest Russian TV channel) when it was controlled by Berezovsky and was personally attacking on TV those who were not liked by Berezovsky. So this tape should not be considered seriously.--Sasha Chorny (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Dissidence

I've unmerged the "Dissidence" section, this is well established, for example: "KGB secret agent turned political dissident who lifted the lid on the Russian security services". Martintg (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

And we have Putin and other Russian sources who have called it insubordination. Dissidence is A POV, and it is the POV that you want to push. I will add the section Insubordination to it to balance out the POV that he was engaged in Dissidence (Russia is NOT the Soviet Union) people. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

conspiracy theorist is not an occupation. It does not belong to Introduction. Please stop restoring this.Biophys (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He was a conspiracy theorist, and there are verifiable sources for this. And I have reverted your "compromise version" as it includes the removal of huge amounts of verifiable information (protesting and whitewashing his past is not on), and also includes changing "Dismissal" to "Persecution" and removal of "Insubordination" from "Dissidence". You guys are engaging in advocacy here, I am not. That's the difference. I will discuss improvements to the article, but I will not discuss people removing verifiable information from the article simply because they don't like it, and don't realise that WP is not censored and covers all types of POV. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• All your information was included in the compromise version. What was not? Very few sources claim him to be a "conspiracy theorist". We must simply tell an occupation of a person in the introduction per WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • One doesn't have to be brain dead idiot to see that you have removed MASSIVE amounts of information. His moonlighting for Berezovsky, his request for asylum in the US which was denied. And of course the total NPOV renaming of sections such as "Dismissal" to "Persecution" (mispelled though). You want to engage in advocacy and write the article from the Biophys POV go and start Biophyspedia. He was a conspiracy theorist, and there are plenty of sources for this. WP:NPOV states nothing of the such. And one doesn't have to continually debate, we aren't a debating society, we are an encyclopaedia (apparently), and your whitewashing of verifiable history is appalling. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  • And to show how ridiculous and WP:NOTADVOCATE your removal of information really is, you try to game by claiming WP:NPOV dictates that we only include the occupation of a person into introduction. So tell me, what union do dissidents belong to? Do they have a minimum award wage? Employee benefits? Cheap private health care? Any other perks? --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • No, the information that Litvinenko worked for Berezovsky has been included in the compromise version, as anyone can see from the text.Biophys (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    • And totally removed was that he was moonlighting, and that it was illegal, and that he warned berezovsky 3 months after he allegedly received the "order", etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. Please explain why all of that was removed. You are being asked this question, and it needs to be answered. And also, for future reference, you don't WP:OWN the article, and we as editors are under no obligation to engage in debating society tactics with the article owner in order to include verifiable information into the article. You don't remove info just because you don't like it being here. If it was double up of information, etc then fine, but this it was not. --Russavia ^Dialogue 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko was undoubtly a dissident, see here[18]. When you said "we have Putin and other Russian sources who have called it insubordination" you said a moutful. Leaders of China also consider the Dalai Lama a terrorist or "very important troublemaker", should we therefore avoid calling him a spiritual leader or political leader of the Tibetans? Of course not. There's also no need to call him a conspiracy theorist since that term is often used in a pejorative sense. Grey Fox (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Offliner, about your recent edit, the way you phrased it reads really silly. Not only that, but getting fired is something very common with people worlwide, I've never seen lead biographies having a reference to that in the lead section (let alone the first line) and neither in the biographies I've read of Litvinenko. Such details not to be discussed in their own section, and worked out carefully, not hinted at in the lead section, (see wp:lead). You're probably tring to make it seem more important than it really is, such as "he became a dissident because he was bitter for getting fired" but as long as there's no reliable sources which state something like that, which I don't think there are, the inclusion of it in the lead section is unnecessary. Grey Fox (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe my phrasing wasn't perfect, but this piece of info really belongs to the lead I think. The whole credibility of his claims rests on the fact that he was a FSB operative, and that he supposedly has gained access to "insider information" while working there. Therefore, losing this main job is very relevant to the whole man, and an extremely important piece of his biography. Offliner (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

And could you please not reinstall calling him a "conspiracy theorist" by occupation. I'll explain you why; as you can see he's never been called like that in googles news history http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=litvinenko+"conspiracy+theorist"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&ned=uk&btnG=Search+Archives (7 results not even about him) in contrary to dissident which has 1350 results [19]. On top of that is pejorative. Grey Fox (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist maybe wasn't his main occupation, but that's what he was anyway. Maybe calling him conspiracy theorist isn't optimal, how about calling him "a controversial writer" instead as a compromise solution? Offliner (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a cite to a reliable secondary source or is that your personal opinion? As to him getting fired, that happened after he became a dissident, not before. Martintg (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's maybe what you personally believe Offliner and you're entitled to that, but that's not what he's known as. Furthermore there is no such occupation, including something like that is only to discredit him. If you want to go into details, he actually did bother to present evidence for many of his claims, such as the apartment bombings. Forming a conspiracy theory falls under speculation or hypothesis rather than scientific, and his attempts at gathering evidence shows his literature covered more than just theories. Furthermore he couldn't finish most of his work and/or presenting evidence because he was murdered. Grey Fox (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling him a controversial instead won't do much good either. There are many writers in this world who caused major controversy, unlike litvinenko whom the Russian public did not care much about, such as Salman Rushdie, whose lead section I don't see starting with "was a controversial writer" either. Litvinenko's controversy mostly existed posthumously because he was murdered. Grey Fox (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If we want to adjust the lead section we could take example from other biographies. Here's Brittanica's mini-biography:

Russian security agent (b. Dec. 4, 1962, Voronezh, near Moscow, U.S.S.R.—d. Nov. 23, 2006, London, Eng.), investigated domestic organized crime in his role as a member (1988–99) of the KGB (from 1994 the FSB). In 1998 he brought charges of corruption, extortion, and murder against FSB officials. He was arrested, acquitted (1999), rearrested, and eventually sentenced in absentia to nine years in prison. Litvinenko fled (2000) with his family to London, where in 2006 he was granted British citizenship. On Nov. 1, 2006, while he reportedly was investigating the assassination of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, Litvinenko became seriously ill. Two days before his agonizing death (apparently from radiation poisoning), he accused Pres. Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials of having poisoned him. After his death Litvinenko’s accusation that he had been deliberately poisoned was at least partially confirmed when authorities found traces of radioactive polonium-210 in numerous locations where he had been and in some people with whom he had been in contact. Grey Fox (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is good introduction. We can use it.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've reverted Russavia's attempt to remove mention of dissidence before it could be resolved here on talk. Let's resolve it here first. Martintg (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Offliner [20] you removed this and your edit says the statement is not in the source given but it is, you have register to see it, but the quote is used by other papers too. Grey Fox (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• And it's better to avoid quote Ria Novosti which is a Russian state newspaper. Grey Fox (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Then find a ref which doesn't require registration. And regarding RIA Novosti, with the same argumentation we should avoid quoting the BBC which is a Britannian state broadcaster. Doesn't make much sense. Offliner (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You can place the quote in google and you will see many more refs. Also this edit [21] is wrong. The lead section of this article does not need fringe theories. Also note that "however" which you used very often is on the list of words to avoid. Grey Fox (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We do not "avoid" sources because of their background, and I will challenge any move to do so, otherwise I will challenge the use of the BBC being a British-state news service. RIA-Novosti has editorial independence, believe it or not, and it has holdings in many different sources which are used right here on WP, in order to give the "Russian POV" as opposed to only having articles with the "Western POV". WP is the sum of all human knowledge, and that includes Russian knowledge and opinion, and we need to recognise this. The issue is are they are WP:RS. Do they fulfill the requirements for being a WP:RS? Yes they do. Whether it requires attribution is the question. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The BBC is independent, RIA Novosti is state controled, that's completely different. Grey Fox (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you read this Grey-Fox:

РИА Новости является самым упоминаемым (цитируемым) источником информации среди всех российских и иностранных источников информации в России. По этому показателю Агентство лидирует не только в СМИ, но также и в русскоязычной блогосфере.

By using your arguments, you are excluding the most referenced Russian news source on this, and any other article, for it is to be excluded from this article, then it needs to be excluded sitewide, which would require getting *.rian.ru added to a blacklist. In addition, RIA has many projects, such as http://www.inosmi.ru (which I have seen some of you guys use in the past as a reference), http://www.russiaprofile.org (which if one looks at their partners includes some what some would regard as anti-Russian organisations), http://mnweekly.ru/, http://www.russiatoday.com, plus others. Your arguments for exclusion are weak, and it should be based upon whether attribution is required. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No I cannot read Russian, can you? But I didn't really mean to exclude Ria Novosti everywhere, only for controversial claims.

There's no need to post about Ria Novosti in the lead section, because they are only quoting a claim by their government. If you want to state something like that in the lead section neutraly it should read that 1) russia alleged no evidence has been presented to them, and offered to prosectute lugovoy inside russia and 2) the UK claims they did present enough evidence, and demand that the UK extradit him because the murder happened in the UK and litvinenko was a UK citizen, and that any further evidence is not released because it could then be whitewashed. That is IF you want all that in the lead, but the way made it now is non-neutral. Grey Fox (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well give me a short while, and I will write up a neutral lead, ok? --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That was my intention too, but it was immidietely changed. Apart from possible copy violation I think my version was simple and neutral. Grey Fox (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about version placed by you at this talk page above, I agree with it.Biophys (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:COPYVIO in lead

I have reverted Grey-Fox's rewrite of the lead, as it is a WP:COPYVIO of http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1264024/Alexander-Litvinenko in too many places. I am aware that some other changes have been removed, and I will make those changes manually now, but do not re-add copyvio material, as I am sure the folk at Britannica would take issue to us ripping off their lead to their own article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I used only a portion of their mini biography, and adjusted it. Are you sure that falls under WP:COPYVIO? Grey Fox (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, in some places, whole sentences are used. I am trying to see the changes that were made and will make them. Or if you guys will bear with me, I will re-write the lead in my userspace first and will put it here for everyone's OK. OK? --Russavia ^Dialogue 00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Good deal, then we don't have to edit war over it. Grey Fox (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's stop making massive unilateral changes in good article

Let's stop massive changes without consensus. Let's place new version of Introduction here and discuss it first. Let's vote for any changes if needed. One important thing. I checked a couple of books and found that Litvinenko actually never worked for Berezovsky during his work in the FSB. We can discuss this too. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Don't revert due to "no consensus". If you don't like the recent edits, tell us exactly why. I have provided clear arguments in my edit summaries, but you seem to have reverted everything with no argumentation at all. Not it's your turn to provide precise argumentation for you wholesale, unilateral revert. Offliner (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Place the arguments here when you already know the edits are going to be controversial or detested Offliner. You made 3 reverts which can count as further revert-warring. If this won't stop the article is probably going to get locked. Grey Fox (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Biophys, please place the arguments here when you already know your wholesale revert of the many well-argumented edits is going to be controversial or detested Biophys. Offliner (talk) 01:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if we ever want to reach a true concensus then the talk is the only way to do so. It shouldn't be too hard to create a fairly balanced biography for this man. Grey Fox (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Let's discuss new version of Introduction if you wish.Biophys (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

How about you discussing your wholesale revert and providing argumentation as requested? Offliner (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Biophys, I am against the wholesale revision of inserted materials from RS. The revisions that I made earlier were ALL fully referenced, and actually also fixed total misrepresentations in the article...you would know where I have pointed this out...and has also provided additional information. However, you are claiming you have sources that state that AL never worked for BB. Please provide those sources and what they say. Of course the source that I used was a peer reviewed journal. --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• What you provided was a personal opinion, which contradicts to many others sources. We should include more his actual biography facts.Biophys (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No, what was provided was an assertion of fact from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. It is not my personal opinion. You need to provide sources which dispute those assertions of fact. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Here is the text which I have come up with...

Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ва́льтерович Литвине́нко) (30 August 1962 – 23 November 2006) was an officer who served in the Soviet KGB and it Russian successor, the Federal Security Service (FSB). In 1998 he accused numerous FSB officials of a range of crimes, including the ordering of assassinations of various prominent Russians. Due to the accusations he was dismissed from the FSB and was arrested and acquitted at trial, after which he was re-arrested. Whilst awaiting retrial, at which he was later tried in absentia, found guilty and sentenced to nine years in prison, he fled with his family to London and was granted asylum in the United Kingdom, where he became a dissident, journalist and writer on various accusations he levelled against, and conspiracy theories relating to, the Russian government and agencies.

During his time in London Litvinenko authored two books, "Blowing up Russia: Terror from within" and "Lubyanka Criminal Group," where he accused Russian secret services of staging Russian apartment bombings and other terrorism acts to bring Vladimir Putin to power. He also accused Putin and other figures in the Russian government hierarchy of a range of other crimes, including ordering the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, using terrorist acts in Russia as false flag operations, amongst others.

On 1 November 2006 Litvinenko suddenly fell ill and was hospitalised in what was established as a case of poisoning by radioactive polonium-210. The events leading up to his poisoning and his eventual death on 26 November 2006 are a matter of controversy and contention, spawning numerous theories relating to his poisoning and death. The British investigation into his death resulted in a request to Russia for the extradition of Andrey Lugovoy, which the Russian government has refused to grant. Unresolved issues surrounding the case continue to contribute to the cooling of Russia–United Kingdom relations to the current day.

It includes all the major points and POV in the article - his career, his accusations and his death and trial. It makes no judgements on the person, nor on who is guilty or is not guilty. It states the facts as covered in the article, and doesn't need referencing as all the issues it summarises are already covered in the article and referenced. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Offliner (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's better than what I expected, but there's some flaws and it's not perfect. I think other information can be added.

The most important flaw in your introudction is calling his work "conspiracy theories". This is a pejorative label that should be avoided. WP:Lead also refers to WP:MORALIZE when it comes to biographies, which says Resist the temptation to apply labels or moralize—readers will probably not take kindly to being told what to think. Let the facts speak for themselves and let the reader decide.

Most of his work covered research too and he collected evidence, not all of his work can be called a conspiracy theory. As the currently article on it says; The word "theory" is in this usage is informal as in "speculation" or "hypothesis" rather than scientific.. Maybe he did speak his believe of several conspiracy theories, but that doesn't make all his work that way. Furthermore I've checked archives and news articles/biographies did not dub him that way. Perhaps you can find some of his theories dubbed that way by some people, but that doesn't cover all of his work. You may see him yourself this way, but it's now how we should show him. Grey Fox (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't like having the word dissident in the article, as per my own POV, but a sizeable number of sources refer to him as a dissident. Likewise, a sizeable number of sources also refer to his writings as conspiracy theories. It's not moralising and its not making judgements. It summarises what the article itself is about. But I have reworded it slightly. We need to include all POV obviously. Comments? --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've done a search and come up with, [22], [23], [24] from pre-2006 days. A search of media and other sources from 2006-onwards will show plenty of sources which state conspiracy theories, which AL himself writes about in his book I believe? --Russavia ^Dialogue 02:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't about Litvinenko, but about the much covered apartment bombings. You found opinion pieces (they're all editorials) that labeled the allegations as a conspiracy theory (which means they personally dismiss them). This controversy surrounding the apartment bombings is not widely considered to be a conspiracy theory, since much evidence has also been brought in support. There's also been many public figures and respected journalists who've voiced their support for the allegations, such as John McCain and we don't put in his lead section that he fancies "conspiracy theories" either. Just like him, Litvinenko's work didn't just cover the bombings.

As for the change, I don't see much improvement no. You're comparing it to your idea that he's not a dissident, but this is inaccurate. As a good reference, the google news archives gives1,350 hits for litvinenko + dissident, whereas it gives only 7 hits for litvinenko + conspiracy theorist, and the terms there never refer to litvinenko. As an extra, Litvinenko+conspiracy theories gives 77 hits. I went trough all of them and none of them refer to his work as that, but instead speak of the theories surrounding his dead, mostly the ones contradicting the british version (such as how he poisoned himself), but in some cases also those that cover the official investigation, though they are mostly right after his death. Grey Fox (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason why he, or his work, is not refered to like that in the media is because the label is pejorative, instead I don't see anything pejorative about dissident. Grey Fox (talk) 03:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why I don't regard him as a dissident is not important (I regard him as a political activist btw), but he did in fact write about conspiracy theories; that the government did the apartment bombings (conspiracy theory); that govt did Beslan (conspiracy theory); that govt did the armenian govt shooting (conspiracy theory); moscow theatre terrorism (conspiracy theory); al-qaeda (conspiracy theory); govt killed AP (conspiracy theory); romano prodi (conspiracy theory). A conspiracy theory alleges a coordinated group is, or was, secretly working to commit illegal or wrongful actions, including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities...and...may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim.. After death we have [25], a review on his book about conspiracy theory, loved conspiracy theories, book, another book and this scholarly source (which I have used to source various additions to the article are amongst just some of those which I found referring either to him as a conspiracy theorist, or his writing on conspiracy theories. I am certain that more would be found if one was to dig deeper into media around the time of his poisoning (when he became widely known). We have to agree on something here. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GreyFox: this particular version of Introduction does not improve anything (unlike the version from Enc. Britannica). As about "conspiracy theory", please see its definition:

1. A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities.
2. Hypothetical speculation that is untrue or outlandish.

Due to this second meaning, it is inappropriate here.Biophys (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Again Russavia, the allegations about the apartment bombings is not necessarily a conspiracy, a term like that is used as a pejorative to dismiss such allegations right away. The same goes for the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, of which many people are convinced she was killed by chechen or russian fsb, including her family and of which there is credible evidence. The only things I could personally agree on being conspiracy theories are the moscow/school sieges and al-qaeda connections, but even these theories contain only a small portion of his work. To put emphasis on only on those allegations would only work if someone wants to descredit his entire life-work. Still these are not unknown or impossible theories you know, many also alleged that Pakistan's intelligence agency has had many connections with terrorist networks and terrorist attacks, those allegations are also not just dismissed as "conspiracy theories" (except by a few journalists probably).

If you think the quote you provided is sufficient enough as defenition for conspiracy theories, every single alleged crime not proven by a government could be considered a conspiracy theory, and that's hundreds every day. Most importantly, again, conspiracy theory is often defined to be pejorative and should be avoided because of what WP:MORALIZE says. WP:Lead also gives a specific mention that wp:moralize is extra-important for the lead section.

The links you provided don't prove much. The first two are opinions from editors who personally dismiss litvinenko's allegations as such, that doesn't make it universal. Two links don't work but probably contain nothing more than that. In comparison, I can find many editorials on respected people who think Putin is responsible for war crimes and genocide, I don't think I'd be allowed to edit that into the lead section of Putin either. No, something like that would belong in a criticism section. The opinions of authors that dismiss litvinenko's work as conspiracy theories could also be quoted in whatever criticism section there is for Litvinenko, but it doesn't belong in the lead.Grey Fox (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Also the fact that he was likely murdered because of his work would make dubbing him a conspiracy theorist extra controversial. Grey Fox (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:MORALIZE says don't label people. The word dissident in relation to Russia also has quite a negative connotation given that nations history, as you are probably aware. Would you agree to us changing dissident to political activist? And we are not labelling him a conspiracy theort, he did in fact write about conspiracy theories. There's no labelling, it is merely referring to reliable sources, including a peer-reviewed scholarly source (which I notice is probably the only one used on the article!). Because of the general subject area, having the word "dissident" together with "allegation" is painting a POV picture, especially as directly below it, I have specifically mentioned several of these allegations. To not make it clear to our readers that these are conspiracy theories (in the neutral sense of the word), is painting a POV which is somewhat unnacceptable in my mind. However, I am trying to recognising all POV here, and incorporate all of that into the article and summarise it in the lead. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you acknowledge that it's pejerotive. You seem to propose now to ommit the info about conspiracy theories on the basis that dissident should be removed also? Possibly, but my problem with this is that the term dissident was widely used for him, in contrary to conspiracy theorist. It being pejorative could be a reason to do so too, but what makes you think its pejorative, and is there any information on that? Grey Fox (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reworded intro - how about this one?

Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ва́льтерович Литвине́нко) (30 August 1962 – 23 November 2006) was an officer who served in the Soviet KGB and its Russian successor, the Federal Security Service (FSB). In 1998 he made various accusations against numerous FSB officials, including the ordering of assassinations of various prominent Russians. After being dismissed from the FSB he was arrested and acquitted at trial, after which he was re-arrested. Whilst awaiting trial, at which he was later tried in absentia, found guilty and sentenced to nine years in prison, he fled with his family to London and was granted asylum in the United Kingdom, where he became a political activist, journalist and writer.

During his time in London Litvinenko authored two books, "Blowing up Russia: Terror from within" and "Lubyanka Criminal Group," where he accused Russian secret services of staging Russian apartment bombings and other terrorism acts to bring Vladimir Putin to power. He also accused Putin and other figures in the Russian government hierarchy of a range of other crimes, including ordering the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, using terrorist acts in Russia as false flag operations, amongst others.

On 1 November 2006 Litvinenko suddenly fell ill and was hospitalised in what was established as a case of poisoning by radioactive polonium-210. The events leading up to his poisoning and his eventual death on 26 November 2006 are a matter of controversy and contention, spawning numerous theories relating to his poisoning and death. The British investigation into his death resulted in a request to Russia for the extradition of Andrey Lugovoy, which the Russian government has refused to grant. Unresolved issues surrounding the case continue to contribute to the cooling of Russia–United Kingdom relations to the current day.

Comments? --Russavia ^Dialogue 05:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He's not really mentioned in the media as a political activest (11 hits on google news) so I don't think that's the best way to describe him. I'll give my shots in improving this proposed lead section later on. Grey Fox (talk) 12:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he was dismissed "due to the accusations." There might be another reason why he was fired. Offliner (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Putin said this too. Grey Fox (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"I fired Litvinenko and disbanded his unit ...because FSB officers should not stage press conferences. This is not their job. And they should not make internal scandals public." Note the word "and." Offliner (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, we can't be sure of that. We can just remove "due to the accusations". Grey Fox (talk) 17:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, is that if "conspiracy theories" is considered a pejorative, although it also has a totally neutral meaning, you have to also recognise that the word "dissident" in terms of Russia is also a very heavily-loaded word, due to its connection in the media with dissidence in the USSR. Take for example, Osama bin Laden, which does not refer to him as a terrorist (although the vast majority of sources do indeed refer to him as a terrorist). Political activist is a totally neutral term, and is not loaded in any way, shape or form. Now you can argue that we have to use dissident because he was likely killed for it, but that is only one theory of why he was killed, and there are many notable theories on that and have to recognise that, and whilst the article is currently written in such a way which puts forward that opinion you talk of, this has to change, which is what I have been doing with the introduction of other POV, whilst also taking into account the POV already in the article, i.e. making it totally WP:NPOV. Hence that is why I believe political activist is the best term, as there is no built in POV in it, and that is essential for the lead. Also, I have reworded it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the article on Bin Laden doesn't have terrorist, which it occasionally does actually, is because that word is on the list of words to avoid. Anyway my problem with this analysis is that conspiracy theorist has many reliable sources marking it as a pejorative term. I haven't seen any for dissident which is pretty innocent. It's also used much much more to describe this man than "political activist".

As for the last part, I do not agree that the article as it stands only takes into account "one pov". Instead it presents the UK's official investigation (a country not known for corruption) as merely a "theory" and speaks too much of fringe theories too. Grey Fox (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You are still failing to recognise that he is not regarded by many people as a "dissident". For example, in Russia, he is not generally regarded as a dissident, but as a stooge of Berezovsky, a traitor and as corrupt as the people he accused people as being. Just where is this opinion in the lead? Remember, we are supposed to the sum of all human knowledge, not just the anti-Russian Western knowledge, but all human knowledge. What I am trying to do here is to keep it totally neutral by also taking into account the non-Western POV within the wording. Political activist means the same thing as a dissident, and is not a loaded word, hence why Category:Russian dissidents was moved to Category:Russian political activists. Now I have dropped mention of "conspiracy theories" from the wording, although there are plenty of sources which describe his accusations as such, in the name of compromise. Perhaps if we simply ask an uninvolved person for their opinion? --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to verify what he's "seen like in Russia", there is neither free press nor democracy there. And even then I don't see what's relevant about how he's seen there. Wikipedia is based on free literature, press and other media, not popularity. Even if he's not likened in Russia, so what? Perhaps Soviet dissidents weren't likened in Soviet Russia either, should we therefore avoid to call them that way? The Dalai Lama is perhaps not likened in China either, should we put that up in the lead section too?

As for the actual mention of him being a dissident, I don't embrace it, you're comparison with "conspiracy theorist" is flawed in the sense that he's not generally refered to as such, as I showed you with the archive results, whereas the dissident label has been used systematically and has nothing pejorative. At the same time you can leave it out for now and I won't edit war over it because I do not find it that important. Grey Fox (talk) 21:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I am going to make this very clear ok. I am not here as part of a debating society, where we are going to argue the pros and cons of whether Russia has a free press or not, but Wikipedia is not based on free literature, press or other media, as this goes against the very notion of all human knowledge. How he is perceived in Russia is as relevant as to how he is perceived in the US, Germany, Australia, etc. I would never argue for the exclusion of sources on the basis of where they are from, because that in my mind is to engage in advocacy, and we are not here to do that. I am not too much interested in the Dalai Lama, I am interested in this article, and in getting it as NPOV as possible. Now, people are going to have to WP:AGF and see that I am only interested in presenting things as NPOV as possible based upon RS, and we have to take each others concerns into account. So let's put the above into the lead for now, it at least tidies it up, and as article improvement progresses, these things can be looked. Agreed? I'll pop it in. Also, you may want to look at User:Russavia/Litvinenko in which I have started to re-arrange the article to make it flow much better, adding information, tweaking information. All of the points that are in the article now, are present in my userspace version, except they are more structure for flow and ease of reading. Now, Grey-Fox, you are welcome to help edit and use the talk page in my userspace in helping to improve this article, which in good conscience, if presented correctly, could very well be FA material. You open for that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that wikipedia is not a debating society, there's no need to tell me that. I do assume good faith in your edits, that's not the problem. The problem is your perception that this article is completely biased against the Russian governemnt, and because of that your edits will only be aimed at defending the Russian government.

As I said I'm ok with leaving out dissident for now. I'm not going to edit this page on your talk page because there's no difference with that. Instead I'll just create my own texts too.

The lead as you created still has some neutrality problems. The following line should be excludedThe events leading up to his poisoning and his eventual death on 26 November 2006 are a matter of controversy and contention, spawning numerous theories relating to his poisoning and death. According to the UK's investigation there is nothing controversial about the poisoning case and it's all clear as sky. The theories are mostly nothing but theory and often also fringe theories, and by including such a line it insinuates that the UK investigation flawed or not to be trusted. Grey Fox (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ва́льтерович Литвине́нко) (30 August 1962 – 23 November 2006) was an officer who served in the Soviet KGB and its Russian successor, the Federal Security Service (FSB). In 1998 he made various accusations against numerous FSB officials, including the ordering of assassinations of various prominent Russians. After being dismissed from the FSB he was arrested and acquitted at trial, after which he was re-arrested. Whilst awaiting trial, at which he was later tried in absentia, found guilty and sentenced to nine years in prison, he fled with his family to London and was granted asylum in the United Kingdom, where he became a journalist and writer.

During his time in London Litvinenko authored two books, "Blowing up Russia: Terror from within" and "Lubyanka Criminal Group," where he accused Russian secret services of staging Russian apartment bombings and other acts of terror to bring Vladimir Putin to power. He also accused Putin and other figures in the Russian government hierarchy of a range of other crimes, including ordering the murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

On 1 November 2006 while reportedly investigating Politkovskaya's murder Litvinenko suddenly fell ill and was hospitalised in what was established as a case of poisoning by radioactive polonium-210. The British investigation into his death resulted in a request to Russia for the extradition of Andrey Lugovoy whom they accused of murder with the backing of the Russian state. The Russian government denied any involvement and refused to grant the extradition. The case caused the cooling down of Russia–United Kingdom relations.

This is my shot at the introduction, adjusted from yours and my first attempt. I ommited words such as dissident and tried to stick with neutrality. This way it can go into the lead section and stay there at least for a while without my objection. Grey Fox (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken yours and mine, mingled them together and rewritten the lead as is on the article. In the version you posted just above this, you have omitted the "other theories of his death" part, but as there is an article dealing with the theories of his poisoning and death, it is important to mention this in the lead, although only the British one is mentioned. I also omitted "with the backing of the Russian state" for the moment, as there does seem to be conflicting information on this, and the claim of state backing is not in the article at present that I can see? If we can establish that the British do indeed claim Russian state backing, then we can reinclude that, and also include the Russian rejection of that claim. Look good to you? --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The lead should not cover theories at all and especially not fringe theories, the British investigation is not a "theory" like you mentioned it now. Apart from that the lead is alright, I'll make some minor adjustions. Grey Fox (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And Here's a link on the Russian state backing[26]. Grey Fox (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is extremely important to mention that there are many theories on his death. We have a whole article full of them. Mentioning just one of them in the lead isn't enough. Therefore, I have restored the version of the lead which mentions them. Offliner (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

As I said the UK version is not a "theory". And no theories or fringe theories do not belong in the lead. Grey Fox (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The UK version is definitely "a theory" until there has been a full legal case and someone has been found guilty. Offliner (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Uhm no, and I very much oppose its inclusion. Theory would indicate there is no evidence, when there clearly is.

Also the article on assassination theories is probably better off merged with the litvinenko poisoning article, because they cover essentially the same, but this is not the right place for that Grey Fox (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

You might want to brush up on your basic law knowledge. Britain is, after all, part of this great "free world" of yours, which believes in every person's rights and in the rule of law. There is indeed "evidence" - for all of the different theories. And when all that evidence is brought to court, one of the theories might be proven true. Until that happens, we definitely need the mention more that there is more than just one theory, if we want to maintain at least some kind of NPOV. Offliner (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There's not a single bit of evidence for those alternative theories of yours, and please don't pretend you know me, because you're far off. Grey Fox (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

This was going to be my response. We have to be very careful with all of our articles not to sway our readers opinions. As Offliner states, there has been no court case as yet, and until there is, the British theory is still only a theory of the crime. As we do have the other article, it is quite important to link to this in the lead, although we don't have to mention each and every one of those other theories. This isn't about proving guilt or innocence, or anything else, it is merely making it known that the "official" British theory isn't the only one out there. It's along the same lines as his allegations; the article mustn't just mention his allegations, but it should also include critical analysis of those allegations, for if they don't I'd read his writings to get his POV - this is the actually reason why the POV template is over the article. We really need to include that there are other theories, although it is not necessary to expand on them in the lead, because it is certain that there will be other theories mentioned in this article, which can then be continued in more detail on the subarticle. I have reverted Offliner's and Biophys' edits for the time being ok. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

That's an absurd analysis Russavia. You're simply starting to add other theories in the lead section because you personally believe in them, even when they are fringe theories. Grey Fox (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"In 1998 he made various accusations against numerous FSB officials, including the ordering of assassinations of various prominent Russians." What accusations? What officials? This should be clarified. Also, he was a nuclear terrorism victim. This must be included in introduction.Biophys (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Nuclear terrorism"

Why is it so important to have this "nuclear terrorism" claim in the lead? Offliner (talk) 02:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, it is an opinion that should be covered in the article proper, not in the lead. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• That is why he is notable. He became first known victim of a state-sponsored nuclear terrorism. This belongs to Introduction, and it has been already in Introduction for a long time.Biophys (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not belong in the lead, as there is no evidence of it being state-sponsored, it is opinion and theory only. The lead should outline what the article covers, it most certainly should not cover contentious things such as this. Also, I do believe that you are making changes to the article which have not been discussed, and you are indeed the person who demanded that we discuss changes on the talk page first. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

And when I say "no evidence", I mean that it is the British authorities theory that it is state-sponsored. By having this in the lead, it is poisoning the NPOV that we are trying to reach, because it is giving too much weight to that aspect of things, at the omission of other theories. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• But it was nuclear terrorism, well allegedly state-sponsored. Hence the notability. We must tell why the person was notable in the introduction. Yes, we discuss our differences right now.Biophys (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes as they don't have consensus. In the lead, this is where we summarise the contents of the article - they should be NPOV, not introduce things such as opinions, etc. Now, you have provided opinion that it is the beginning of nuclear terrorism. This is not fact, but the opinion of some individuals. Some may consider that Nikolai Khokhlov was the beginning of nuclear terrorism. And some consider the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be nuclear terrorism. That in itself is a controversial opinion. Particularly as it is being inserted at the complete ommission of opposite opinions, etc. It doesn't mean it doesn't belong in the article, but it is my belief it just doesn't belong in the lead, the same as the opinion of RIA Novosti doesn't belong in the lead. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What kind of comparison is that? The bombing of Japan was in order to stop World War II, and it's not widely considered nuclear terrorism because of the formula that if the bombing didn't happen a lot more people would have been killed in an extended world war II. Who did Litvinenko want to kill? And who is disputing that radiactive poisoning isn't nuclear terrorism? Grey Fox (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• That information was included in previous stable version of the Introduction. You need consensus to remove it.Biophys (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was included in the previous version, but it is opinion. Also the word "terrorism" is a highly loaded term. For all we know it wasn't "terrorism", but a business deal gone bad (yes, that is one of the notable theories). The word terrorism means "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." IF it was state-sponsored, and the operative word is IF, there was no intention to intimidate, there was the intent to kill a single person. If we include this opinion into the lead, then we have to include other opinion into the lead also, and that includes that it was Berezovsky who had him killed (a notable theory), or that he was involved in smuggling nuclear materials (another notable theory), or that it was business associates (another notable theory), or even that he poisoned himself in order to get attention (yet another notable theory). But all of this is currently excluded from the lead, even though it can be provided with what was there as per above, because they are "facts" - it is true that the events and death are controversial and contentious, and it is true that the nature of the events have spawned numerous theories. That he was the "first known victim of nuclear terrorism" is not fact, as I have shown above with the example of Khokhlov and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, but it is also unproven it was in fact "terrorism" rather than a paid-hit or whatever. It is the opinion of some "medical experts", being a medical expert does not make them "political" or "history" experts. Their opinions are notable for inclusion in the article, just not in the lead where it needs to be as NPOV as possible. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Even if Litivnenko wasn't killed by the Russian state, it still falls under nuclear terrorism, possibly the first ever victim. Google books gives 23 results on "nuclear terrorism"+litvinenko, and the google news archives 50. These are not opinions, but analysis'. Grey Fox (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Killings by mafia, criminal gangs and even foreign intelligence services, such as Mossad and CIA are not uncommon in the world. Yet, I've seldom seen these killings being labeled as "terrorism." Poisoning by polonium isn't really that different from poisoning by classic substances. Should we start calling every death caused by cyanide poisoning "cyanide terrorism?" My point is, "this is nuclear terrorism" is an extraordinary claim, and I'd like to see way more reliable sources for that before including it in the lead. Also, there is no generally accepted definition for "terrorism." Why do we have to use this unclear and dubious term? I would be willing to accept something like "according to some medical experts, this is the first known case of poisoning by a radioactive substance." Offliner (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It is a lot different than Cyanide poisoning, because it endangered the lives of many other people. And yes there's no defenition of terrorism, but it doesn't say the killing was an act of terrorism, but instead that according to medical professionals, which is used all the time on wiki. Grey Fox (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are medical professionals reliable sources when it comes to determining what is terrorism and what is not? They are experts in medicine, not experts in political science or history. Offliner (talk) 17:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I think they are, but there's also many journalists who've called it like that. Furthermore I don't see anyone disputing it. Grey Fox (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Multiple reliable sources (articles in scientific journals) call this "nuclear terrorism". This is it.Biophys (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem with it, is that as myself and Offliner have stated, these people are medical experts, not terrorism, political science or history experts. Their opinion would actually require attribution. It is exactly the same as myself putting in the lead "Litvinenko was a one-man disinformation bureau"; it doesn't belong in the lead and such an assertion requires attribution. It is but the opinion of these medical people in the reports stating it was "nuclear terrorism" (which of course insinuates that the Russian state was responsible), and it is most certainly their opinion. The very fact that there is a notable opinion that Hiroshima was the first case of nuclear terrorism, the inclusion of the "first known case of nuclear terrorism" in this article, would require tha an opposite opinion be given which challenges that assertion by those making it. It is not desirable to have such things in the lead, because if one wants NPOV then they would need to insist on the inclusion of counter-opinion, much the same as only having British theory in the lead, but totally disregarding the existence of other notable opinions. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I went through the sources to see if they clearly enough support the claim that Litvinenko's case was "nuclear terrorism." First, the Bellona source[27] in no way claims that it was terrorism. What it says is: "Speculation concerning radiological terrorism has intensified since the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko." Zimmerman[28], indeed claims: "The murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London in November 2006 by Polonium-210 ingestion was likely the first provable act of radiological terror." However, it does so in passing. Evaluating if this specific case is terrorism or not was in no way a goal of that article. The article discusses radiological terrorism, and uses Litvinenko's case as an example of "what might happen in the event of a radiological terrosist attack." The article also cites numerous reasons which limit the case's utility as an example. For the third source I have no intention of paying for, since it's subscribe only.

"Litvinenko's case was nuclear terrorism" is an extraordinary claim, and I don't see the sources supporting this claim strongly enough. Also, I see no benefit from using the word "terrorism" here. I would be willing to accept a compromise formulation, such as "according to X, Litvinenko's case was the first known case of radiological poisoning." Since, according to Biophys, the point of the sentence is to give a further reason for which Litvinenko is notable for, the latter formulation would still be completely adequate for that purpose. Offliner (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people died from radiological poisoning before Litvinenko. This is not notable at all. Cited sources included article "Ushering in the era of nuclear terrorism", by Patterson, Andrew J. MD, PhD, Critical Care Medicine, v. 35, p.953-954, 2007. and "Beyond the Dirty Bomb: Re-thinking Radiological Terror", by James M. Acton; M. Brooke Rogers; Peter D. Zimmerman, DOI: 10.1080/00396330701564760, Survival, Volume 49, Issue 3 September 2007, pages 151 - 168. They define the case as nuclear terrorism.Biophys (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I've read the sources and do not think that they support the claim "it was terrorism" strongly enough. What I meant with my compromise formulation was "according to X, Litvinenko's case was the first known case of deliberate radiological poisoning", for which, this, if proven, would be the first case as far as I know. What is wrong with this compromise version? It 100% adequately fulfills the purpose, which is to mention one thing this man (and his case) is notable for. Offliner (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I repeat the question: what is wrong with the compromise version I suggested? Biophys has again unilaterally reinserted the offending line into the lead. Offliner (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected article for a week. I hope it is enough to get some consensus. If there are any agreement on the protected edits to be made or if you reach an agreement please drop me a note Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sasha, this may help to encourage discussion somewhat. --Russavia ^Dialogue 09:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Massive deletion of referenced material

This edit removes a lot of referenced material (mostly different allegations by Litvinenko) from the article. The material appear to be relevant and looks like notable. I do not think we can simply ignore it. Maybe we can move some of it to a subpage? Say Allegations by Alender Litvinienko? I think we need to discuss the matter first and remove referenced material later. I have reverted the edit for now Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• I think that might be a good idea. What others think?Biophys (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No one responded here. This is done.Biophys (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

In no way is it NPOV to treat fringe speculations of partisan Russian officials who haven't even had access to the crime scene as something equal to the official British investigation. Russavia, wasn't it you who strived to get rid of much more serious "consipracy theories" elsewhere when it suited your POV? Colchicum (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's right. Absolutely. I tried to fix the problem, but Russavia reverted me in the process of editing, although I placed "in use" template and asked him to wait until I finish.Biophys (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Current edits

Please wait until I finish. Please respect "inuse" template.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You just said "in-use or not, you are blatantly POV pushing here and it is plain to see - either discuss this, or I will seek to have you blocked from editing this article". Is that you way to conduct discussions? Sorry, but you did not make a single valid argument so far. But what arguments can you possibly make if I just started editing this article?Biophys (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this template will not be respected. Not when you are engaging in blatant POV-pushing. You are poisoning NPOV in this article, and you have been doing this over a long period of time. How can we tell you are POV-pushing? Every time you edit this article, you remove NPOV, sourced information on Litvinenko's moonlighting for Berezovsky. And every time you rename the neutrally word section "Dismissal from FSB" with "Persecuition" (sic) -- and everytime that same mispelled name is used. This is blatant POV-pushing on your part, and it honestly has to stopped. Offliner and I have worked hard on this article to bring in information which wasn't previously present in the article, and I have asked a couple of editors to check it for NPOV and the like, and the response I got is that it is NPOV. Why are you removing all of this information from the article? --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove any important information from this article (please compare sizes of the files). I am making new version here. Respect WP:NPOV policy, please. First, we provide claims made by Litvinenko. Then, we provide allegations/claims that criticize Litvinenko. This makes article balanced. I do not see what's the problem. If there are other questions, let's discuss them one by one and wait for opinions of others. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have now reverted you again, because of the problems, including extreme POV-pushing, and challenges to your assertions that you haven't removed anything. I will also present what I think is evidence that you replacing content in the article by cookie cutting it from somewhere else. Give me time to spell this out before editing again. On the otherhand, you will also see that I haven't removed pertinent information in the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 04:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comparing of articles

For this we need to compare the version before you started editing again ([29]) (for ease I will refer to this as my version) with the version which you keep changing it to ([30]) (for ease I will refer to this as your version). These are the issues, and unless you are able to adequately answer all of these concerns, I am seriously going to have to consider taking it further and asking that you be barred from editing this article, because in my mind some of these concerns are egregious, and have been continually been done by yourself over a long period of time:

1. The introduction in my version was obtained by way of consensus at Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Introduction. You may remember that it was you who demanded that we debate (there's that word again, which I hate, coz we aren't a debating society) this on the talk page. Even though I objected to this as I see it as an assertion of ownership of the article by yourself, and it also negates editors to be WP:BOLD, myself and Offliner did this, and we discussed it with Grey-Fox. And we came up on a version that the 3 of us could agree on for the most part. Ignoring your own demands of us to debate our changes you changed the lead to what is present in your version. This goes against some degree of consensus which was formed above by editors

No, we had a stable version for a long time prior to your editing. There was no new consensus. There is no vote or any other indication of that.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. In my version I merged "Early life" and "Career - Soviet Union" section into one section called "Early life and career". The reason for this change is that both sections are extremely short and because they follow a chronological order, they were merged to make a larger single section.

These are different subjects. If we do not have enough materials, I can easy add them.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The sections called "Career - Russia" and "Dissidence" were merged into one section called "Career in Russian security services". The problems within this section are as follows:
   1. Dissidence is POV because it totally ignores the other POV which is insubordination. hence the merging of this section into an overall "Career in Russian security services" was deemed necessary by myself in order to achieve WP:NPOV. If one insists on keeping this as "Dissidence", I will insist that it read "Dissidence/Insubordination", because "dissidence" is only taking into account the POV that you are consistently pushing.

"Dissidence" is a majority opinion/term per Western sources.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. In my section I have detailed directly under the "Career in Russian security services" section the basics of his career
   2. In your version you have completely removed all sourced NPOV information to him illegally moonlighting for Berezovsky

He did not work for Berezovsky according to majority of sources.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. I removed in my version a long quote, as we aren't here to provide advertising for the Berezovsky-funded book written by a Berezovsky-associate and Litvinenko's wife, and nor are we a vehicle to push Litvinenko's views. A summary by ourselves as editors in coherrent prose is suffice.

It is OK to provide the death bed Litvinenko statement.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. The subsection "Dismissal from the FSB" is constistently changed by yourself to "Persecuition" - and everytime you use the same mispelling of "persecution". "Dismissal from the FSB" is a NPOV term. Persecution is again a POV term; if one insists on having "Persecuition", then I will insist that it be changed, firstly to the correct spelling of the word, and will insist on it being "Persecution/Just desserts", or something along those lines.

Both terms can be used: "persecuition" for something called "Persecuition" in sources, and "dismissal" for something called "dissmissal". This is all per sources.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. With the exception of what I have mentioned above, I haven't removed wholesale anything from the sections, although I have re-arranged and reworded for clarity and flow
2. In my version I have a section called "Flight from Russia and asylum in the United Kingdom". In your version this is covered under your so-called "Dissidence" section. And this is proof that you are continually cutting and pasting from another source, without even bothering to check what is written. I honestly don't think you are reading anything, but merely trying to blindly enforce your absolute POV in the article. The proof, which is in the pudding, is in my version it reads "In October 2000, in violation of an order not to leave Moscow, Litvinenko and his family travelled to Turkey, possibly via Ukraine.[19] Whilst in Turkey, Litvinenko applied for asylum at the United States Embassy in Ankara, but his application was denied.[19] Plater-Zyberk opined that the denial of application may have been based upon on a possible American opinion that Litvinenko's knowledge was of little benefit and that he may create problems." You have replaced this with "Litvinenko fled to Turkey from Ukraine.[when?]". Here's the problem, because I think it is going to be necessary for me to spell this out:
   1. You will note that in my version that Litvinenko travelled to Turkey, possibly via Ukraine is sourced. In your version, it continually is changed back to include {{when}} and there is no source

There are too many unimportant details here.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. 1. You consistently remove information that he applied for asylum in the US and this was denied. This is, of course sourced, and also includes a possible reason for that rejection.

I do not see why this information is significant.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. In the UK section there is a subsection entitled "Alleged career in MI6" and "Alleged Blackmail activities". You have now moved this right to the very bottom of the article to a section called "Accusations against Alexander Litvinenko". This is not the right way to go about this, as his alleged career in MI6 and his alleged blackmail activities are actually linked to his life in the UK. There are many sources available, particularly with the blackmail allegations, which state that this is how he made his living there, or at least part of it. It is wrong to move these right down to the very bottom of the article, as it kills the flow of the article for the most part.

These are pure allegations discarded by majority of sources. They belong to Litvinenko assassination theories.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. In your version there is a section entitled "Allegations against the Russian Government". In my version this has been changed to simply "Allegations". In your version you have removed completely the section which starts "Litvinenko told anyone who would listen about his theories relating to the power structures in Russia, and would bombard his contacts with relating to his conspiracy theories." I inserted this section long ago, and because I was aware that it was did not provide a full range of opinions on his accusations overall, I had the good mind to insert {{pov-section}} until such time as I or another editor was satisfied it covered major angles on this. Unfortunately, you have seen fit to remove the entire section of writing. This is no-no.

This should be shortened as we now have a separate article about Litvinenko allegations.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. In your version there is a section called "Shooting practice controversy". In my version, you will see that this is present at "Alleged threats against Litvinenko". There are many things wrong with this:
   1. Your version states "In January 2007, Polish newspaper Dziennik revealed that a picture of Litvinenko was used as a shooting target by the Russian special forces unit Vityaz in October 2002." After actually reading the sources, I found out that the shooting target was used at "the Vityaz Training Centre in Balashikha in October 2002.[29] The centre run by Sergey Lyusyuk is not affiliated with the government, and trains bodyguards, debt collectors and private security forces,[30] although in November 2006 the centre was used by the Vityaz for a qualification examination due to their own centre being under renovation."
   2. I also changed the caption under the photo, accordingly, to "An image of the Alexander Litvinenko target (far left) at the Vityaz Training Centre." This has been changed by yourself to "Russian task force Vityaz shooting at the image of Alexander Litvinenko"
   3. Your version is ignoring that Vityaz is only the name of the privately-owned and run centre, and also failing to make the distinction that the centre is also used by other groups, and was used once whilst the actual Vityaz' own centre was under renovation.
   4. You also totally removed information from the centre on how these targets came into being, and you also completely removed that Mironov didn't see them.

No significant objections w2ith regard to your version here.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Under the section "Death and last statement" you have completely removed "According to Mary Dejevsky, the chief editorial writer of The Independent, the view that the British public had of Litvinenko's illness and death was essentially dictated by Berezovsky, who funded an expertly conducted publicity campaign." This is not just her view, but it is one that is widely held within scholarly and even media sources, and I can get them if need be, but I'd rather know why this was completely removed.

This is pure speculation, but it can be mentioned in the new "Criticism" section that I created but you deleted.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

1. The section "Criminal investigation" was renamed in my version to "Theories and investigations into death". Now I see that another editor has seen fit to also include the Russian investigation. As one who speaks Russian, you know very well that the Russian investigation is just as notable as the UK version of events, and this needs to be present in this article in some form.
2. You have completely re-inserted the "See also" section. Many of them are not suitable as they provide nothing in relation to this article, and are thereby prejudicial for this article. Some of them are already present in the article as links. But generally, the see also section is prejudicial, and gives no further understanding of this article and hence removed. Unfortunately you have a long history of using the "see also" and external links (which I will cover below) as a dumping ground of internal and external links.
3. You have re-inserted into the "His books" section a WP:LINKVIO to this source. Can you see this at the top -- © GRANI, New York, 2002 We have gone thru the nature of the compromat website in the past, and the fact that there is a big, fat copyright symbol indicates this is a WP:LINKVIO. You said that this book is free of copyright, quoting a single news source. I have looked for other sources, and even asked you on your talk page, for other sources which clearly indicate the status, but none have been forthcoming. I also indicated to you, that if it can be determined that the book is in PUBLIC DOMAIN, and determined by way of more than a single source, that it is a suitable candidate to be presented on WikiSource. Until more sources are forthcoming, due to the big fat copyright symbol, it has to be treated as a WP:LINKVIO.
4. You have also re-inserted into this section the link to this source. Again, this is a WP:LINKVIO, which again, is in fact in the same position as the above link. Can you see at this link the following text: Copyright © 2002 by Yuri Felshtinsky & Alexander Litvinenko -- All rights reserved including rights of reproductions. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner without written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews. Liberty Publishing House, Inc. -- ? This means it is probably a copyright violation and hence we should not be linking to it under WP:LINKVIO.
5. You have re-inserted in full all of the POV-links in the external links column. You need to learn that is not a linkfarm. External links need to comply with WP:EL. In particular:

What should be linked - Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

Links normally to be avoided - Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article --- and --- Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".

I have now to WP:TEDIOUSLY tell you why these are not suitable links.

1. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article648230.ece - It is an article on Rebellion: the Litvinenko Case - it tells us nothing that can't go into the article, and a link to the video is already present in the "Books and Films about him" section.
2. http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1071368.html - tells us nothing that isn't in this article
3. http://mozgovaya.livejournal.com/404921.html and the other livejournal link - It's an interview with his wife and is in no way neutral, and tells us nothing that we can't put into the article.
4. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17332541/ - why do we need to link to yet another interview with his wife? It's pure overkill, and shows us nothing that isn't already in the article.
5. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8545 - yet another interview with his wife and Berezovsky's associate? Wikipedia is not an avenue to astroturf for his wife and Goldfarb, in an attempt to shill their book. We have a link to their book already, and it's used as a reference already. That is enough.
6. http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8562&SectionName=&PlayMedia=Yes - yet another interview with a Kremlin critic to shill his nutcase view of FSB bombings and shit like that - it really has nothing to do with this article.
7. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=8AF03A7C-65B0-4FBF-8158-938FA06CB1DC - provides nothing not in the article
8. http://www.alexanderlitvinenko.narod.ru/myweb2/index.htm - some guys memorial site. Does this mean if I come up with a Litvinenko critical site, I can include it to? We aren't a memorial.
9. http://www.bukovsky.org/litvinenko/ - why do we need a link to a website in Russian which is "All about Litvinenko" - this is what this article is supposed to be, but in English.
10. http://www.ericfrattini.com/ficha_polonio.asp -- this one's a kicker, and I couldn't believe it was inserted in the first place, as the book is not about Litvinenko - by reading in Spanish it is some book by some guy about some crackpot theories on KGB, etc, etc - I have no idea why you have seen fit to reinsert such tripe.

In fact Biophys, you have basically reverted every single edit that others have done on this article, and ask any uninvolved editor what your edits are, and I am sure that the words disruptive, POV-pushing, whitewashing, unacceptable ownership will come up. I now think it's time to ask for outside comment on this, because you have done this time and time and time and time and time again on this article, and it is absolutely unacceptable. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• You did not allow me to create a good version by intervening with my edits and ignoring "in use" label, and now you are going to "identify problems"? That is an innovative approach.Biophys (talk) 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you changed "Dismissal from the FSB" to your funny spelling of "Persecution" and were intent on changing it back later? Surely you don't expect anyone to believe that? --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • Will you allow me editing this article without reverting me in the process of edit?!. This is needed to improve this article, including all your points mentioned above, of course. No one should belive anything. It is enough to look at the diff. I made a combination of an older and newer version. Main new feature (change) compare to all previous versions: I included new Criticism (or "accusation") of Litvinenko section where collected the criticisms of his writings/allegations. This per WP:NPOV policy. Biophys (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
• No reply so far?Biophys (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to reply. I have raised 12 points above which needs to be answered. And this has nothing to do with only your latest edits, but these are changes you have made multiple times in the past, and you need to explain. In fact, many of the points I have raised make your edits look not so good to an outsider, and there are issues of policy in quite a few of them, such as linking to copyvios and the like. I don't own the article Biophys, and all editors are welcome to edit it, but seeing as the above edits are ones which you have made many times, why is next time doing to be any different, even moreso, when you basically just reverted changes done by other editors. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So, your answer is "no" if I understand correctly.Biophys (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Poison Factory. Biophys (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Biophys' continuating revertion of article

Biophys continues to do wholesale reverts to this article, wholesale ignoring absolutely everything which is written above. It is plainly obvious that Biophys is taking an out-of-date edit to this article, and replacing information completely. This is able to be proven by Biophys' edits removing the interwiki link to be-x-old:Аляксандар Літвіненка, which was added at the end of May. Also there are the same mispellings of "Persecution" (it would be good if one could finally learn to spell this word, one would think that after having it pointed out a million times, one would have finally gotten it right..obviously not), and Biophys continues to remove cited information, and reinclude misrepresentations of text/photos/etc. How many times does one have to deal with actions such as this, which one can only describe as a royal pain in the behind, before an editor is raked over the coals and banned from this article. At every stage myself and other editors have dealt with Biophys' tedious ownership of this article and discussed even slightest changes, and have reached consensus on various things, but Biophys is ignoring all of this. Enough is enough, is it not? An explanation to this is required Biophys, otherwise there will have to be come admin intervention here in which I will ask for your ability to edit this article to be severely restricted --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the spelling. Thank you for noticing. A robot should take care of restoring the interwiki link. --ilgiz (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ilgiz, could you please, as neutral person, look at my recent changes, as well as changes made previously by Russavia and correct whatever is necessary? I think many changes by Russavia are fine, and they are now included in the article.Biophys (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Compromise version

My arguments in support of the compromise version are explained above. Please do not ignore my explanations. I can also try another compromise version. That's not a problem.Biophys (talk) 13:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No reply here since June 2008. So, I made a compromise version.Biophys (talk) 04:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Linkrot

Because I noticed some dead links in Alexander Litvinenko poisoning (some of which I fixed), I ran the User:Dispenser/Checklinks tool on these articles:

• Alexander Litvinenko has these link problems (about ten 404s)
• Alexander Litvinenko poisoning has these link problems (14 404s)

I will fix a very few myself, but at my usual very slow pace. -84user (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Status so far: I used the Checklinks tool to repair 9 links and tag 2 deadlinks in Alexander Litvinenko.

Of the two remaining "fully" deadlinks (not in archive.org and not in webcitation.org) I could only find one possible mirror: http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6654170,00.html is possibly mirrored at [31]. I could find no mirrors for the remaining deadlink: Lazaredes, Nick (4 June 2003). "Terrorism takes front stage — Russia's theatre siege". SBS. Retrieved 2008-11-13.

Note that one duplicated ref name has been temp-fixed to autogenerated1. The links marked as suspicious and those with connection issues, I will leave to other editors to cleanup. 84user (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

More repairs: I made these link repairs to Alexander Litvinenko poisoning and more repairs to Alexander Litvinenko.

I could not find this IHT story so I marked it dead: "Russian authorities likely behind Litvinenko's death, his wife says". International Herald Tribune. 2006-12-10. Retrieved 2006-12-23. The New York Times (who are moving IHT stories) lists partial matches here. Could Intrigue Over a Spy's Death Spreads to Germany be the story? -84user (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for good job! But Offliner just reverted all your and my recent edits. He did this without any explanation. Please, let's discuss and wait for 3rd opinions, instead of reverting.Biophys (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have now also reverted your edits, as per the section above where it was clearly spelled out to you what the problems were. I am now going to ask for an uninvolved admin to look at this, and given your edits on Anatoly Trofimov, Russian apartment bombings series, and others, this could end up with you being blocked from any article relating to this topic. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for statement of your intentions. You said: "I am now going to ask for an uninvolved admin to look at this, and given your edits on Anatoly Trofimov, Russian apartment bombings series, and others, this could end up with you being blocked from any article relating to this topic.". As about my recent edits in this article, me and several other editors (including Ilgiz) tried to make a better version, taking into account some of your comments/criticisms as well. If an uninvolved admin asks me about this, I can explain this to him/her.Biophys (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In search of compromise

I have protected the article for one week to facilitate discussion on the talk page rather than edit warring. The locked version is Radek's tat is close to Biophys one. I looks like Biophys's and Russavia versions are significantly different. In order to merge the versions lets follow the differences one by one. As only Russavia provided the list of significant differences lets follow his list. IMHO some differences show advantage of one version, others show advantages of the other version. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Early life and Career in Soviet Union

Russavia wants to merge them, Biophys to keep them separately. I personally do not find the difference important either way is fine with me. According to Biophys if we keep the section separately it would encourage expansion of the materials, so I would incline to keep them separately. Any objections? Ideas? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC

No objection.radek (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Making "Early life" and his service in the Soviet Union and modern Russia (a different state) separate is more logical, and yes, the subsections can be expanded.Biophys (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Career in Russia and Dissidence

Russavia wants to merge the section, Biophys wants to keep them separately. The main argument is to avoid POV term dissidence as a characteristic for his disagreements with his FSB superiors. IMHO dissidence is indeed a POV term it is usually rezerved for public thinkers not for the police agents in disagreement with their bosses. Might be we indeed merge the sections? It would help with the chronology as well. Otherwise lets change Dissidence to Whistle-blowing. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In principle no objection, in practice, some. "Dissident" is indeed often used for former spooks who have defected and who have afterward criticized the government of the country they defected from. I think that characterization of Litvineko as just a "police agent in a disagreement with his boss" is pretty far from the truth here (and if that's all that there was too it, we could solve the whole problem by just deleting this article on the basis of non-notability). "Whistle-blowing" is a very American-specific term (it's not even used that much in England and Europe, creeping Americazation aside) and furthermore, most (!) whistle blowers don't get served up deadly poison for their efforts. Hence, "whistle blower" is a sort of a weaseling here. However, I'm not objecting in principle because there might be SOME way to merge the two sections. But until I see a reasonable proposal for that, I'm objecting in practice.radek (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was under impression that we discuss the term for his Russian period of history. It was not particular public at the moment. Indeed his UK period is better described as dissident. He wrote a lot of criticism during that period. On the other hand Asylum is probably a better name for the UK period Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should remove title "Dissidence" in this part, but we need to have a number of sub-sections here: (a) his criticism of FSB; (b) his relations with Putin; (c) his dismissal from service (the subsection by Russavia), and (d) perhaps a new sub-section describing his relations with Berezovsky (see below).Biophys (talk) 03:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Work for Berezovsky during his FSB career

The info is referenced and should be in the article as an attributed opinion. If there are attributed opinion that he did not work for Berezovsky then those opinion should be there as well Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree in general but disagree in details. I think we should make and expand a separate sub-section about his relations with Berezovsky. But this section should provide some factual information instead of using senseless and defamatory expressions (see WP:Terrorist as an example). It is fine to describe even the most controversial events here, like an episode when Litvinenko and people sent by Anatoly Trofimov prevented arrest of Berezovsky after the murder of Vladislav Listyev. However this must be factual information.Biophys (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Death bed quote

I think it is OK to keep the quote. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree.Biophys (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dismissal vs Persecution

Dismissal seem to be less POV to me. The spelling problems is already fixed Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, as long as we describe all factual events.Biophys (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Detail of the flight

I do not see why not keep all the details. For somebody it might be important. At any rate {{when}} is unacceptable if the reference is provided Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what details you suggest to exclude if we are talking about last (Radek) version. But in general, yes, we do not need excessive details.Biophys (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Information about his asylum application

The story is referenced and indeed is important (showing whether UK authorities were in the loop Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree.Biophys (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of MI6 involvement and blackmailing activities

IMHO the accusations are not supported by reliable sources. If they are longer than one sentence thay should go out of the chronological section otherwise it will be given undue weight Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, this should be briefly mentioned, but this does not deserve a separate section.Biophys (talk) 03:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Today's revert by a shared IP address from University of Worcester re-instated these allegations. The section ignores Svetlichnaya's acknowledge that she does not have any records witnessing the alleged Litvinenko's statements. The section does not mention the involvement with a Russian company "Russian investors" that listed her name as "Communications manager" in 2005. Her own University of Westminster page shows a retraction from Aftenposten that sticks to the statement of relation with the company,

"Ms Svetlichnaja had in fact formerly worked for a British services company which had designed a website for Russian Investors in 2005". [32] [33]

--ilgiz (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Blanked section in allegations

If even the author thinks it is POV then it probably should be blanked or significantly redacted. Are there any important info? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you are talking about "Support of terrorism worldwide by the KGB and FSB", yes, let's remove, because such accusations are a common place.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• The archiveurl links on allegations against Romano Prodi were removed by today's revert from a shared IP address in University of Worcester. --ilgiz (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Shooting practice

Seems we already has a consensus to use Russavia's version as more accurate. Any objections to the protected edit? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's use version by Russavia here, although I have to look also at other sources.Biophys (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Criminal investigation vs Theories of the death

Can we separate the section with the Criminal investigation only dealing with the official investigations in Russia and UK while Theories of the death dealing giving the summary of the theories of the death (not necessary from the official investigation). Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If you look at the current version, it only includes a few phrases about criminal investigation and nothing about the theories. We should simply add a link to Alexander Litvinenko assassination theories. This all belongs to article Alexander Litvinenko poisoning.Biophys (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

See Also

We do not See Also articles already linked in the body, we do not see also if it is controversial. I think for such a long article we do not need See Also section - all the needed wikilinks are in the body Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we need a few links here, but those directly connected to Litvinenko, like Litvinenko Justice Foundation.Biophys (talk)

Linkvio

IMHO the second link (to terror-99) is certainly not a linkvio. http://terror99.ru/about.htm explicitly says that they have an agreement with publishers of Litvinenko's books. I have no reason not to trust them.

I intend to think that the compromat.ru might have some permissions from Grani.ru. Compromat.ru is not a web2.0 service like youtube: all the content is put by their staff. We could assume they got some sort of permission from Grani. Or might be have to ask the opinion of Grani on the matter. Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for noticing this, because Russavia accused me everywhere of copyright violation.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

External links

Most of the links mentioned could go to references per WP:EL. The bukokovsky.org link is dead, so it is probably unhelpful. The memoriorial narod.ru seems to provide info beyond that is expected from a FA wiki article, thus, it should be included Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Let's put most of them in the body of text, but some of the links are appropriate.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Today's revert from a shared IP address in University of Worcester removed some of the external links such as one to an interview with Litvinenko's widow and another to a London Times article by Litvinenko's friend, a film director Andrei Nekrasov. --ilgiz (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)