Talk:Alexander Litvinenko

Old archives

See also: Talk:Alexander Litvinenko poisoning

Page move

I have moved the old Alexander Litvinenko to Alexander Litvinenko poisoning and split the static content to this new page. -- Petri Krohn 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You removed all of the article history...Why didn't you just copy and paste into the new page. That would have been simpler, y'know. Nishkid64 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Aite, I did a page move again and fixed the article histories. Nishkid64 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "Comparisons to other deaths" chapter belongs to main article about Litvinenko, just as in article about Anna Politkovskaya. What do you think?Biophys 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, and Hakamada

I think we must include Litvinenko claim that Putin threatened Politkovskaya life, and that Irina Hakamada told to Politkovskaya about that; because this is on the video tape. Is that true or not is irrelevant. It is only important that Litvinenko made this claim. Could anyone give more info when and where exactly this tape has been made?

Of course, this claim was denied by Hakamada. She tells that "I have not been in Kremlin already for three months!". That means she actually WAS in Kremlin three months ago and earlier (note that Litvinenko did not say when exactly Putin issued his threats). We also know that Hakamada and Politkoskaya were talking on numerous occasions. Most important, Hakamada is a Kremlin's insider. What does it mean? She wrote herself about this in her recent book "Sex in big politics". There are some fragments (Russian): [1],[2], [3]. To be a Kremlin insider means to play all their games by their rules. If someone do not follow their rules, like Tregubova (author of "Stories of a Kremlin's digger"), she will find a bomb under her door like Tregubova. Therefore, Hakamada could not tell what really happened.

Of course, I do not think that Hakamada came to Politkovskaya and told her as Nikolay Khokhlov:"The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has ordered your assassination."! It is more probable that Hakamada told to Anna someting like that: "Some people on the very top (you know who I am talking about) are really angry. If you do not stop, they can kill you. This is serious". That is why Anna asked Litvinenko: "can they really shot me near my house?". His answer was "yes". All of that are speculations that should not be in Wikipedia. But the claim by Litvinenko is a fact. Biophys 17:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not possible for us to establish (nor should we try) that Litvinenko's claim is a fact. You can of course believe whatever you want but this is not the place to discuss it. Of course, we probably should report Litvinenko's claim Nil Einne 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree. But the claim itself is fact, as all other claims. So, I included it in the article. Biophys 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Hakamada said "I was not in Kremlin for 3 years(!)" not 3 monthes (in order to prove she has no links with Kremlin). Otherwise, it would be a really bad argument and she is not so unclever to make such statements.

Yes, in fact she said 3 years.Alexandre Koriakine 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Poisoning section

Yes, we should have a separate article about the poisoning, but we also need to have a summary, however brief, on this page. Now we have a section that is empty except for a link to the poisoning subpage - that is bad style. mglg_(talk) 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is. The poisoning section was huge! Anyone have ideas as to how we should report it on the main article? Nishkid64 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Put a short paragraph based on the lead to Alexander Litvinenko poisoning Alex Bakharev 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Muslim

More about the Muslim burial: [4] --Striver 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can see that user Wikipidian is very interested in Islam. But this suject do not belong here. Litvinenko was not a religious man. Islam was not a part of his life. He mostly wanted to show support to his Chechen friends, and perhaphs he did not like Russian Ortodox Church, which is led by Aleksius II, a former KGB agent. This is all.Biophys

According to his father who spoke to Radio Free Europe, he converted to Islam a few days before he died and had an imam read the Qur'an for him on his deathbed. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061207/ap_on_re_eu/poisoned_spy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.28.8.187 (talk • contribs).

I agree, he is to buried in a non-denominational graveyard after a non-denominational funeral service, not very Muslim. It should be removed. -- anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.100.43.244 (talk • contribs).

A non-denominational funeral service with Muslim rites from an Imam? That makes a lot of sense... The fact remains tho his conversion to Islam is something which has received a fair amount of coverage and controversy so it definitely merits conclusion. Whatever his reasons, are irrelevant in themselves altho if there is sourced speculation by people close to him we can add that Nil Einne 00:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it slightly insulting to muslims that some of the above users think that they should deny any affiliation to islam of one of their idols, he was a muslim, if you refute this provide some actual evidence instead of insulting 'wishful thinking'.172.200.68.18 (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda links?

I'm not sure how reliable this stuff is, but some sources are now saying that links between him and Al-Qaeda are currently under investigation by the British internal security service. And an Al-Qaeda plan to purchase Polonium-210, too. But of course, theories are flying wildly right now, so who knows? Here are a few links in any case: [5] [6]. There are also allegations of all kinds of stuff, for example that he was getting state secrets from the FSB after his exile from his contacts there and using it to blackmail important political figures. And another quote:

Even more problematic for Litvinenko's elevation to sainthood is the allegation that he was involved in smuggling nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union. The Independent reports:

"Alexander Litvinenko, the poisoned former Russian agent, told the Italian academic he met on the day he fell ill that he had organized the smuggling of nuclear material out of Russia for his security service employers."

According to the British newspaper, Litvinenko admitted to Scaramella that he had "masterminded the smuggling of radioactive material to Zurich in 2000."

Do with the links what you wish, but... it would of course be better if the info in them was either incorporated into the article or debunked on this talk page.

On that note, I don't think it's a good idea to support the "good article" nomination until all of these things are covered. On the whole, I'm not at all sure that it's a good idea to nominate something like this for "good article status", because this is still a current event and it's becoming very clear that we only have a very small section of the story right now; certainly not enough to make a good encyclopedia article. Esn 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently much of this stuff is already mentioned on the "poisoning" page. This biography article needs to get caught up, though. Esn 08:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that [7] [8] are very unreliable sources. First of them is website of a right-wing religious group. You would be surprised what they are writing about evolution, Darvin, and some other subjects. The second one is a personal site of a libertarian who is exteremly biased on many subjects. As about other sources on this subject, I did not see them. Biophys 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This [9] seems awfully dubious. I don't know why they are claiming that Litvinenko's body has to be kept in a lead coffin - the alpha radiation from the polonium in his body wouldn't even get out through his skin - I think there is an excess of caution being employed there. From what I've read of Scaramella, I don't think he could remotely be described as an honest witness. He's up to his neck in wierd connections. As far as Al Quada is concerned - why on earth would they want Polonium-210? It's hideously expensive - it decays to boring old lead in a matter of months - so it has to be bought fresh and used quickly - which shortens the chain of contacts and makes you easier to trace. It's pretty harmless stuff unless you eat or breath it - it's heavy (like lead) - so you can't disperse it into the air very easily. Polonium 210 decays by emitting alpha particles. Alpha radiation is stopped fairly effectively by one sheet of paper or a few centimeters of air or the layer of dead skin cells that covers your entire body! There are plenty of poisons that cost $1 per gram that will kill you if you eat them - heck, you could sneak 20 grams of Tylanol into someones lunch and they'll die a few days later - but don't use Polonium! Why pay $3,000,000 per gram?! As a poison - it's ludicrous. The most plausible reason why they might want the stuff is as a nuclear trigger - but it's way too expensive to use as a terror weapon by itself. SteveBaker 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

According to [10] Pakistan might use Polonium-Berillium as the initiator for nuclear explosion, I believe earlier Soviet designs use Po-Be as well. It is outdated now but maybe still good enough for Al-Qaeda? Also it is much more convenient to have radiological weapon you can actually move somewhere without killing the porters and with difficulties in detectionAlex Bakharev 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko admitted to Scaramella that he had "masterminded the smuggling of radioactive material to Zurich in 2000 has already been debunked as a misquotation, just check the news articles. Harald88 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Current Event"

I've removed the {{current-related}} tag because this is a biographical article of someone dead, so I dont see it changing much, apart from the reasons for his murder. I think the tag would be better on the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning article, which will change quickly. Thanks, RHB 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Much of the activity on this article is just trying to piece together his life, while the other article has been constantly updated as a result of recent news. Nishkid64 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This article does not document a current event, but it is related to a current event. The {{current event}} tag wouldn't belong on this article, but I believe the {{current-related}} does. Aecis ^{Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984.} 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah I guess that would make more sense since this article is subject to change if more information about the murder investigation unravels. Nishkid64 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam

It appears his deathbed conversion to Islam, has led to some controversy with his wife and Akhmed Zakayev not being happy [11], while Akhmed Zakayev and others appear fine with it or even happy Nil Einne 00:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

GA stuff

This looks like it has potential, but I've failed this for now due to the current event-ness of the article. The article could significantly change in an hour for all we know. Feel free to renom when it settles down. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko and FSB article

I have made serious changes in article about FSB which is related to this Litvinenko article. It would be good if someone could take a look and edit it slightly if neccessary. I am going to continue work with FSB article in the future.Biophys 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Luguvoy has never been a FSB officer

Please check your sources, Luguvoy has never been a FSB officer. Formally, he was a KGB officer because he served in a government bodyguard division , that was included into KGB at the time. But FSB does not have this department anymore. So, Lugovoy started his service in KGB and when KGB has been demolished, his division was renamed to FSO (Federal Security Service) which has nothing to do with FSB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.83.27 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I've added Dmitry Kovtun as the other man he met the day he fell ill (source bbc news)--McNoddy 10:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Does anyone know if they can find a non-copyright version of the telling image of Litvinenko on his deathbed. It is by far the most famous view of Litvinenko and IMHO should probably be included somewhere. ronan.evans 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that its fair to use the hospital picture in the artical but perhaps someone oould find a more dignified picture for the main one. 22-Jan-07

Anyone think that a picture showing him in better lgiht, insted of him rotting on a hospital bed would be in better taste 71.242.134.88 18:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course. This is a biography, not a hospital report. Certainly his picture in a healfy state would be much better.Biophys 18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

• References go right after a full-stop or comma, not in the middle of a sentence.
• Lots of one sentence paragraphs, merge, remove or expand.
• In the reference list there is a red wikilink, remove the wikilink as it stands out
• trim down see also and external links a little
• who is thought to have been poisoned in London., remove this as you explain it in the third paragraph
• Need an info box for his picture, theres one somewhere on wikiproject biography, if you cant find it I'll take another look.
• were followed seven years later by his poisoning — and his public accusations that the Russian government was behind his poisoning — resulted in worldwide media coverage, change to "were followed seven years later by his poisoning and public accusations that the Russian government was behind his poisoning, resulting in worldwide media coverage. "
• Don't wikilink solo years, ex 1988
• in Dagestan (a republic neighbouring Chechnya) , remove all the stuff in the brackets
• instead of '-' use commas
• too much stuff is explain in brackets when it shouldn't. Write it out using a comma
• expand early life if you can - Cant really find much on this - obituaries focus on his murder more than anything else
• statement image needs fair ruse rationale

Article is looking good apart from these. I remember a picture of him in bed after the poisoning, was that remove because of copy-right?. Anyway good-luck M3tal H3ad 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please not that the article contains false information inserted by user Biophys in part that Boris Stomakhin was imprisoned for his views about Chechnya independency. According to the official court sentence he was found guilty of extremist activities, calls for violent change of the constitutional regime, inciting ethnic and religious hatred, calls to exterminate Russians as ethnic group. See article 'Boris Stomakhin' Vlad fedorov 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You two will have to sort this out as this will fail the article for stability. There's an edit war review or something to stop this. Also why are there two dates when he was born? find out the real one and cut down on external links if you can M3tal H3ad 10:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

A thing is... Biophys claimed that Stomakhin is a political prisoner. But he was accused by private persons - ordinary people. FSB has nothing to do with Stomakhin. By inserting this unsupported and irrelevant information, Biophys makes grounds for inserting false information in the article about Boris Stomakhin. So I don't bother about FSB at all. If you would look at Biophys contribs - you will see that his specialization is abusing Russia actually. He also committed a number of violations, such as citing blogs and sources proved to contain false facts.Vlad fedorov 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it was just Biophys inserted Boris Stomakhin in the bottom section claiming him to be a political prisoner, which has now been removed. RHB 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

With the images i suggest you bring back the old picture in the infobox where he is healthy, and move the poisoning image to the death section. M3tal H3ad 02:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry forgot about this, "This article documents a current event", with this tag the article will fail the GA criteria of stability. Feel free to re-nominate when things have quited down. M3tal H3ad 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why I made this link to Stomakhin

According to Litvinenko, journalist Boris Stomakhin was "last conscience of Russia" (see Opinion of Aleksander Litvineko (Russian)). Vladimir Bukovsky, Elena Bonner and ARTICLE 19 also tried to protect Stomakhin when he was convicted for free speech. I have created an article about Stomakhin, but user Vlad Fedorov and others used this article for defamation of Stomakhin by citing his alleged writing completely out of context. Moreover, these "writings" are taken from extremely unreliable sources, and there are certain indications that Stomakin actually did not write some of that. I left a message about this problem in living persons noticeboard. Right now, the Wikipedia article about Stomakhin is "an active measure" (disinformation) FSB can be proud of. So, how do you think: is it appropriate to include at least a link to Stomakhin in this article? Biophys 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

These are false allegations. I invite anyone to the article on Boris Stomakhin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Stomakhin and its talk page to see how Biophys writes false facts in the articles, cites information from the blogs. Come and see yourself.Vlad fedorov 05:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Please look at the text below ("Kill, kill, kill"). First, if you translate the original complete text from Russian, its meaning will be very different. A lot of phrases is missing, the order of phrases in the cited piece is completely different from the original, etc. That is how it is doctored by Vlad Fedorov and others. Moreover, I do not know if this text was actually written by Stomakhin, as explained on his talk page and living person notice board. Biophys 02:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

It is correct translation which could be verified by clicking the link on russian article. The link to extremist Revolutionary Contact Association is also real, since everyone could follow it. User Biophys abusing me personally.Vlad fedorov 05:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Biophys, if you would abuse me again, I would report immediately.Vlad fedorov 05:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I just edited Boris Stomakhin one more time to find a reasonable compromise, which would not be a violation of Wikipedia living person policies. You may take a look. Biophys 03:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Ok. The version created by user Biophys lacks important facts, it cites third-party blogs (unreliable sources), it contains original research in citations of Stomakhin from court sentence. Biophys also deleted the most serious statements by Stomakhin, leaving his most moderate citations. He also excluded without any grounds the fact that Stomakhin political view is to exterminate all Russians. Excluded many facts such as false facts contained in Statement of Union of Councils of fU Jews. This perversions of the facts and personal edits of Stomakhin's citations by Biophys are intolerable.Vlad fedorov 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention! Stomakhin's case

Please know that Stomakhin wasn't procesuted by FSB, but he was prosecuted on the basis of applications of private persons, see the article on Boris Stomakhin. The statement of Union of Councils of fSU Jews is containing false statements and facts which contradict to Mass Media reports. Stomakhin is a leader of extremist organization Revolutionary Contact Association He was sentenced by court for the extremist activities, inciting religious and ethnic hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime, calls for violation of terriorial integrity of Russian Federation, defamatory statements(articles 280 and 282 of the Russian Criminal Code). He is not a dissident. Consider the following his statements:

Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territoryof Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown. Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced. http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm

The article 'Death to Russia' by Boris Stomkahin in Google cache Vlad fedorov 17:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that today the article can still be accessed from its original address. This article list may interest people who can read Russian. There is some funny stuff there. One article claims Basaev as a hero. Another claims Israel is looking for a Jewish Basaev. A third article claims the Russians, and not the Chechens are anti-semites, because anti-semitism should also include anti-Islamism. That sort of triplicity is typically found on racist sites in the West. --Pan Gerwazy 15:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Good comment. Personally, I strongly disagree with such writings. However, some of these articles might not be written by Stomakhin. Few of them were cited in the court sentence ("Death to Russia" was not cited). Journalist Vladimir Abarinov claimed that one of the incriminated Stomakhin's papers was not actually written by Stomakhin but copied from a different site, which is typical for unreiable sources run by small groups of "revolutionaries". See Stomakhin Case - by Vladimir Abarinov for grani.ru (Russian). Your point about anti-semitism may be valid, because Stomakin is a Jew, and there is a growing intolerance and racist violence in Russia. See these English language references, for example,

• Russian Federation: Racism and xenophobia rife in Russian society - Amnesty International press release
• From Russia With Hate - Time Europe Magazine
• State of Hate - Newsweek

Perhaps this is the reason Stomakhin is so hated in Russia. I am glad the Litvinenko was not an anti-semit and supported Stomakhin. Biophys 18:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at article "History of Orthodox Taliban" in the same RKO web site. I have never seen anything like that about Russian Orthodox Church. Was it really written by Gleb Yakunin as claimed? I would probably double check this if I wanted to prepare an article about Gleb Yakunin. Biophys 17:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Lies, lies, lies... Biophys has deleted the conclusion of the official phsychiatric expertise which found Stomakhin competent but having organic emotional-labial (astenic) disorder (taken from the official court sentence). Now opposition and the russia-haters like Biophys, use his disorders to cover the fascism of 'politically prosecuted journalist'. Here more of his genuine statements taken from the court sentence:

• "Let tens of new Chechen snipers take their positions in the mountain ridges and the city ruins and let hundreds, thousands of aggressors fall under righteous bullets! No mercy! Death to the Russian occupiers!"
• "Bombing in Moscow subway was justified, natural and legal... The Chechens have full moral right to blow up anything they want in Russia after what Russia and Russians did to them, none objections on humanism and philanthropy could be accepted."
• "Salman Raduev was fighting with Russia to the end, without any compromising with the killers of his people. His life was an example how to fight Russia. Salman Raduev is the most outstanding page of heroic Chechen resistance. He was a hero of the generation, not only in Chechnya, but in Russia itself. His life and death is a guarantee that the damned imperial Russia would be wiped out, and Chechens and all other people occupied with it, would receive freedom at last".
• "We, 'Revolutionary Contact Association' and 'Radical Politics' are united with the Committee and are ready to cooperate with it. It is understood that we a lot more radical than it. We are for not waiting until 2008 and we shouldn't bother ourselves particularly with Constitution, but we are for calling people to overthrow and liquidate Putin's regime as soon as possible. And we at all do not see possibility of preserving of present Russian Federation as a single state. But we are for common front with all our allies, even more moderate".
• "And for yesterday's, and for today's genocide of Chechen people, let Russia, still at our life span, wash herself with blood, - rightly, she deserved it! And let our memorial candles on the meetings on February 23 turn into torches, in purifying flame of which this rotten log, standing on the way of mankind, will be burnt down".
• "Supporting fighting Chechnya, uniting publicly with Basaev, openly joining the side of Movsar Baraev at the days of Nord-Ost -- we have crossed the border, behind which any connections break and vanish with the past, with the environment, with people among which you have been born and have been growing-up and lived, trustingly considering yourself a part of this, until on the foreign "enemy" website have read and have seen with own eyes terrifying details of deeds made by these people in neighboring, tiny mountain country. So the Rubicon is crossed, the choice is made, and there is nowhere to retreat - now there is no for us any other family, except for oppressed by our "Empire" peoples, except fighting for liberation from yoke partisans, famous field commanders like Basaev, political parties which put forward demands for monetary compensation of occupation and return of taken away territories".
• "After with the same Budanov's - maniacs, blood lusting sadists, murderers and degenerates with epaulets - all Chechnya is currently filled up. And it is Russian occupation army consists of these same Budanov's".
• "In Chechnya Russian army ceased to exist as a military structure of a state, finally turned into devilish gang of marauders and killers, intoxicated from narcotics gang".
• "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens".
• "Orthodox Christians entirely have got a dick…"
• "Russians have slaves and dare to blather something at Chechens"
• "Zakhaev is not a terrorist unlike Putin and Co". http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/061120prigovor.html Vlad fedorov 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I like funny phrase that "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens". But Stomakhin did NOT say that, according to the court sentence. To the contrary, Stomakhin criticized this stupid claim as an example of propaganda booklets distributed by the Russian Orthodox Church. That is how citation out of context can be used to disinform a reader. Another problem: someone have deleted my arguments from the talk page of Boris Stomakhin. In my opinion, Stomakhin is only a normal "liberal" who likes strong statements - by US standards. He is not even a real "anarchist". I have seen many people in US whose political views were more extreme than views of Stomakhin. All these people are free and promte their views relentlessly. How about Ann Coulter who said about Muslim countries: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." (but others say something like that about US). Ann Coulter is a famous women, not a prisoner. This is freedom of speech.Biophys 00:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You may call him 'liberal' and 'democrat', but he calls himself 'radical', 'revolutionary'. He created Revolutionary Contact Orgamization and called to overthrow current Consitutional regime. You wanna say that all liberals are following this way?Vlad fedorov 04:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And all these people in the US call not to wait until elections, but to overthrow Bush and make Mrs. Clinton the president without elections? They also say that September 11th attacks were "justified, natural and legal"? Are you serious, Biophys?Vlad fedorov 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are people in US who say that September 11th attacks were "justified, natural and legal" and other things like that. But this is not Stomakhin. Biophys 06:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So if there are people who say that Sep11'th was legal, then we should write in Wikipedia it was legal and we should delete all the words about terrorism and stuff like that? Right? That is exactly what you doing here.Vlad fedorov 07:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

So you deny the facts extablished in the court sentence and do original research hereby?Vlad fedorov 07:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we can cite anything as in article about Ann Coulter, but only under four conditions: (1) this citation must be taken from a reliable source according to Wikipedia criteria, especially if it may be used for defamation of a living person (NGO site is not a reliable source); (2) the citation is properly translated; and (3) this is not a misrepresentation by selecting a phrase out of context; (4) this is not falsificaton as your citation of "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens", which was not said by Stomakhin. Current version of Boris Stomakhin article contains a lot of obvious distortions. That is why I reported this as violation of LP policies. Let's stop this discussion. This is article about Litvinenko.Biophys 17:43, 30 December 2006(UTC)

Sometimes you have to look at yourself, poor boy. Look at your article Human Rights in Russia, where you cite only NGO sites. Isn't it kinda funny that it is you who reveals to us what is reliable source? The phrase about Chesus Christ was taken from the official court sentence by the way. You may report any your problems to noticeboard of which you have quite a lot. Vlad fedorov 18:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Vlad, don't waste too much time for this russophobic creature. I noticed his straight heavy bias againt russians in every article where Russia/russians are involved. I would not understand this kind of behaviour from normal man. Alexandre Koriakine 20:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please, you lot, stop that! I am noticing heavy deviation from the subject in hand, and it's rather annoying. If you have any problems with the Litvinenko article this is the place to discuss it. If you have problems with the Human Rights In Russia article, go there! This isn't a place to point fingers at each other or accuse each other of xenophobia! The Lilac Pilgrim 19:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Late Development Section

Somebody needs to cite the source for this. Hesperides 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Good Article status

I have failed the article for Good Article status due to the image used to display his condition in his final days. The image is from the BBC News website which has a strict copyright status on the use of images from the site, see their Copyright Notice. However, it may be possible to use the image under the fair use criteria by contacting BBC News and asking for permission, explaining who you are, exactly which image you would like to use and exactly where it will be used. As long as you are entirely upfront, they should be quite accommodating. Otherwise, unfortunately the image cannot be used and would be tagged as a copyright violation and deleted. I wish you all the best with sorting that out and look forward to passing the article for Good Article status once it is sorted.

Note: I would have simply placed the article's nomination on hold since it is only the image holding the article back. However, since it could take a little while to sort this, I thought it best to remove the nomination until the problem is solved. Wikiwoohoo 15:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess you know more about BBC Copyright than the rest of us, but surely fair use would apply here - FU images are always copyrighted, but an assertion is made on their use in the article. If not, any of the instances of the same photo would apply from this search, so would simply mean replacing the source with one more accomadating. I've also looked into emailing the guardian and asking permission there, but since media outlets regularly swap and exchange information, copyright status can be unclear. I've tagged it with historical fair use too, since arguably its the image that represents the entire case. Thanks for your help, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well this would fall most definitely under the fair use criteria; it would be best to ensure the BBC are in full agreement with the use of the image. Once you have permission then there would be no problem. Wikiwoohoo 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Shooting target video

I am posting a snapshot from the video in case the article needs it. [12] ilgiz 05:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Moved the image to the article and justified its fair use. More snapshots:
  • 2686.vid-0009-l-.jpg
  • 2686.vid-0010-l-.jpg
  • 2686.vid-0011-l-.jpg

ilgiz 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to the articles.

• Rosyjscy komandosi strzelali do Litwinienki, 2007-01-25, video in the bottom.
• Russian special forces shot at Litvinenko, 2007-01-30.
• Russians admit, that they shot at Litvinenko, 2007-01-31. The last article says that the video was taken in October 2002.

ilgiz 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Most likely it is a fake. Alexandre Koriakine 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Most likely it is not a fake. As to pictures of these exercise shooting targets, I saw them personally on the Vityaz site in January, so the Dziennik article has some factual base. However, I don't know where the video comes from. Colchicum 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Most likely" because it comes from Poland. However this could be true that some of Spetznaz stuff thought that this could be funny, because officially and unofficially (which is more important) in Russia he was a traitor, so I don't see any real moral problems with this. To mention here, in 2002 very-very little people knew Litvinenko. Most people in Russia knew him only after his death.Alexandre Koriakine 15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

What are we discussing? These exercise shootings did take place, that's for sure. I don't know why they use such targets, but we don't discuss it in the article. Whether Litvinenko was known to the general public in any given year is also irrelevant for the paragraph about these shootings. I see no problems here. Futhermore, as to the alleged treason, he was not a traitor officially in Russia or any place else, as he has not been called traitor by a court. He was charged with other accusations. Unoficially - well, if you can find some polls... As of now, we can only claim here that he is considered traitor by certain people, if their personal opinion is notable enough. Colchicum 16:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"That's for sure" - that's what I doubted.Alexandre Koriakine 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it has been forged, it has been forged by the Vityaz team themselves, as I have seen the pictures on their site (confirmed with WHOIS) when they were available (maybe they are still there, I haven't checked it). But I cannot see any reason for them to do this forgery. And nothing about Litvinenko's death follows from this, that's why this section has been added to this article rather than Alexander Litvinenko poisoning. Colchicum 00:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth?

Where did the 30/8 date come from? Not that I'm doubting it, but the Times cites his birthday as 4/12 of the same year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.19.171 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

• I am personally convinced that it is 4th December - browsing the net I have found an interview with Marina Litvinenko (however I don't know of it's authenticity) and she states herself that 4th December was his birthday - they celebrated it after his death. The Lilac Pilgrim 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Litvinenko books

I think it would be a good idea to create a couple of Wikipedia articles about Litvinenko books: Criminal gang from Lubyanka and Blowing up Russia: Terror from within. Biophys 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Location of Birth

In 1962, Russia was part of the USSR. Therefor, shouldn't we list the Birth Location as Voronezh, Soviet Union? 70.50.73.234 00:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Doubtfull

I don't think that FSB agents killed Litvinenko. It costs much too much ( cf. http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/55606781/Polonium_voor_moord_op_Litvinenko_kostte_7,6_miljoen.html?p=8,1 ). With almost 8 million euro, one pays all the Moscovite FSB agents for a whole year. I saw the film Cambrigde Spies ( http://imdb.com/title/tt0346223/ ). There it is said that MI-5 agents did not shadow people during the weekend. Paying weekend workhours was simply too expensive. There were cost cuts being done. That's why I think that the story that Litvinenko was murdered by the FSB is doubtful. Tgeorgescu 18:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of some Russian first names

"Constanyin Latyshonok, and German Scheglov"

"Constanyin" is really "Constantine" or "Konstantin". Unfortunately the wrong spelling has spread to other wikis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Constanyin+Latyshonok%22

I also believe that "German" should rather be spelled as "Herman" (or "Hermann") to avoid confusion with the English adjective "German" as in "from Germany". When pronounced by English speakers, "Hermann" also sounds much closer to the Russian pronounciation of the name that the word "German".

--68.7.93.198 04:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the corrections. I used "Gherman" since this is the spelling used in wikipedia for Gherman Titov the cosmonaut.

--68.7.93.198 02:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of the deathbed statement's facsimile

Someone submitted the facsimile of the deathbed statement for deletion. Please cast your opinion, not just a vote. My apologies for notifying a week later.ilgiz 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

---

It doesn't really make sense to claim a deathbed conversion would be that purpose, rather than actually believing what he was converting to was true and correct. Further why is this in the article in the first place? I know it characterises Wikipedia, but how about leaving off the materialist fundamentalist and anti Islam propaganda for once.

30th September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.39.34 (talk) 08:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Could user Strothra tell me the source for the statement that Litvinenko converted to Islam before he knew he was going to die? I'll give you the chance before removing the sentence again, thanks.

02 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.39.34 (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Sentence now deleted.

02 October 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.39.34 (talk) 08:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

---

Sentence removed again after Strothra reverted without justification, and who has followed me around Wikipedia reverting my edits. If you do not desist you will be reported for WIKISTALKING, please note I could also report you for USER SPACE HARASSMENT.

The sentence is false according to the article, it seems he converted to Islam around TWO days before his death, yet his death 'goodbye' statement was composed around THREE days before his death, or alternatively around the SAME TIME as his conversion. In any case, there is no proof in the article or references which states he converted before he knew he was GOING to die, the calling of an Imam to read the 'last rites' would be when he thought he was ABOUT to die which is a different thing. 82.27.39.34 00:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

There is no conversion to Islam 'controversy' that I can see - come and justify why you think so here. Goldfarb stated “I do not know what Alexander wanted. Akhmed (Zakayev) believes that he converted to Islam on his deathbed, but I have strong reservations,”- 82.27.39.34 02:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly a controversy from the conflicting statements made in relation to it. Further, please do a simply google search before you remove citations. Such edits are destructive and not condoned. Please observe on Wiki for a while before you jump into editing. You still need to learn policies and how to format correctly as is obvious from this talk page. --Strothra 03:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the news, Litivinenko was a paid MI6 agent

Revealed: Poisoned ex-Russian spy Litvinenko WAS a paid-up MI6 agent EXCLUSIVE by STEPHEN WRIGHT and DAVID WILLIAMS - More by this author »

Last updated at 11:11am on 27th October 2007

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490007&in_page_id=1770

This was just another unsuccefull Bondiana right from the start! My congratulations for Her Majesty. La poet 07:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Goldfarb, this is disinformation [13]. Biophys 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting information about defection and a job in MI6 in Dissidence section

I think someone has a really black sense of humor, if he puts information on Litvinenko involvement into Dissidence section and lowers the visibility of this information by degrading it into subsection. La poet 04:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I just wasn't sure where to put it... This information is, after all, far from being confirmed, though it does come from a reputable source... Óðinn 04:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to be put in Wikipedia it needs to come from reliable source. That's all. We don't need further EVIDENCE in Wikipedia. And we are not lawyers in order to sort it out.La poet 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This information is already included, and I did not delete it from there. Working for an intelligence agency is not a dissidence.Biophys 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Mind WP:AGF, Biophys. Nobody accuses you of deletion, except for the introduction to the article. I asked you first not to revert this information from separate section into subsection of Dissidence section. Here is your revert I speak about[14] ? La poet 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Categorization as victim of nuclear terrorism

I will remove a number of categories ranging from dubious to outright ludicrous, like "nuclear terrorism victims". It's not even certain whether he was indeed murdered or died from accidental exposure. Óðinn 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please wait for opinion of others. I can provide references that tell explicitly: "this is a nuclear terrorism case".Biophys 05:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Óðinn is right. Biophys please stop moving MI6 iformation into dissidence. Litvinenko's wife may also be mi6 agent and she is a WIFE. La poet 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This information is already included, and I did not delete it from there. BTW, working for an intelligence agency is not a dissidence.Biophys 03:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why you did this revert [15] ? Mind WP:AGF, Biophys. Nobody accuses you of deletion, except for the introduction to the article. I asked you first not to revert this information from separate section into subsection of Dissidence section. La poet 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Biophys please stop your political propaganda by inserting unsupported category of nuclear terrorism victim, without any reliable source about that. There were no court decisions about that and official charge of British authorities doesn't contain such charges. It's about murder only. La poet 03:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is reference I included yesterday, which explains why he is a nuclear terrorism victim. I included the following: "The death of Litvinenko has been described as a nuclear terrorism case (Reference: Radiological Terrorism: “Soft Killers” by Morten Bremer Mærli, Bellona Foundation." In legal terms, nuclear terrorism is an offense committed if someone unlawfully and intentionally “uses in any way radioactive material … with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury”, according to International conventions. See this: International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism Biophys 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This your (Reference: Radiological Terrorism: “Soft Killers” by Morten Bremer Mærli, Bellona Foundation) doesn't describe Litvinenko murder as a case of nuclear terrorism, it just says in the introductory paragraph that concerns that someone could use nuclear materials for terrorism were raised after Litvinenko poisoning. And your awfull citation from legal text with massive omissions of essential details misses points that differentiate terrorism from simple homicide. You have omitted this from your Convention definition: "(iii) With the intent to compel a natural or legal person, an international organization or a State to do or refrain from doing an act." Could you provide reliable sources that show that Lugovoi had this purpose in his mind? Essentially you are trying to interpret your sources and post here your personal interpretation, which is, of course, original research. That's why your categorization of this article is just political propaganda. La poet 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to cite only reviews in scientific journals and books (reliable scholarly secondary sources).

Reference 1. "The murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London in November 2006 by polonium-210 ingestion was likely the first provable act of radiological terror... Terrorists have already shown considerable interest in acquiring 'dirty bombs'.3 They may now try to replicate the murder of Litvinenko on a larger scale, or contrive other means to place radioactive sources inside, or in direct contact with, their victims." from "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

Reference 2. Same thing. See book "The Litvinenko File: The Life and Death of a Russian Spy", by Martin Sixsmith, True Crime, 2007 ISBN 0-312-37668-5, page 14.

Reference 3.. "On November 1, 2006, former Russian KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with Polonium 210 in London, England. He died 22 days later at University College Hospital... For the medical community, Litvinenko’s murder represents an ominous landmark: the beginning of an era of nuclear terrorism." ("Ushering in the era of nuclear terrorism", by Patterson, Andrew J. MD, PhD, Critical Care Medicine, v. 35, p.953-954, 2007.).

You should also read the article by Bellona Foundation. It tells: "Radiological terrorism involves the use, or threat of the use, of radiological weapons in acts of terrorism, as well as direct strikes against installations where radioactive materials are present. The purpose of such acts is to expose and contaminate (pollute). Victims are exposed to radiation, and large areas may have to be evacuated and decontaminated in the aftermath." Hence (see text below) it considers the case of Litvinenko and several other cases as radilogical terrorism.

So, we have sevearal sources that tell explicitly: "that was nuclear terrorism". This is very simple.Biophys 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Um. Where is the proof that he was actually murdered? Óðinn 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We do not need any proofs of anything ("verifiability not truth"). We only need proper sourcing per WP:Source and representing all significant views per WP:NPOV.Biophys 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note that exceptional claims do need exceptional sources in relation to nuclear terrorism - the Patterson article is probably the best source, but it would be better if it came from a terrorism expert as opposed to a medical one. I take offense, however, at the suggestion that he was not murdered. --Strothra 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? Óðinn 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a POV argument. Stick to a discussion of article edits and policy within that framework. --Strothra 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Then keep your own POVs and offenses for yourself. So far, his murder is no more than a theory. Óðinn 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Biophys, I guess you wouldn't mind if I add categories such as "MI6 agents"? This claim, is, after all, perfectly verifiable. Óðinn 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is there is only a single source that asserts he worked for MI6 whereas most sources outside of Russia (particularly, outside of the state-controlled media) concur that he was murdered. --Strothra 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speculations, however numerous, are not any better than speculations of one source. Óðinn 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, until the investigation is concluded the article can't state such charges as fact. However, there is an abundance of those charges which means that they are notable enough for inclusion as long as they are identified as charges. However, his status as an MI6 agent is only asserted by one source which itself only states that he was paid by MI6 and doesn't suggest just exactly what he did for MI6 beyond a headline claim that he was an agent. Thus, giving it any more importance in the article than what it currently has would be a violation of WP:UNDUE - clearly, adding an MI6 cat would be excessive.--Strothra 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting the article into the categories in question very much does assert such charges as a fact. There is a category called "cause of death disputed" I propose it is used instead. Óðinn 22:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you give the link to "cause of death disputed" category? I could not find it. Ochendzki 09:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here you are: [16] Óðinn 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Strothra. Let's follow due weight. The alleged Litvinenko work for MI6 is an exceptional claim that must be supported by multiple reliable sources. In reality, of course, this is planted disinformation as will be soon clear.Biophys 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, stop being so naive (forget the umlaut), how come everyone who is anti-Putin is a good patriotic Russian, and eveyone who supports Putin is in a minority of anti-patriotic balsphemers? The world was never so balck and white, there is evidence to suppose that he was murdered, and that he was an MI6 agent. I live in Brtain currently and the MI6 have confirmed they were affiliated with the man, (although they have denied the involvement of his wife), if this is such disinformation why did the MI6 admit it?172.200.68.18 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Categorization as a conspiracy theorist

Litvinenko's accusations that the Moscow bombings were staged by the Russian government, right or wrong, are conspiracy theories and he should be categorized the same as, for example, people who claim the September 11 attacks were staged by the United States government (see 9/11 conspiracy theories). Anything else is a double standard.

Also, his dubious, unsupported claim that Vladimir Putin is a practicing pedophile should be given prominence in the introduction since it casts serious doubt on his motives and character -- how seriously would you take a person who claimed that 9/11 was staged and that George W Bush was a pedophile? It is also yet another conspiracy theory. And this article does not make it clear enough that Litvinenko worked for Boris Berezovsky who is extremely opposed to Putin for political (not ideological) reasons and works to undermine the Russian political system.Amaliq (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources that represent majority opinion and claim this to be "conspiracy theory". Without it, this stands as your original research (see WP:NOR).Biophys (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Also, you must provide reliable sources that claim exactly that: "Putin is not a pedophile" to support your position per WP:NOR.Biophys (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Times newspaper (a prominent UK newspaper that certainly represents majority opinion) that describes Litvinenko's theory as a "conspiracy theory": [17]

And actually, as per WP:BLP the obligation rests upon the accusers to prove that Putin is a pedophile, not the other way around (which is an absurd suggestion anyway).Amaliq (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is not BLP of Vladimir Putin. Hence BLP rules do not apply. Your source (Times) do not claim accusations of Litvinenko to be wrong. As about Putin's BLP, I did not do much there. If you want, I can.Biophys (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Then, the pedophilia accusations and a lot of other accusations will appear in Putin's BLP per WP:NPOV. The accusations will not be represented as facts, of course.Biophys (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to ANY page, not just relevant biographical pages. From the policy : Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. ... This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons in other articles. Need I say that accusations of pedophilia are extremely serious and Putin's innocence should be assumed? Again, from WP:BLP: An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and as such it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.

I am not saying that Litvinenko's theories are right or wrong, just that they are conspiracy theories and thus he is a conspiracy theorist and belongs in the conspiracy theorist category. The Times article states that his theory is a conspiracy theory quite clearly, and that is all that is needed to place him in the conspiracy theorist category. Amaliq (talk) 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You need reliable secondary sources which establish that Litvinenko is regarded as a conspiracy theorist, and you also need them to establish the notability of his pedophilia accusations. Per BLP, you haven't provided good enough sources for either. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, regrettably, BLP does not apply to material about Litvinenko, so it's irrelevant to the discussion about whether he should go in the "conspiracy theorist" category. That's not to say that he should be in that category (personally, my immediate reaction is that the category should probably be deleted or renamed, on the grounds that the term has acquired a connotation beyond its literal meaning). --Trovatore (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You still need a cite for "conspiracy theorist" -not just an WP editor's opinion or WP:OR. Putin is still alive, and calling someone a pedo is a serious charge. <<-armon->> (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, BLP applies to Putin, even regarding material in articles not primarily about Putin. But I think the "conspiracy theorist" category is innately flawed; we should probably just get rid of it. I'll consider filing a CFD. --Trovatore (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Armon, how many times do I have to tell you that The Times article I linked to described Litvinenko as a conspiracy theorist? Therefore the claim is cited. Amaliq (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Times is a reliable source, regardless of your opinion. And it was Litvinenko who published articles claiming that Putin molested underage boys; of course it's notable as his (unsupported) claims have been repeated in media around the globe!. Amaliq (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I went looking at category:conspiracy theorists and related categories, such as category:pseudoscientists, to see about filing a CfD. Frankly I think the whole lot of them should be deleted on the grounds that they are disparaging terms without sufficiently clear inclusion criteria (or worse, one wonders if it's not an implied criterion amounting to "any scientist who rejects ontological materialism"), thus making the application of such a category almost inherently POV. But judging from previous CfD's it doesn't look like I'm going to win that argument at the current time.

But I did notice an interesting point related to the current debate. The text at category:conspiracy theorists says that the only articles to be included are for advocates of one of the conspiracy theories in category:conspiracy theories. If there's an article there for Putin-likes-little-boys-ism I didn't see it. Or even for Putin-was-involved-in-the-Aldo-Moro-assassination-ism, or whatever Batten's theory was, can't quite remember it now. --Trovatore (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I have added the Russian apartment bombings page to category:conspiracy theories, since much of the text is describes the conspiracy theories about who did it.

I don't see what the problem with the category is, a conspiracy is a very straightforward concept; there have been many real conspiracies throughout history as well as many false theories about ones that did not take place. Whether the theory that Russia perpetrated the apartment bombings is true or not, the theory relies on a conspiracy taking place hence it must, by definition, be a conspiracy theory. Amaliq (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually you've put your finger on exactly what the problem with the category is. There are, as you say, both real and unreal conspiracies, and people who make assertions about them. But that isn't what "conspiracy theorist" means in current discourse. "Conspiracy theorist" carries with it an unmistakable connotation of "wacko", as witness the fact that category:conspiracy theorists is a subcat of category:pseudoscientists. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "conspiracy theory" may have negative connotations among some people, but by no means is this connotation universal or part of the word's official definition. In fact, the meaning of "conspiracy" is so clear and so well-defined that in many countries it is illegal to "conspire" to commit certain acts. Surely if the meaning were so ambiguous "conspiracy" would not be used a legal term? Amaliq (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Amaliq, you're just not facing facts here. Are you a native English speaker? "Conspiracy theorist" definitely has a negative connotation; there is simply no way around it. If you tried to add Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein to the category (two reporters who helped uncover a real conspiracy) it would absolutely not be tolerated. --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am a native speaker of English (not that it should matter) and I just checked the two definitions of "conspiracy theory" on dictionary.com and neither were negative, merely descriptive of what such a theory entails, definitions which are consistent with my positition. Wikipedia is only concerned with the official and actual use of the English language, not slang, colloquial or regional usage or vague, emotive connotations. Believe it or not, moral values are very different over the globe and just as some people may find "conspiracy theory" to be an inherently negative term, many people believe conspiracy theories and may find the term a positive description of what they believe in.

And the Bernstein-Woodward analogy is inappropriate because Watergate was a single, well-proven conspiracy and Woodward and Bernstein had long prior and succeeding careers journalists, rather than spending all their time inventing and publicising conspiracies. Litvinenko spent his time defaming Vladimir Putin and claiming that many conspiracies were going on in Russia; it was his primary occupation so he should go in the conspiracy theorist category.

If you want to get rid of the category, by all means go ahead but so it at the appropriate venue - the category:Conspiracy theorists page. Don't do it here, it is just disruptive and irrelevant to the content dispute, See WP:POINT. Amaliq (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't matter whether you're a native speaker; it's just that if you weren't, your error would be understandable. And of course I'm not going to try to get rid of the category on this talk page -- there's not even a mechanism for that. But "conspiracy theorist" is a disparaging term whether it says so in the dictionaries or not, and I think you know that, and in fact I think that's how you want to use it--that's why you talk about "inventing" conspiracies and "defaming" Putin.

Now the sense in which you want to use it may in fact be accurate; just because Putin is, I think, a very bad man who deserves to have bad things said about him, doesn't make all these improbable-seeming things true. But it's clear that, despite your protestations, you don't intend the phrase in any sense that could describe someone who comes to the conclusion that a conspiracy is underway based on genuine best evidence. That makes it, I think, inherently POV, or at the very least something that requires more evidence than one newspaper article using the term. --Trovatore (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Trovatore. This article simply does not fit in the category. As about Times article, this source is terribly outdated. It has been published before the murder of Litvinenko. This source tells exactly the following:

President Putin has dismissed the allegation that the bombings were organised by the FSB, under his own command, as "delirious nonsense". But the FSB was annoyed enough about Mr Litvinenko's book, "The FSB Blows Up Russia," to seize a shipment of 4,400 of them in Moscow at the end of 2003 in what it called an effort to protect state secrets.

It was hair-raising stuff, at least in principle. But in practice, outside the overheated rooms where the kind of people gather who have lived in Russia and come to take KGB horror stories seriously (including, I have to admit, me), it never really gained a foothold in the British popular imagination. It was just too exotic for anyone from the comparatively gentle streets of London. Perhaps partly because the FSB has omitted to take a poisoned umbrella to Mr Litvinenko, his revelations have turned out to be a bit of a damp squib.

Now they did kill him. Yuri Felshtinsky once said that now after Litvineko murder, everyone believes all his accusations were true. So, let's describe current situation.Biophys (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This is absolute poppycock. The idea that everyone believes his accusations since his death is ludicrous! And the fact that you are asserting an unproven allegation as fact indicates that you are too biased to be trusted editing this page. Amaliq (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I only told that your source is obviously and grossly outdated. You need more recent and better sources to justfy this. That was said by Yuri Felshtinsky (not by me), and his sourced view can be included here as such.Biophys (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, let me clarify -- I still don't think Prodi was a KGB tool (that's what Batten's theory was -- had to refresh my memory on that), and I kind of doubt Putin is a child molester (as much as I dislike him politically). Some of what Litvinenko said was a little out there, and he didn't have much evidence. My objection is more to the category in general, and shouldn't be taken as supporting all of Litvinenko claimed (or that it has been reported that he claimed -- I still haven't seen any direct documentation that Litvinenko even made the claim about Prodi; the closest thing I've seen is that Panorama claims to hold such documentation). --Trovatore (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also a source is a source is a source regardless. It's only outdated if the allegations have been proven, which they clearly haven't. The death of Litvinenko is weak, circumstantial evidence at best. Amaliq (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that consensus here is not to consider this as a "conspiracy theory" and so on.Biophys (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, let me be a little careful here. I'm not saying Litvinenko was not a conspiracy theorist in the disparaging usage of the term. The contrapositive of the common saying is, "just because they're out to get you doesn't mean you're not paranoid".

What I am saying is that that characterization is not neutral, and that it seems a bit disingenuous of Amaliq to assert otherwise. So I suppose I would be for removing that category from the article (and as I said, really, for deleting the category altogether, because I don't see how objective criteria for applying it can really be developed and enforced). --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Biophys (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, let me be even more careful than Trovatore: this category should stay with the article until deleted by CFD. While I am totally ready to believe that FSB masterminded the explosions on 9. and 13. september 1999, it is still clear that by any standard this is a conspiracy theory, not unlike theories surrounding another event at 11. september two years later. --Magabund (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are telling here is your personal opinion. But everything should be based on sources. I would argue that FSB involvement in the bombing is a majority view - based on sources. The involvement of FSB has been described in several books published by David Satter, Alexander Litvinenko, Yuri Felshtinsky, Alex Goldfarb, Vladimir Pribylovsky and numerous TV interviews and articles. Hence there are multiple reliable primary and secondary sources claiming the involvemnt of FSB to be true. But I would like to see an equally impressive list of reliable English language sources (so a reader can check) that claim the opposite. There are no such in my knowledge. I found only a couple of Russian sources where the governmental position has been described in sufficient detail.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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. [18] [19]--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 [20] [21]. 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: [22],[23],[24]. 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" [25]. 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 [26]!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)