Talk:Alexander Litvinenko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	To-do list for Alexander Litvinenko:	edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do: Expand: Include information from, and properly cite, "Who did it? Five theories of Litvinenko's demise"

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alexander Litvinenko article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Alexander Litvinenko was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 28 January 2007

Alexander Litvinenko was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-01-12

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

Alexander Litvinenko is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 Old archives 2 Page move 3 Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, and Hakamada 4 Poisoning section 5 Muslim 6 Al-Qaeda links? 7 "Current Event" 8 Islam 9 GA stuff 10 Litvinenko and FSB article 11 Luguvoy has never been a FSB officer 12 Photo 13 GA on hold 14 Why I made this link to Stomakhin 15 Attention! Stomakhin's case 16 Late Development Section 17 Good Article status 18 Shooting target video 19 Date of birth? 20 Litvinenko books

[edit] Old archives

Archives 1 2

See also: Talk:Alexander Litvinenko poisoning

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Late Development Section

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)