Talk:Alexander Litvinenko

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alexander Litvinenko article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
To-do list for Alexander Litvinenko: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
Alexander Litvinenko was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: January 28, 2007
Alexander Litvinenko was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: January 12, 2007
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]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Alexander Litvinenko is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

Contents

[edit] Old archives

Archive
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)

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)

[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] 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)

ilgiz 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to the articles.

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).

  • 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)

[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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is it different than all his other claims? All of his claims are about bad things that Putin is involved with. Again, people don't publish mere "insults", what a ridiculous claim. It's not like he just made a comment to a reporter or something, he wrote an entire detailed article on it. Krawndawg (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's different because all his other allegations are about crimes commited by the FSB, and unless he had alleged that the FSB kidnapped young boys from the philipines, Putin's sexuality is not critcism of the FSB. He wrote a _short_ article on it thats all. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

I think that is a decisiove argument by Pietervhuis. The sexual oientation of Putin does not belong to the introduction.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
You only think it's a decisive argument because you don't want any information in the intro that might discredit him. It's a major claim, and as such, belongs in the intro with the rest of his claims. He wrote an article on it, it wasn't a "joke" or an "insult". This has nothing to do with Putins sexuality or whether or not its true, it has to do with a claim he made that got lots of attention. There's a section devoted to it. Krawndawg (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And you only want to add information in the intro to discredit him. It got lots of attention? That's new to me. I've seen a few biographies and documentaries about him and it was never quoted. You don't know if it wasn't an insult, you're just guessing, but it seems obvious to me, and the average reader, that Litvinenko doesn't seriously believe Putin is a serial rapist and serial killer like Chikatilo. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I want to add the information because it's completely relevant and paints a full picture of the type of claims he made. If his own words discredit him, then so be it, that's not up to us to decide, he's the one who wrote them. If it was a joke, he would have said "haha, just kidding", and perhaps apologized to the President. Did that happen? Again, your assertions of it not being serious are unfounded and flat out ridiculous. Krawndawg (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It's completely IRrelevant. Litvinenko is known for the criticism of the FSB and the Russian government, not for his comments on peoples sexuality. As such those comments are only details and don't belong in the introduction. You're wondering why he never commented about it later on? Well maybe because a few months after those comments he was murdered. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The argument by Pietervhuis is pretty much neutral. Let's remove it from introduction. This claim is not especially notable or relevant.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, lets not. The claim is one of his more well known ones. Just look at how many google hits it gets. Pietervhuis is not neutral by any means, just like you're not, and you don't have consensus to remove this relevant information which has been restored by multiple people time and time again. Krawndawg (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Time[27] CBC[28] NBC[29] Daily Mail[30] The Guardian[31] The Rolling Stone[32] etc..This is a well known, relevant claim. Krawndawg (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't agree with you either. You, and others trying to add the phrase, aren't less neutral than me on this subject. The links you're providing pretty much back up my arguments, because none of the biographies have the sex claims in their introduction. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the claim is well sourced, but as Pietervhuis pointed out, this is of very minor significance, compare to other claims. If to look through Litvinenko books, he tells, for example, that Putin (when he was FSB boss) and others have been providing a protection for drug trafficers from Afganistan (which is also much less important than blowing up the Moscow buildings), but he did not write anything about Putin's pedophilia there. Thus, it does not belong to the Introduction. I personally do not care much, but Pietervhuis is right.Biophys (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Reference to Beslan

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

Well, I made a quick follow-up and found this [33]. Should we use it? Those are allegedly statements by Russian officials.Biophys (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

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

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

Exactly. Furthermore, point out in the article where they mention that the incident made suspicions of paedophilia, they don't.--Miyokan (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please relax. If we are going to be so confrontational, someone will create an article Accusations of Putin of paedophilia and who knows what else. Do you want that? I do not.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Confrontational? Would you rather we just revert without discussing or explaining our reasoning? Krawndawg (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I did no mean the reasoning above (the statement above has been removed any way). I mean the attitude. Let's be more forthcoming. Your most recent edits were reasonable I think.Biophys (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

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

So why did you remove his accusation of Prodi being a friend of the KGB? It's a direct quote from a BBC article. Krawndawg (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
This BBC article does not provides any detail. What exactly Litvinenko said about Prodi? What accusations? Why? This BBC article tells nothing about that. But according to other sources, Litvinenko knew nothing about Prodi except something that Trofimov said. Therefore, claim that you inserted is not right with regard to both Prodi and Litvinenko. If Litvinenko said something more concrete about Prodi, please explain what it is per sources.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if it provides detail, there is no policy that says a credible source must provide X amount of detail for it to be inserted into an article. BBC said something of significance and published it, and that's all that matters. What other sources say is irrelevant, because the BBC is the one who claims to have dug up these "top secret files". WP:V says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Krawndawg (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding his "warning" to Anna, I changed it to make clear that he "claimed" to have warned her. The video isn't of him warning her prior to her death, it's of him saying he warned her, after she was killed. There's a big difference between predicting and claiming to have predicted. Krawndawg (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your second comment. As about the first, our goal is to provide an objective picture after studing/using a variety of sources. Blind citation of a single source does not serve WP:NPOV.Biophys (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your latest edit. All sourced relevant info kept intact. Goldfarb's crusade against Putin is irrelevant. And Zharkov mentions Litvinenko by name, which is evident if you click on linky and actually read the source. RJ CG (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I included the statement by Zharkov. I cited statements about alleged Litvinenko involvement with MI6, not about Putin. If an author of this statement is trying to connect the MI6/Litvinenko allegations with Putin - this is not my fault.Biophys (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
If this line of arguments continues, we will be looking at a separate article Russian propaganda campaign against Alexander Litvinenko.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Once you prove to community it's notability, go with it. While you are working with it, could you also compile "Berezovsky's propaganda campaign against Russian government"? BTW, draft name for your article borders on racism, as in "distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin", so you would need to change it. Thank you in advance, RJ CG (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please review my edits. I had been extremely careful to keep fact that both Mrs. Litvinenko and Mr. Goldfarb deny MI6's involvement in the article. I see no point to include whole hate-filled diatribes here. If you are so desperate to broadcast Mr. Goldfarb's views, 1st sentence of his statement could be there (although it does not add anything to content I posted). RJ CG (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you simply deleted two perfectly sourced and relevant views (by Litvinenko wife and his co-author Goldfarb) for the third time today, while I included your text about Zharkov and tried to develop it further.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint you, but you reverted my edits 4 times during last 24 hours. Although you can always pin your hopes on political biases of admins... Sometimes it even works... RJ CG (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Any diffs showing that I reverted you four times? I did not. To the contrary, I was looking for a compromise. I believe these M6 allegations should be excluded all together as unreliable. But since you insisted, I ageed to include them, but then we must fairly represent all sourced views on this subject. I agreed to include all absurd accusations by your sources (including that Litvinenko was going to kill Putin, not vice versa), but you repeatedly deleted views by Litvinenko wife and Goldfarb. Biophys (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

In the mean time, please refrain from removing single claims that don't coincide with your personal bias on what should or should not be mentioned in the intro. Krawndawg (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And you please don't try to sneekingly insert them. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually it wasn't me who reinserted it in the first place. Maybe you should take a hint. This article has seen enough edit warring. Krawndawg (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You said "enough edit warring". So that is why you just undid the change by Pietervhuis that we have previously discussed and decided to make?Biophys (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Because he was the one making an edit without consensus, on top of the fact that no one has given a legit reason to remove it. Krawndawg (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I agreed with Pietervhuis above that alleged Putin's pedophilia should be removed from introduction as not relevant there (all legit reasons have been provided). That is what I mean.Biophys (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
And you've been disagreed with, not just by me. You have not provided a legit reason to remove it either. A widely known claim a person made, has its own section devoted to it, well sourced, belongs in intro. Your opinion that it's irrelevant is irrelevant, because the facts speak for themselves. But this has already been argued which means I'm wasting my time arguing with you, yet again. Krawndawg (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Just like you've been disagreed with by us. This article isn't yours. We've already explained why it doesn't belong in the lead. If you're tired of arguing then don't, but then don't revert edits or insert controversial stuff either. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
You haven't explained a thing. All you two have said is "It's irrelevant". Well I'm sorry, but that's not a legit argument at all. If it were irrelevant it wouldn't be found in such a large amount of news articles and it wouldn't get tens of thousands of google hits. By that logic I could just delete the whole Illness and poisoning section because it's "irrelevant". This isn't a matter of inserting "controversial" stuff. It's sourced factual information with its own section devoted to it. Just because you don't like something doesn't give you the right to delete it from an article. Krawndawg (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes so everything I said came down to "It's irrelevant". I see you've drawn a conclusion by not addressing my arguments at all! - PietervHuis (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I forgot the "It discredits his other claims" argument. Krawndawg (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually that was Miyokan's argument. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Russiablog

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

[edit] Claims of Russia-Al Qaeda connections

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

It was not me who inserted accusations about Russia-Al Qaeda connections. It was you and RJ_CG. I only did formatting here.Biophys (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Litvinenko accused the FSB of being involved in the London bombings. In a completely unrelated event, Al-qaeda claimed responsibility for the bombings. No where at any point did Litvinenko imply that the Al-qaeda members who claimed responsibility for the attacks were tied to the FSB agents. He didn't mention Al-qaeda at all in regards to the London bombings. You're trying to tie these two things together, that's blatant skewing of factual information and absolutely deceitful.
They are two completely separate claims, therefor deserve their own sections. His mention of Al-Zawahiri and alleged connections to al-qaeda are fine where they are in their current section. Making another section based on the same thing is redundant. It's also deceitful by implying that Litvinenko made a connection between KGB and Al-qaeda regarding the London bombings, which he didn't.
And chechenpress is not an unreliable source. Are you claiming they made the whole interview up? Krawndawg (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I may agree that Chechenpress article is a reliable source. But I did not make anything redundant. I did not add anything. I combined two pieces together because they are both about FSB-Al Qaeda connection, according to Litvinenko. Should we bring this FSB-Al Qaeda thing to WP:Dispute resolution? Biophys (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again, they are two completely separate, unrelated claims therefor They deserve their own sections. Go right ahead and bring it up there if you wish. Krawndawg (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
In the both statements Litvinenko accuses FSB of connections with Islamic terrorists - Al Qaeda.Biophys (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

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

DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE COPY PASTED:

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

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

You just changed it again! I am seriously on the verge of reporting you this is absolutely ridiculous.Krawndawg (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I just removed this Russia-Al qaeda connection, since you disputed this. I think that was right connection (Litvinenko suggested that FSB might be responsible for the bombings, and Al-qaeda claimed responsibility). But I am looking for a compromise here, as everyone can see from edit history. And I will be looking for a compromise as long as it takes.Biophys (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You changed his response. You changed what he said word for word with your own little biased "version". Please explain why I have to repeat myself two or three times to you all the time? Is there a reason or are you just a troll? There is nothing to compromise. We insert all relevant, factual information. Removing sourced information isn't "compromising", its censoring. Changing someones response to a question beyond recognition is not "compromising", it's LYING.Krawndawg (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
O'K, then let's restore eveything as it was.Biophys (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean delete relevant sourced information for no reason at all? No. Here's a better idea, stop lying and stop making deceitful edits. Krawndawg (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Please look at my last attempt to find a compromise. I now included each claim in a separate section, just as you requested.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You changed his response a third time. This is the third time you've tried to insert a lie into the article. Revert yourself please. Krawndawg (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
What lies? Take it easy, you're on fire. A fact is he often linked the FSB with Al-Qaeda, and when he claims an Al-Qaeda attack is linked to the FSB this may be noted. Him linking Al-Zawahiri for example, who took responsibility for the bombings - - PietervHuis (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Claim about Russian services using terrorism

Resolved. Let's move on to more important issues. --Mww113 (talk) (Report a mistake!) 01:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Right. I do not understand what is the problem with current version. He asked not to combine two presumably unrelated claims, and they are placed in separate sections. There is no any wrong citation in present version.Biophys (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
There is the fact that you continually delete his actual quotes for some unknown reason, and replace them with an unneeded commentary. Let him speak for himself in this article. Maybe we're trying to cram too much info into one page. Perhaps we need a List of Litvinenko's conspiracies article. Krawndawg (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, please leave his quotes alone. Let him speak for himself. Yes, saying that the Russian special services are the only organization that uses terrorism to solve political problems is an extremely ignorant thing to say, and yes, that is very important to show everyone regardless of whether or not you like it. Krawndawg (talk) 21:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It has already been agreed upon to keep the London bombings in their own section, as they are a completely separate claim from his others. Further, he never even mentions Al-qaeda connections along with his London bombing accusations at all. There is no connection whatsoever, except for the connections you draw yourself ie. original research.
Please stop taking such hostility with your edits. See: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Do not make edits to "get back at me" as your edit summary comment implied. This isn't some war, so please enough of the attitude. This is not about you, this is about keeping readers as well informed as possible on every angle, whether it be on Litvininkos side or against. Trying to hide important information by removing their sections is dishonest, as is removing questionable quotes just because you don't like them.Krawndawg (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice if you actually contributed to this discussion, too. Can you justify your constant removal of an important quote? Can you justify merging two sections that are not directly related? You yourself split the sections up a few days ago, why the change of heart, if not simply an act of trolling?Krawndawg (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Once again trying to remove the same quote? What is your deal man? You still haven't even responded here, yet you continue to push the same issue with no explanation. The quote is important, therefore it stays. There is no valid reason to remove it. If we want to start deleting things because they're "speculation" we'd have to get rid of half this entire article. Heck if you really want, bring it up at dispute resolutions if you really think it doesn't belong and it's that important to you. Don't just delete important, sourced information though. Krawndawg (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
This claim in pure speculation. He did not tell anything specific and provided no detail. Obviously, he did not know anything. Such speculations are not encyclopedic comtent and should be removed from WP articles. Actually, this claim should be removed completely. I tried to find a compromise and included partial citation.Biophys (talk) 23:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not pure speculation, it's a claim and a direct quote. He's a former secret service agent saying that the Russian secret services are the only ones who use terrorism to solve political problems. That's an outrageous claim that puts the rest of his claims into perspective. The quote needs to stay, it's important. I'll repeat myself, if you honestly believe that keeping the quote breaks wiki policy, get a third opinion on the matter. If you're not willing to do so, I'm not going to allow sourced information to be removed just because you don't like it. Krawndawg (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
With regard to you last comment. No, that is not important for me personally. But WP is not a place for garbage. Not every sourced information belongs to WP, please read what WP is not. This is a non-notable and unsupported by any evidence claim (I mean the claim that Russian secret services organized London bombings).Biophys (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not important for you personally, yet you just can't stand for that one little quote to be left alone? Sounds more like you just don't want a discrediting quote on his page because it might make people rethink the validity of his others. The quote is very notable, it's an outrageous claim. I'm going to get a third opinion myself. Krawndawg (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

I just looked at the text concerning the bombings. It should be noted that Litvinenko's words were before Al-Qaeda had claimed responsibility for the attacks. But your (Krawndawg) version insists that he claimed that he believed the FSB was directly involved in the bombing. It's not a statement he has ever elaborated on, and there's a possibility that he was actually hinting at FSB / Al-Qaeda ties since he more often made such statements. More-over, citations like this is not something he can elaborate on since a year later he was murdered. As such, I agree that if the text stays other information or possibilities may be further explained, like adding how it's not something he could elaborate on and the possibility that he meant FSB / Al-Qaeda ties. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
You have added nothing of value to this argument. It doesn't matter what you think he might have been "hinting" at, that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Your personal speculation is of no importance. He made a quote, the quote is notable, therefor it should stay. You can take his quote however you want, but keep it to yourself, don't try to push your POV into the article. Al-qaeda claimed responsibility OVER A YEAR before he got poisoned. He had an entire year to backtrack his comments and explain himself. You're insisting that we start ruining this article with original research speculation? No..how about we just post the facts as they are, straight from their sources. Krawndawg (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It does matter what I think because this page isn't yours, but ours. A year? Is there some sort of timelimit? The man didn't know he was going to get murdered. Are you desperately trying to find quotes shortly before his death to try and discredit him and his work because you have a personal grudge with him? Maybe Litvinenko already believe Al-Qaeda was co-oporating? Impossible! Because according to your interpretation he actually believed FSB agents planted the bomb right? You're guessing just as much as us. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Another important fact is that the interview in which he alleged the Al-Zawahiri connection and the interview in which he alleged the FSB - London bombings were from the same month. In fact, he repated these claims in the same exact interview with FAKT, so I'll adjust it because in that interview he did link Al-Qaeda to the bombings. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
And in regard to the latest edit to post the full quote, that's fine with me. I just shortened it because I didn't think the rest was relevant since it's not directly about the London bombings. But that's fine. Krawndawg (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

The dispute about the quote only involved two people when I made the request. And of course you don't agree with wikipedia policy. It's abundantly clear that you don't respect the policies here by looking at how often you've been warned on your talk page. Krawndawg (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
So have you, only he doesn't delete those warnings. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Berezovsky

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

Isn't that all what Litvinenko wanted to do too? From who he received money isn't very relevant unless it's Saudi Arabia - PietervHuis (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Litvinenko didn't vow to "take the government by force", which may or may not include disinformation. That's why it's relevant to connect the dots here. Krawndawg (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whitehaven?

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