Talk:Boris Stomakhin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Russia Portal

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale.

Archives
/Archive 1 /Archive 2

[edit] Quote "Utro"

Another potentially unreliable source I want to ask about is Russian newspaper "Utro" that includes an unsigned but dated article (this is not an editorial article). This article allege that Stomakhin helped materially Chechen terrorists who took hostages, based on information provided by FSB. That would be a charge in terrorism rather than hate speech. However, this charge (obviously fabricated by FSB) was not brought to the court and was not supported or even mentioned by any other sources.Biophys 21:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it wasn't brought to the court? The case may be still under the investigation. Please present reliable source stating your opinion there.Vlad fedorov

I think a claim that someone is terrorist (although the person was never even charged of this terrible crime in the court) is an "exceptional claim". The rules say that "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple credible and verifiable sources, especially with regard to historical events, politically-charged issues, and biographies of living people." Biophys 01:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please present reliable source claimg Stomakhin is terrorist. Utro doesn't claims that Stomakhin is terrorist.Vlad fedorov 04:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The current version of this article you just reverted says: Utro alleged that during the Moscow theater hostage crisis, terrorists had "contacted with activists of Revolutionary Contact Association" and they "may be involved in supplying terrorists with ammunition and its storing at Moscow". Indeed, the article in Utro says just that. But there is no sense to discuss anything until we resolve the previous question about RKO web site and citation of RKO site by Sokolov.Biophys 04:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why have you started this Section?Vlad fedorov 04:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You have claimed that the only thing you dispute in the article is 'Death to Russia'. Why have you lied then?Vlad fedorov 08:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may offer a third opinion, Utro does not seem to be a reliable source for anything. (This is my impression from looking at their website.) If there is something serious to the allegation, it should have been reported elsewhere (outside of the yellow press). If not, we should not repeat it in the article. —xyzzy_n 13:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Just tell us why Utro doesn't seem to be a reliable source for anything, because I may label anything I don't like personally unreliable. The 'yellow press' is as liable for their statements as common press. See the UK news on 'The Mirror' and the likes. It is mass media. There is no any specific status for yellow press in Wikipedia policies. Moreover, yellow press sometimes does prominent job by uncovering hidden matters such as Doctor Kelly's death connected with Iraq Dossier. So far except your general label 'yellow press', I see nothing else. Vlad fedorov 14:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper Utro.ru is officially registered mass media in Russian Federation. Here is relevant official information which tells that Utro.ru is officially registered mass media in Russian Federation. Utro newspaper was published since 1999. Об издании: "Утро", свидетельство о регистрации СМИ Эл №ФС 77-23513 от 28.02.2006 Зарегистрировано в Федеральной службе по надзору за соблюдением законодательства в сфере массовых коммуникаций и охране культурного наследия. Учредитель: ООО "Медиа Мир". Генеральный директор: Михаил Гуревич Тематика: экономическая, общественно-политическая. Редакция газеты начала работу 17 августа 1999 года. В середине сентября стали выходить пилотные номера, 28 сентября вышел первый номер.http://www.utro.ru/about.shtml Vlad fedorov 14:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Liability has never stopped anybody. ‘Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false.’ (WP:BLP) My impression is that the site is not as reliable as e. g. nytimes.com, but that’s really just an impression—if there is consensus to the opposite, I’ll accept it. —xyzzy_n 22:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we expected to judge by your impression? Of course you have cited NY Times as reliable, but can't you remember that journalist of NY Times during Second Iraq War was caught for writing material on Iraq sitting in US? All newspapers are equal and should be presumed good faith. Could you prove that facts published by Utro are false or at least contradict to some other sources? Just for your personal information, newspaper Utro.ru is cited in English Wikipedia articles on History of Nagorno-Karabakh, Beslan school hostage crisis, Zulfiya Zabirova, Timeline of the Beslan school hostage crisis, I do not mention referencing to Utro.ru in Russian Wikipedia which tells there are 43 references to Utro.ru. I think its pretty well for a reliable source. Vlad fedorov 05:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SOVA Centre citations

Vlad has added two(?) citations of content on the SOVA Centre website, sova-center.ru. However, according to the cited pages, both are copied from other websites. The ‘sentence’ document is from http://www.hro.org/editions/freedom/2006/11/28.php; hro.org seems to be against the verdict against Stomakhin but not really in favour of his work (which is an improvement from the previous source for the document). The ‘conviction’ (indictment?) document is from http://zaborisa.marsho.net/?pg=7&item=26, which does not seem reliable. I suggest using the hro.org page as citation for the sentence (if only because the quotes and dashes work in my browser, as opposed to the SOVA page) and either finding an independent source for the indictment document or not using it as a source. —xyzzy_n 13:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no any information on SOVA centre that the texts of Sentence and Conviction (Indictment) were taken form somewhere. The additional links below the texts are not described as links to the original documents. It is also probably that other websites just took them. However, if Biophys would delete all other materials taken by him from zaborisa.narod.ru, I agree do delete Conviction (Indictment) since all the material in it is covered by the Court sentence.Vlad fedorov 15:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sentence: ‘Текст не является официальной публикацией и воспроизводится по материалам сайта ╚Права человека в России╩.’ Indictment: ‘Документ воспроизводится по материалам сайта "Борис Стомахин должн быть свободен".’ —xyzzy_n 21:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

:::Agreed. Changed source to Hro.org.Vlad fedorov 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/ citation

So, there are other sources with the court sentence cited by zaborisa.narod.ru. Same thing with a majority (although not all) articles in zaborisa.narod.ru. I would not be too suspicious about this site. Anything from there can be included if (and only if) there is a link to another good primary source that provides original text of the article. That would make our life easier. Biophys 16:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly against. The letter claimed to be signed by Bukovsky and letter by Litvinenko are published only at zaborisa.narod.ru and Chechenpress.net, the latter being the website of Chechen terrorists (separatists) known for its disinformation strategies like Kavkazcenter.org. These sources are not objective ones.Vlad fedorov 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Which other sources have the sentence and have not copied it from this site? Even if a source that is generally reliable copies material from an unreliable source without editing, this does not render the unreliable material reliable. —xyzzy_n 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about [1] and [2]. Are they not good? Do you suggest to remove the text of the court sentence? I really do not understand anymore which sources are appropriate and which are not. Do you want me to replace all "zaborisa" references by other references? Just tell, and I would try to follow your advice. Biophys 21:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you then remove himself everything that is poorly sourced from the article? Then, we would see if something can be restored back supported by alternative good references. Biophys 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The hro.org source seems to be an independent transcript/copy of the sentence, so we can cite it. I do not know whether similar independent sources can be found for other material from the narod.ru site. I do think that material on narod.ru (a free web hosting site without any editorial oversight) and marsho.net (an extremist website) should not be cited except maybe to reference Stomakhin’s own writings on marsho.net, if there is consensus that this is possible (and necessary). —xyzzy_n 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

::: The material which comes from zaborisa.narod.ru and which is dubious is:
*Letter by Bukovsky
*Statement by Litvinenko
*Letter by Bonner
I suggest deletion of that material.
Vlad fedorov 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So far, there is no consensus about anything. I would agree with the following: do not cite narod.ru and RKO sites (which also excludes direct citation in Sokolov' article that came from RKO site). If Vlad agrees, we can move forward and make changes accordingly. Biophys 22:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

::::There is consensus between me User:Vlad fedorov and User:xyzzy_n that 
material coming   from zaborisa.narod.ru is unreliable and should be deleted.
Vlad fedorov 08:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to keep citations from Izvestia article by Maksim Sokolv, and citation from rko.marsho.net. As for zaborisa.narod.ru and zaborisa.marsho.net, it is clear that they have been made after Stomakhin arrest and they pursue only one aim - disinformation in order to lure support for Stomakhin.Vlad fedorov 04:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of LP policy

Vlad demands an explanation why I am reverting his changes. Here it is. I think he violates LP and other Wikipedia policies simultaneously at three levels.

1. Unreliable sources. The citation in Sokolov's paper comes from RKO site, which is unreliable source because it has no editorial oversight, it is a private site run by a small group of people, and the articles are not even dated (worse than blog where all correspondence is usually dated).

2. Some sources are not neutral. Vlad and Alex Bakharev claimed that Izvestia is a "neutral respectable newspaper". But it is not. This newspaper is governmental property. It was purchased by state-owned Gazprom, see Izvestia. The article by Maksim Sokolov is obviously a defamation, because Sokolov compares Stomakhin with Adolf Hitler and says that Stomakhin is worse than Adolf Hitler. Same thing with the unsigned article by Utro, which is a newspaper of Russian nationalists. As I said, terrorism is an exceptional claim that must be supported by multiple sources. Citing "Utro" and Maksim Sokolov may be compared with citing someone like Joseph Goebbels (I said: "Goebbels" because Sokolov compared Stomakhin with Hitler). But citing ARTICLE 19 or Vladimir Bukovsky is something very different and appropriate for this case. The proceeding of Kangaroo court in Moscow is also not a neutral source.

3. Non-encyclopedic style. "Kill, kill, kill!" is not for Wikipedia. Many groups or people advocate war, including even American neoconservatives. Their views can be easily described (and actually described in Wikipedia) in general words, without any propaganda or defamation.

I compromised on almost everything here. We included allegations by "Utro" (now I can see - that was wrong). We included allegations by court. We included allegations by Maksim Sokolov. My last version was like that:

Sokolov "cited a text allegedly written by Boris Stomakhin, which claimed that "Russian Federation must be destroyed" using all available violent means including nuclear weapons, because all Russians are collectively responsible for actions of their state with respect to Chechen people.'

What else do you want? User:Jkelly also found that Vlad violates LP policies,even without looking at the original Russian texts and blocked temporarily his access to this article, which was evaded by Vlad. Therefore, I have no other choice but to continue reverting his changes violating LP policy. Biophys 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

End of comment-----------

Resume. Biophys failed to show that citations from Izvestia article by Maksim Sokolov and 
citations of Boris Stomakhin articles from Revolutionary Contact Association website contradict.  
Therefore both sources are reliable.Vlad fedorov 08:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read my text above. This is not about any contradictions.Biophys 13:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

All the arguments of Biophys above do not concern defamation or contradiction, and concern subjective issues such as "unreliable", "unencyclopedic", "neutrality". Given Biophys history of contributions we could see that Biophys had created such contributions as Putin in the article 'Phallus', blog La Russophobe. It is very naive to give Biophys any credibility for his judgement on "neutrality". All these problems - "unreliable", "unencyclopedic", "neutrality" - could be eliminated by presenting other POVs, refining wording in the article. As for reliability, statements from NGO and human rights activists indict Russian Government of violation of human rights and do not contain any evidence or details, no addresses, no witnesses, no specific events. These materials are also defamatory, since all these organizations have access to European Human Rights Court, to any court at Russian Federation to brought their charges, but they do not brought them, firing bla-bla-bla at Russian Federation instead. Moreover, I have shown by comparing to other sources that statement of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews contains facts (Stomakhin was pushed from the window)that directly contradict to the interview of Stomakhin attorney and numerous press articles. Therefore they lie. But nevertheless I kept their statements.Vlad fedorov 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to respond, please do no break this text to parts. Biophys 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

*Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by 
Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually. 
*Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the
 phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia. 
*Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable 
(RKO website). 
*one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that 
cited by Journalist. 
*Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court 
sentence and conviction. 
*Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we 
discuss only Izvestia article.Vlad fedorov 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

2. The sources are not neutral. Vlad and Alex Bakharev claimed that Izvestia is a "neutral respectable newspaper". But it is not. This newspaper is governmental property. It was purchased by state-owned Gazprom, see Izvestia. The article by Maksim Sokolov is obviously a defamation, because Sokolov compares Stomakhin with Adolf Hitler and says that Stomakhin is worse than Adolf Hitler. Same thing with the unsigned article by Utro, which is a newspaper of Russian nationalists. As I said, terrorism is an exceptional claim that must be supported by multiple sources. Citing "Utro" and Maksim Sokolov may be compared with citing someone like Joseph Goebbels (I said: "Goebbels" because Sokolov compared Stomakhin with Hitler). But citing ARTICLE 19 or Vladimir Bukovsky is something very different and appropriate for this case. The proceeding of Kangaroo court in Moscow is also not a neutral source.

Neutrality is eliminated by presenting other POV, which is done prominently. You consider it is encyclopedic to believe in all your guesses and conspiracy theories? Why you censor journalist and Izvestia article? Journalist can't have his own opinion? By the way, I do not cite his comparison with Mein Campf in the Wiki article, therefore discourse above is senseless.Vlad fedorov 04:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

*Sources which aquit Stomakhin can't be called neutral too, since statements from NGO and activists 
who supported Stomakhin turned out to be false. For example Statement by Jewish Union that Stomakhin  
was pushed from the window.
*Of course judging if the source is neutral should be exclusive comepetnce of Biophys and no one 
else.
*Not-neutral sources are balanced by presenting other POV. It is Wikipedia.
Vlad fedorov 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

3. Non-encyclopedic style. "Kill, kill, kill!" is not for Wikipedia. Many groups or people advocate war, including even American neoconservatives. Their views can be easily described (and actually described in Wikipedia) in general words, without any propaganda or defamation.

*I would also describe false statements of Stomakhin supporters as defamatory, since they convict 
innocent people of 'pushing Stomakhin form window'.
Vlad fedorov 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I compromised on almost everything here. We included allegations by "Utro" (now I can see - that was wrong). We included allegations by court. We included allegations by Maksim Sokolov. My last version was like that:

:You don't know where Sokolov took his citations. Maksim Sokolov is prominent journalist and 
has an article in Russian Wikipedia at ru.wikipedia.org.
Vlad fedorov 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What else do you want? User:Jkelly also found that Vlad violates LP policies,

User:Jkelly hasn't found anything. I don't violate LP policy now.Vlad fedorov 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

even without looking at the original Russian texts and blocked temporarily his access to this article, which was evaded by Vlad. Therefore, I have no other choice but to continue reverting his changes violating LP policy. Biophys 16:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If someone wants to respond, please do no break this text to parts. Biophys 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

::Just a question... Where are contradictions in citations?
Vlad fedorov 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Points to answer for Biophys

Questions for Biophys:

Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the Wiki article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website 2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.

And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations? Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I never used RKO site. To the contrary, it was my argument do not use this site. You did not disprove any of my arguments. Biophys 19:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You use RKO website to prove that Izvestia article by Maksim Sokolov is unreliable. Why you lie now? All your words and statements are recorded above. For example here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Boris_Stomakhin#Attention_please._Citation_of_Stomakin_by_Maksim_Sokolov_is_probaly_falsification.21 You have claimed that there is no such text cited by Maksim Sokolv at RKO website. Was it you?Vlad fedorov 05:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys who wrote this? Vlad fedorov 05:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it is precisely the problem that they do not match. 
Two first sentences omitted by Vlad (just translated) can not 
be found at the RKO site. Therefeore, it is safer to avoid direct 
citation of such sources.Biophys 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The citation was done like that: "text...text". So, the Sokolov's citation 
is a "secondary citation" of a single "primary source" (RKO web site), 
but this primary source is unreliable according to Wikipedia criteria. 
Biophys

But most important, the text cited by Sokolov is different from the 
text on RKO site. So, we do not know what is that he had cited and even 
Sokolov himself did tell in his article what it that he is citing. 
Biophys 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RKO site - reply

Please read my text above about violations of LP policies. I explained there why RKO site and Sokolov citation (from the same RKO site) are unreliable. This is not due to any contradictions. This is private extremist site, no editorial oversight, and articles are not even dated. We must first decide the question about citation of RKO site. Only then we can move forward. As long as you restore the defamatory citation of this unreliable source, I am going to revert your changes. I agree to exclude all references to other not so reliable sources, such as "Pro Stomakhin" site, if you agree to exclude direct citations of RKO site by Sokolov.Biophys 13:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why do you talk about RKO website? We talk about Izvestia!!!Vlad fedorov 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, please stop reverting edits in bulk. If you disagree with some references, remove the corresponding passages, but don't revert the whole addition just like that, it's extremely annoying. For one, extracts from conviction and court sentence are perfectly reliable sources, when speaking of things he got convicted of. And yes, if you want to remove references from RKO, please also be kind and remove references to those "pro" sites advocating ethnic hatred. Thank you. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ban Biophys for deleting my sourced texts. I can't work on the article.Vlad fedorov 18:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Our main disagreement with Vlad is about citing RKO site. If he agrees about that, we can move forward and discuss any other changes he wants. Let's do one thing at a time, and start from the most important point of contention. The problem is: he inserted a lot of other things that are POV and violate LP policy. We can discuss all of that, but let's do it step by step. As a gesture of good will, I agree to improve the reliability of the existing "pro" sources (this needs some time) and represent and explain Sokolov opinion more prominently. But this should be done starting from the existing version that does not violates LP policy. I will do it. So, Vlad, do you agree not to cite the RKO site through Sokolov or otherwise? Biophys 15:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's the main disagreement. However, Izvestia and court sentence, are perfectly reliable sources and should be kept. Whether the sentence is "fair", "kangoroo" or whatever is another matter, and kinda out of place on WP: if you someone is sentenced to prison for X or Y, it should be mentionned. That's the main point actually. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As I explained (see LP violations above), Izvestia and Maksim Sokolov is not a neutral source and therefore can be challenged. But I am ready for compromise. During the previous discussion mediated by User:William M. Connolley (thanks to him!), we found that a continuous citation from the article of Sokolov comes from three different sources, at least two of which are RKO site. Actually, the person who found it was Vlad. At least the fragments of texts are identical (Sokolov did not tell where his citation came from). Thus, it originates from an unreliable primary source. Therefore, my position is the following: describe the opinion of Sokolov (why not?) but do not cite directly the unreliable source. I also can agree that citing court sentence is appropriate because it comes from Russian language sources that seem to be sufficiently reliable although perhaps not neutral. Biophys 15:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose describing opinion of Maksim Sokolv. If Biophys makes citations of Stomakhin  
supporters, why I couldn't cite Maksim Sokolov. It is deliberate discrimination by Biophys of  
me.Vlad fedorov 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I started substituting some references, but that takes a lot of time. Let's decide first that we do not cite RKO site through Sokolov. Otherwise, this is waist of time. Biophys 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am against. You should prove that RKO site is unreliable. It is as reliable as human rights
websites and letters.Vlad fedorov 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to reduce any possible pro-Stomakhin bias and explain from the beginning (in introduction) why he has been convicted. The article is better now. It does not have pro-Stomakhin bias now, really. Biophys 16:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys has deleted all my supported by sources statements again. Biophys is not compromising
actually, but deleting my sources in order to advance his consipiracy theory. Reverts are  
undone. The article now is pro-Stomakhin completely. Biophys does not delete material
from personal pages at narod.ru. Vlad fedorov 17:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone can see that I am working toward a reasonable compromise. But since Vlad continue to revert all my changes and includes the disputed citation, there is no way forward. Vlad, it is you who should prove that your source is reliable, according to Wikipedia rules. What conspiracy theory in this article are you talking about? I will provide alternative references to narod.ru as soon as we resolve our main problem with RKO site.Biophys 17:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone could see that you delete all reliable and sourced information inserted by
me to the article. Everyone could see that you have lied about contradictions between
citations by Maksim Sokolov and Stomakhin articles. You are liar. You have lied
intentionally in order to discredit me and my citations. You haven't proved anything: absence 
of editorial oversight, who runs the website and etc. Vlad fedorov 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Your citations from zaborisa.narod.ru were recognized as unreliable too, but you do 
not delete them. What compromize are you talking about?Vlad fedorov 17:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

To replace He was one of a few journalists in Russia who openly challenged policies of Putin's administration with respect to Chechnya. He was imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya. with He considered Chechen War as a conflict between Russian and Chechen states and was a strong adversary of Russians while advocating the other side. In March 22, 2006 he was sentenced to five years according to Articles 280 (Public Appeals for a Forcible Change of the Constitutional System of the Russian Federation) and 282 (Incitement of National, Racial, or Religious Enmity) of Russia's Criminal Code.

Stomakhin was imprisoned not for being an oppositioner or advocating Chechen separatists, but for how he expressed and spread his views. ellol 03:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, actually this segment is about notability, as suppose to be in the Introduction of any biography. Stomakhin is notable for two reasons. 1. He openly objected Russian operations in Chechnya. There are only two other such journalists in Russia known to the West: Dmitrievsky and Anna Politkovskaya. Anna is dead and Dmitrievskii is also convicted for "hate speech" (but not in prison yet). That is notable and should be mentioned in the article. 2. Stomakhin is probably the only journalist in Russia currently in prison for alleged hate speech (there is another journalist listed by CPJ, but I do not know why he was convicted). That is also notable. If you can suggest how this could be formulated better, we can discuss it.Biophys 16:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Both claims require sound citations. —xyzzy_n 16:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Of course we should remove it since it is not supported by any sources and presents Biophys POV.Vlad fedorov 04:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too complicated. We need something very clear and simple for the initial abstract. The reference to criminal code "Articles 280 (Public Appeals for a Forcible Change of the Constitutional System of the Russian Federation) and 282 (Incitement of National, Racial, or Religious Enmity)" does not work here. Honestly, since the article is locked, can we just relax a little and do something more useful? This Stomakhin does not deserve so much of our nerves and attention. Biophys 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, we have to reach consensus. 2) It's not right to say he was accused for hate speech. He was accused for both hate speech and appealing for a forcible change of Russia's Constitutional System. Both articles are comparably heavy. Saying he was accused for hate speech is semi-truth and misleading our readers. 1) You say "He openly objected Russian operations in Chechnya." It's a true statement but it doesn't reflect level of his radicalism.

I suggest to write, "He supports Chechen separatists and advocates extermination of Russia and Russians as a nation. In 2006 he was sentenced to five years for hate speech and appeals for forcible change of Russia's Constitutional System."

If you have objections, would like to hear you. ellol 22:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree for several reasons. First, this is OR and total distortion. None of the references including court sentence and even Maksim Sokolov says that he wanted "to exterminate Russians as nation." Second, this contradicts assessments of all human rights activists and organizations. Third, this initial "Abstract" of biography should be about notability of the person (as usual). What you suggest is defamation, worse than that proposed by Vlad. If we want to agree about anything, let's first agree about certain rules (see below).Biophys 00:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appeal for unprotection

You have protected version of Biophys. And it is discrimination of me. Biophys was deleteing and reverting versions done not only by me, but by administrators Mikkalai, Alex Bakharev. So it just simply protection of Biophys version. I oppose that kind of thing. I would like to ask Alex Bakharev or Mikkalai to revert the article back to their version. Now the article contains only Biophys citations. Biophys failed to prove the contradiction - which was the main point of his argumentation. Biophys lied intentionally about contradictions. And Biophys deleted the material which he called "contradictory". Biophys believes that there is a plot (conspiracy) by Russian government against extremist Stomakhin sentenced for extremism. And Biophys tries to delete from the article on Stomakhin all information that could doubt this thought. My citations prove that Stomakhin actually wasn't dissident since he called for violence, called terrorist attacks legitimate and called Chechen terrorists heroes. He wants now to delete these supported by sources phrases from the article on Stomakhin by claiming they are unreliable. But these phrases are supported not only by the official court sentence.Vlad fedorov 04:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed "editprotected" template. This is not a request to edit the protected page. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 04:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Rules say: "During an edit war, do not ask for a page to be protected on a specific version or, if it has already been protected, reverted to some version other than the current one. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Instead, go to the talk page and attempt to resolve the dispute." So, we should try to resolve the dispute. Right? Biophys 05:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following. Let's set up a cooling off period: one month. After that, we can return to this discussion and try to find an agreement. Right now things are too hot. We probably can not agree about anything, judging from our previous discussion. Biophys 05:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But if you want to do anything sooner, we can discuss it. No problem. I am ready for any negotiations. Biophys 15:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Setting the rules

If we want to agree about anything, let's agree about certain rules for discussion. If these rules contradict any stated Wikipedia policies, please tell and let's discuss the rules first.

Rule 1. Do not breake to parts and modify comments of each other.

Rule 2. The currently protected version of the article serves as a basis for further changes (improvements).

Rule 3. We consider one change at a time.

Rule 4. Other side has 48 hours to answer (I suppose we all busy at work).

Rule 5. All sides including Vlad and me must agree to make this particular change.

Rule 6. Since we have serious disagreements, let's start from things that are obviously wrong (from your or Vlad point of view in the current version).

7. (not a rule). Let's have 3-day cooling off period.

If you and Vlad agree, we can start this work. If not, this will be waist of time.

Now about your suggestion. This segment tells: "He was one of a few journalists in Russia who openly challenged policies of Putin's administration with respect to Chechnya. He was imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya."

Obviously, Stomakhin was against policies of Putin's administration in Chechnya. Obviuosly, he was imprisoned. Obviously, he was accused in advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya, as follows from the text of this article. So, may be we should start from something that is really wrong (Rule 6)?Biophys 00:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

‘One of a few’ is not obvious and ‘imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya’ is misleading (the court’s verdict says rather different things). And the text of a Wikipedia article is no evidence. So why don’t we start with that stuff? —xyzzy_n 01:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

O'K, we can start from that 'if we can agree about the rules. Then, the phrase ‘imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya’ should be replaced by something justified by references. Biophys 01:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Don’t ask me about the rules; I am not going to play with the article. I might eventually fix grammar, style and translations, but only after there is agreement about the content. —xyzzy_n 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, if you need my formal agreement on the rules, you have it.

I do not agree there. Somebody has made fake unsigned agreement. The current version of the article is POV biased and has removed official sources. All the official information is removed there and misrepresented.Vlad fedorov 05:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys has made my fake reply. I never consent to Biophys rules. There are Wikipedia
policies.Vlad fedorov

If we can not agree even about such simple and obvious rules (they are perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policies and civility), we are going nowhere. Everything else will be waist of time. Biophys 05:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no rule in Wikipedia, that texts made by Biophys should be the basis
for something. You publish biased anti-Russian texts.
Vlad fedorov07:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to note that Vlad just broke Rule number 1. He broked to parts (modified) my comments. He did this many times before. It is impossible to discuss anything this way. Biophys 05:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, you are nothing here. I am not obliged to live by you rules. I wold like
to notice that it is you who first forged my agreement.
Vlad fedorov 07:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not forge anything. What kind on nonsense are you talking about?

Biophys 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

1) Notability. The problem is you consider notability from POV of a theory that fair journalists are prosecuted in Russia and Putin's regime violently treats its opponents. But there is also other theory that Russia is democracy and its media are free. Our task is not to seek arguments in favour of these theories. Not in Wikipedia. Not for the expense of Wikipedia. Our task is to describe facts. What were Stomakhin views/works about. Why was he prosecuted. It's enough for introduction. Agree?

2) I suggest replacement for imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya: "In 2006 he was sentenced to five years for incitement of national, racial, or religious enmity and appeals for forcible change of Russia's constitutional system." This is exactly the court sentence, i.e. articles 280 and 282 [3] and may be linked to it. ellol 02:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Strong agree. Only sourced summaries may be placed there. Biophys created falsification text unsupported with references. It is a violation of BLP. Introductory text was first suggested by admins Mikka and Alex Bakharev. Biophys latter deleted them in order to advance his POV over any others. But the problem is that he can't support his statements in introductory paragraph. "For exapmle phrase 'one of a few journalists in Russia who openly challenged Russian policy in Chechnya' is laughable since everyone who calls himself journalist in Russia critisizes government for this'.Vlad fedorov 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your text, because it is already included in the chapter "Arrest and trial" of this article, where it is completely appropriate. This initial part is Summary to explain, in normal human words, what Stomakhin stands for and why he has been convicted (based on content of the entire Article and sources). People do not know much about the Criminal Code of Russia.

I agree with xyzzy that last phrase in Introduction is not clear. I suggest to replace it with the following text: "He was imprisoned for his writings, which advocated independence of unrecognized Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, condemed atrocities of "Russian occupiers", and claimed that military resistance to Russian Evil empire is legitimate".Biophys 05:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I noted here that he was convicted for "writings" because nobody accused him in any violent actions. It also explains Stomakhin's views and ideas, completely consistent with citations from the court sentence (he condems Budanov and the entire Russian Army, advocates violent resistance, etc.), and explains why he was convicted (Chechen Republic of Ichkeria is Russian territory; and advocationg "military resistance" was interpreted as hate speech). This in not OR, but just a Summary.Biophys 03:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is also falsification. Stomakhin was imprisoned not for dissidence, but for the way in which he was advancing his ideas. For "Kill!Kill!Kill!" and not for dissidence, since in Russia we have milions of people who disagree with Russian government policy in Chechnya, but we don't have people who call to "Kill!Kill!Kill!".Vlad fedorov 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It is clearly stated in court sentence that he was guilty of extremism. He was not advocating military resistance. he was advocating commiting terrorist attacks against civilians and advocating extermination of Russians.Vlad fedorov 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate speech is hate speech. There's such a word, "affordable self-defense". He stepped far beyond the limit of resistanse; what he did was calls for war. He regularly condemned social and ethnic groups, advocated terrorists. I agree with Vlad. What Vlad said may be sourced from the court statement.

Court statement: "In respect to Russia as a state, texts of Radical Policy contained... negative settings -- for extermination." ("В отношении России как государства..." [4]) "Witness Yakunichkin (Якуничкин) showd that... In his articles Stomakhin V.B. expressed ideas of destruction of Russian state and Russian people". "Besides that guilt of defendant Stomakhin is confirmed by... statement of Kopylov A.P. in which he claimed that Stomakhin published in Internet series of articles having... character, appealing to destroy of Russian State and total extermination of Russian nation."

Maxim Sokolov article: in first passage of it, "journalist of Kavkas-center Stomakhin B.V. calling for total extermination of Russians" (журналисту "Кавказ-центра" Б.В. Стомахину, призывавшему к всемерному уничтожению русских). This sets the mood of his whole article. ellol 11:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong translation. Biophys 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to play games. I'm not native english speaker, but fair advanced. If you see I'm wrong, say where, please.ellol 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

His support of Terrorists is also proven in court statement: "Stomakhin approved criminals and terrorists whose actions were aimed to extermination of Russian people as a nation." about Salman Raduyev, Barayev (Стомахин Б.В. одобрял преступников и террористов). Then, В этом же номере бюллетеня в публикации "Чечня заслонила собою Кавказ... ", вновь упоминая лиц, причастных к террористической и экстремистской деятельности: Масхадова, Басаева, Хаттабайшба, Стомахин Б.В., используя выражения и эпитеты, направленные на формирование положительного мнения относительно указанных лиц и их противоправной насильственной деятельности, утверждал: "Басаев, Хаттаб и другие герои чеченского сопротивления, мужественно и твердо встав на пути российской агрессии, фактически спасли независимость и само существование не только Чечни, но и остальных государств Кавказа". ellol 12:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ellol 12:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should have a really long cooling off period. Vlad modifies my comments, disagrees even with rules of our disuccussion, accuses me of falsification, says that I am "nobody", and so on. We can not negotiate like that. Let's do something more useful.Biophys 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are evading answering my comment. It's a pity. ellol 19:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, I can discuss anything with you. However this does not make any sense in the presence of Vlad. Maybe you have a lot of free time, but I am really busy with other things. Please take a look at the Talk:Boris Stomakhin, including Archieve. This is all my discussion with Vlad - many hundreds of edits. Please also take a look at the living persons notice board. No one can say that I refused to negotiate or have little patience. I even swallowed all these personal offences by Vlad. Biophys 20:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. Any way it's your personal problems with Vlad, be you both more patient and play by rules. Biophys, believe it or not, my time scarces. We are talking too much about the matter.

"He was imprisoned for his writings, which advocated independence of unrecognized Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, condemed atrocities of "Russian occupiers", and claimed that military resistance to Russian Evil empire is legitimate" Biophys, it must also include "he openly approved Chechen terrorists and called for total extermination of Russians as a nation which he considered underdeveloped" or it would present not the whole picture.

Vlad and I told you, Putin's administration is clueless here. His writing offended people, usual Russians.

We'll not come to anything positive here. I suggest to replace the phrase "He was one of a few journalists in Russia who openly challenged policies of Putin's administration with respect to Chechnya. He was imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to Russian military operations in Chechnya." with simply ", currently imprisoned for hate speech." Not the best option, but an interested reader will find all info in the article. Vote, people. ellol 21:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hate speech is just another term coming from US law. Hate speech and calls for violent overthrow of the government are two different things. Advocating terror in regard of Russian civilians is not hate speech. It is extremism. The same is written in the official court decision.Vlad fedorov 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand this is not a matter of vote. Everyone including Vlad and me must agree. That is what Wikipedia rules in our situation say. Right? I believe we must say something in this Introduction about notability of Stomakhin, as in biography of any other living person.Biophys 21:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The only person who disagrees with everything here is Biophys. And he is only one.Vlad fedorov 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone on the Earth. At least you and Vlad. Hate speech, ok. But he is not notable as a criticist of the acting administration. Even Novodvorskaya said that he compromised democratic and Chachen movements. (Она считает, что Стомахин Б.В. не виновен в том в чем его обвиняют, а виновен в том, что скомпрометировал общедемократическое и чеченское движение. [5]) ellol 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer my question: "I understand this is not a matter of vote. Vlad and me must agree, because we both were participants of the edit warring. That is what Wikipedia rules in our situation say. Right?" Yes or no, please. Biophys 22:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No. There is no rule in Wikipedia, that everyone should get the consent of 'democratic' Biophys.Vlad fedorov 05:30, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Read messages on your talk page from administrators. Note that I am talking about your consent.Biophys 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Весьма позорная отмазка, когда с тобой уже не согласны не только я, Бахарев, Микка, но уже Эллол, Графикн.

Vlad, he doesn't know such words. It's post-soviet slang. ellol 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys. We need agreement of all. But reasonable agreement or disagreement. Not just "I will not let you edit this article coz I don't want you to". It's how I understand this.

I'll explain my position again. Of course, simply "hate speech" is incorrect. He was imprisoned for appeals for downthrodding constitutional order, too. But if we want to put it in two words, hate speech is enough, imho. Coz in wide sense it's hate towards the state, too. Later in this article reader will find more thorough info.

Ok. Do you have objections or questions? ellol 22:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. We must tell here briefly about his notability, as in biography of any other living person. This is reasonable. The already existing text or new text that I have suggested serve much better this purpose. Two sentences are O'K. There is no need to put everything in two words, because these two words explain nothing. Biophys 23:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, I don't have serious objections over your wording, but the matter is that Biophys was lucky that his version was blocked and now he will try all his best in order to undermine reaching any consensus. In fact he's pretty well contented with his current version of the article. Wikipedia admins as always care only about themselves and not about truthfulness of the article. I have made website specifically about Stomakhin, you may join me and couple of other fellows at http://russophobes.awardspace.com. One my fellow (nickname Mechanic) already published unofficial biography of Stomakhin. Earlier he was a patient of psychiatric clinic at Moscow.87.252.254.23 05:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I do not have time to engage in different internet projects. ellol 10:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all the U.S. with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of the United States -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and American's, and Iraqi's, and anyone's! Let the Americans, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown. Americans should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Americans should be introduced, of all loyal American citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced.

This to be commented like: He was one of a few journalists in the U.S. who openly challenged policies of Bush's administration with respect to Iraq. He was imprisoned for allegedly advocating violent resistance to American military operations in Iraq.

Just say, how do you like it? ellol 10:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many people in the US who are saying exactly that or other outrageous things. They are free to tell whatever they want. Biophys 16:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If you know, in Soviet Union people freely discussed all -- privately in kitchens. ellol 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely Stomakhin has a different viewpoint. ellol 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A compromise

O'K, I can suggest a compromise version. You and Vlad made two valid points. First, we must tell that Stomakhin was convicted for hate speech. Second, we must explain why he is different from other journalists (so he was convicted). I suggest to replace two last phrases of Introduction with the following text:

"He was a leader of a marginal political group that stands in uncompromising opposition to the Putin's administration. Being far more radical than Anna Politkovskaya or members of Moscow Helsinki Group, Boris Stomakhin compared President Vladimir Putin to Saddam Hussein, advocated independence of unrecognized Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, and claimed that fight of Chechen rebels is legitimate after all atrocities that have been committed by Russian military forces in Chechnya [ref. to court sentence]. He was convicted to five years in prison for his writings interpreted by the court as hate speech. The ruling was considered by many human rights organizations and activists as a landmark case of prosecuting free speech in modern Russia" [ref to CPJ]

I think this text is as NPOV and fair as it can possibly be with respect to the living person (Stomakhin). Moreover, it is explanatory and encyclopedic. A reader can only read this Summary and do not read anything else, as suppose to be with any good Summary. Note that we do not blame Russian military forces of any atrocities. This is something "he said" (see citation from the court sentence in this article). This is best version I can suggest.Biophys 16:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, please explain why you think this version is different from another? I think you have a problem. Stomakhin is not notable by critics of Putin or government, actually. Or you could prove it with citations from his works or writings of Russian journalists or political activists about Stomakhin written before the court? His samizdat newspaper had very little number of issues. Everyone in Russia critisizes Putin and government. Stomakhin is notable for his 'Kill!Kill!Kill!". Anything else is POV. CPJ - is just a US government sponsored propaganda medium.Vlad fedorov 18:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You may be right that he was not a notable person before his arrest (his newspaper indeed had a very small number of issues). But he became notable after his arrest and due to this arrest and conviction, because his case attracted attention of notable people and organizations who perceived this case as an attack on free speech in Russia. That is how his marginal and questionable writings and activities became significant. Biophys 19:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC) I corrected slightly my text above to reflect your comment. Indeed, he was a leader of a marginal organization in Russia, which can be noted. Thanks. Now it is better.Biophys 20:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya and Moscow Helsinki Group do not have any relevance as politicians. Stomahin was politician. Politkovskaya and Moscow Helsinki group should be scrapped from the text. The term "marginal" should be replaced by the "radical" or "extemist". And that group is notable not by the opposition to Putin, but is notable by its inflamatory statements and Stomakhin as a leader was sentenced for their extremist activities. "After all atrocities.." passage should be deleted since it doesn't have any relevance to Stomakhin it is original research. He was convicted not 'for his writings' but for 'extremist activities'. The passage 'The ruling was considered by many human rights organizations and activists as a landmark case of prosecuting free speech in modern Russia' should be excluded. This is a case of extremism and not freedom of speech.Vlad fedorov 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose the following version of Biophys's text. Yes it's a long process but I'm sure that a couple more iterations and we'll reach consensus. Last time I even lost hope for it.

He was a leader of a marginal political group that stands in uncompromising opposition to Russia's authorities. Being far more radical than Anna Politkovskaya or members of Moscow Helsinki Group, Boris Stomakhin compared President Vladimir Putin to Saddam Hussein, advocated independence of unrecognized Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, justified acts of Chechen extremists by cases of harsh treatment of Chechnya population during the War, and made defamatory statements towards Russia and Russians reaching urge for their destroy [ref. to court sentence]. Court convicted him to five years in prison colony for hate speech and public calls for extremism in his writings. The ruling was considered by many human rights organizations and activists as a landmark case of prosecuting free speech in modern Russia" [ref to CPJ]

ellol 12:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good. I can agree with you and Vlad on the following. 1. It is not so important that Stomakhin criticized Russia's authorities. It is important how rabidly he criticized the authorities. 2. Being a leader of a marginal political group is not notable. 3. Politkovskaya is probably irrelevant. 4. Stomakhin's claims with respect to Russian State should be included. 5. The question who committed "atrocities" is not really relevant. However, Stomakhin criticized Putin and his administration rather than Russia's authorities in general (such as to say Yeltsin administration). Actually, it seems that Stomakhin tried to offend Putin personally. Also, we should focus on the meaning of Stomakhin's claims, rather than on any defamatory wording (such as calling Putin "Saddam Hussein"). So, I suggest the following version:

He is known for being in rabid opposition to the Putin's administration. He claimed that Vladimir Putin is a mass murderer. He advocated independence of unrecognized Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He claimed that Russia became a prison of nations that has no right to exist. He stated that Russian Army has been transformed into a gang of robbers in Chechnya. He argued that Chechen rebels are freedom fighters and therefore have every right to commit any act of war [ref. to court sentence]. He was convicted to five years in prison for his writings interpreted by the court as hate speech. The ruling was considered by many human rights organizations and activists as a landmark case of prosecuting free speech in modern Russia [ref to CPJ]Biophys 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I hoped we'll continue working on my version. But you propose now new one. Ok.

The problem is, that laying his point of view we should not repeat his points wordly -- coz it's spreading extremism by ourself. So let's think how to put what you said politically correct. ellol 19:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that there's a certain anti-Russia bias in the world. We must be double careful here. Okey, let's imagine Russians are really guilty in all troubles of the world. How do you imagine genocide of a nation which possesses the second arsenal of nuclear weapons? It'll be death of the world. ellol 19:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree on the last point. This is wrong, crazy, and impossible.Biophys 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so impossible as you think. Ideological basis already exists. ellol 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that we are not spreading any propaganda here. This is something "he said", according to his court sentence. So a reader can decide himself if the conviction was just or not. Biophys 20:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Putin a mass murderer" doesn't appear in the court sentence. Moreover Putin appears only few times. ellol 21:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"He was convicted to five years in prison farm for his writings interpreted by the court as hate speech and public calls for extremism". I said you, there are articles for both, it gave him additional years. ellol 19:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He is known for being in rabid opposition to the Putin's administration. He advocated independence of unrecognized Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He claimed that "Russia became a prison of nations that has no right to exist". He stated that "Russian Army turned into a band of murderers in Chechnya". He justified extremist crimes (like Moscow theater hostage crisis) arguing they are committed by "freedom fighters". [ref. to court sentence]. He was convicted to five years in prison farm for his writings interpreted by the court as hate speech and public calls for extremism. The ruling was considered by some human rights organizations and activists as a landmark case of prosecuting free speech [ref to CPJ]

ellol 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if you note here a couple of such organizations. I put quotes to your statements -- now it's clear that it's not our position, but his speech. I can't agree with you: never killing civilians was an act of war; a war crime at best. And it's you, an U.S. citizen who should explain it to us, rather than covering terrorism. ellol 22:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No one covers terrorists here. A lot of civilians were killed during every war. Biophys 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

O'K, if you do not like "mass murderer", let's write "Saddam Hussein" and include something about terrorism, calls for extremism, etc. The citation was provided in the article; so there is no need to repeat it here. This is my last word (sorry, I can not spend all my life arguing about Stomakhin):

He is known for being in ardent opposition to Russian government. He compared Vladimir Putin with Saddam Hussein. He advocated independence of unrecognized Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He claimed that Russia is a prison of nations that has no right to exist. He stated that Russian Army has been transformed into a criminal gang in Chechnya. He argued that Chechen rebels are freedom fighters who have right to conduct war with Russian Federation including sabotage and terrorism acts, according to his court sentence [ref. to court sentence]. He was convicted to five years in prison for his writings interpreted by the court as hate speech and public calls for extremism. The ruling was considered by human rights organizations and activists as an important case of prosecuting free speech in Russia. [ref to CPJ]. Biophys 23:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My version:

He is known for his strong Russophobe position. He argued that Chechen rebels are freedom fighters who have legal right to commit terrorist attacks on Russians [ref. to court sentence]. He called for violent overthrow of current Russian government and extermination of all Russians. He claimed that Russia as a state should be destroyed. He was convicted to five years in prison for his hate speech and public calls for extremism. The ruling was considered by some human rights organizations and opposition politicians as a case of prosecuting free speech in Russia. [ref to CPJ]. Vlad fedorov 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, first, if you aren't going to discuss it, nobody holds you here. Second. But if you are ready for further talks:

"He claimed that Russia is a prison of nations that has no right to exist" It's softening of his views. He considered Russia a prison of nations which must be destroyed.

Biophys. Nobody has a right to take hostages in a peaceful country far from place of war actions. It's not even an act of war. It's called terrorism. Otherwise we should call 9/11 fight of rebels. Why Barayev didn't fight against Russian forces deployed in Chechnya (which would be war), but took hostages in peaceful Moscow Theather? It's terrorism. (And if you want to condemn actions of Russian forces during the war, do it at appropriate pages.)

So. "He argued that Chechen separatists are freedom fighters who have right for any acts against Russia, " including blah-blah-blah.

By the way, what, you both don't know what is "Колония общего режима"? It's not a prison. Prison farm is the best fitting of what I found. ellol 10:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try so: He compared Vladimir Putin with Saddam Hussein and called for overthrow of current Russian government. He claimed that Russia is a prison of nations and should be destroyed as a state. He claimed that Russian Army has been transformed into a criminal gang in Chechnya. He argued that Chechen rebels are freedom fighters who have legal right to commit terrorist attacks on Russians [ref. to court sentence]. He was convicted to five years in prison for hate speech and public calls for extremism. The ruling was considered by some human rights organizations and opposition politicians as a case of prosecuting free speech in Russia.

This version is composed ~ 50/50 from versions of Biophys and Vladimir. Would it pass? ellol 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article by Maksim Sokolov

We are moving too slow. Now, it is my turn to suggest an improvement for this article. I suggest to delete last paragraph about a defamatory publication by Maksim Sokolov. I can agree that Izvestia is a "reliable source". But this particular article is not a neutral source. Clearly, the comparison of Stomakhin with Hitler is not fair. Hitler is a mass murderer. Stomakhin did not kill or assaulted anyone and did not order to kill anyone. We should not use Sokolov's writings in the article about Stomakhin, just as we should not use Stomakhin's writings in the article about Vladimir Putin.Biophys 16:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC) You could object that some other sources are also not neutral. Good. We can discuss them as well. Biophys 17:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Bu-ga-ga... Biophys you are incredibly ignorant. I wonder how you could be scientist if you don't know one simple thing about Hitler. Hitler never killed a single person. You can't call him murderer since he never killed anyone except himself. He just inspired mass murders, and Stomakhin had done so too. He is writing Kill!Kill!Kill!, and that's why he was jailed.Vlad fedorov 18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitler ordered killing people. Stomakhin did not. Therefore, a comparison with Hitler is defamatory and certainly not neutral. Same can be said about writings of Stomakhin with regard to Putin and Russians. According to Wikipedia recommendations, such sources are not appropriate to use in biographies of living people. I would not use anything from Stomakhin writings in the article about Putin.Biophys 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your ignorance is fantastic. In Nuremberg Trial Materials there is no a single document about extermination signed by Hitler. Vlad fedorov 05:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"На этом фоне "Майн кампф" - учебник гуманизма." -- "At this background Mein Kampf is a textbook of humanism". Do not see here comparison to Hitler. ellol 20:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get your point that you wouldn't cite Stomakhin in the article about Putin. ellol 21:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

We could rewrite this passage after we finish with the introduction. ellol 21:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

He said that Stomakhing writings are worse than Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler. Sorry, but I insist to exclude this paragraph for the reasons explained above. This is my last word. There is nothing to discuss here. Biophys 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't agree with you. You have taken all your material from the blog La Russophobe which incites racial and ethnic hatred like Stomakhin. Izvestia article should be - this is my last word. As well as article from Komsomolskaya Pravda which journalist suggested that Stomakhin is mentally ill and describe Stomakhin ideas about closing Orthodox religion. Then we really have nothing to discuss with you.Vlad fedorov 04:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you are telling that you "have nothing to discuss" with me. I can not force you if you do not want.Biophys 05:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It is you, Biophys, the Liar, who told the following first:

Sorry, but I insist to exclude this paragraph for the reasons
explained above. This is my last word. There is nothing to 
discuss here. Biophys 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vlad fedorov 07:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RKO site

We must also agree not to use anything from RKO site, which is unreliable source.Biophys 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

RKO site is reliable source.Vlad fedorov 04:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So, sad to say, we have a really fundamental disagreement here. Biophys 05:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, provide your arguments it's unreliable source. It claims on the main page it belongs to RKO -- Revolutionary Contact Association, Stomakhin was its member. ellol 09:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyway it's ridiculous. We are writing about a journalist, and can't refer to his articles! Nonsense. In so way, please tell us where his articles are posted. ellol 11:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know how it's called in Russian? И рыбку съесть, и нахуй сесть. Well, go ahead. ellol 11:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to prohibit references to articles by Stomakhin in the Stomakhin page. It means you are not a Wikipedia participant, but a soldier in an informational war. I'm ready to take part in Wiki discussions, but I'm not going to take part in wars. ellol 12:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ellol, considering that large portions of the text put into the article by Biophys come from the blog "La Russophobe" what is evident through simple Google search, I think that Biophys is actually the author of the blog "La Russophobe". Just look at this http://russophobe.blogspot.com/2006/10/another-russian-journalist-goes-on.html! Do you recognize Biophys texts? Biophys also tried to create an article here in Wikipedia about that blog and it was deleted. I think Biophys was making advertisement for his blog and that was the reason. It is evident from the blog that its author is Russian living in US, as also is Biophys. That Guy - author of the Blog (who could be Biophys) is at huge rats with the author of another blog who presents alternative POV - http://www.veryrussian.net/2006/boris-stomakhin-the-opposition-journalist-who-wanted-me-killed.html Vlad fedorov 12:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about this Biophys, but La Russophobe definitely isn't Russian. (I'm the author of VeryRussian.net.) Med99 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Med99, thank you for publishing the translation of Stomakhin 'Kill!Kill!Kill!'. It seems that you are now the only one source on English where these citations are written. It is really good that in Google your rating is higher than of La Russophobe. Here we have problem with guy who constantly contributes strong anti-russian material to Wikipedia. Thank you for the clues. Ciuld you join us? I am going to refer this dispute to either the Arbitration Committee or Cabal Mediation.Vlad fedorov 05:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I am trying to prohibit use of unreliable defamatory sources (RKO site is such) according to Wikipedia criteria and enforce LP policy. And I am strongly aginst any editing wars, just like you. But this is second priority. LP policy is more important in my opinion.Biophys 14:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There were no defamatory statements about Stomakhin anywhere, but there are a lot of disinformation and a lot of cover-up of Stomakhin fascist views. You have never provided the evidence that some statements are defamatory, e.g. do not represent the reality and are false.Vlad fedorov 14:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

First, La Russophobe article is simply a copy of article from Moscow Times (link provided in La Russophobe), which is a good source. Second, I did not copy anything from La Russophobe at all, and did not copy anything from other sources except direct citations ("..."). What portion of text are you talking about?Biophys 14:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For example you have taken the following phrases word in word from La Russophobe blog, and there is no such text in Moscow News article:

'Boris Stomakhin was editor of the monthly newspaper Radikalnaya Politika...'
'The Committee to Protect Journalists says the case is politically motivated'.
'"He has been kept in a cell all this time, despite the fact that he is practically paralyzed," Stomakhin's lawyer Alexei Golubev said'.
'compared President Vladimir Putin to Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic'.

You have also copied grammar mistakes from this blog. Moscow News editors board cannot be such illiterate and miss an indefinite article 'an' in 'was editor'.

Vlad fedorov 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendations by an administrator

I suggest we should follow an advice by administrator physicq. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Boris_Stomakhin_article_and_inciting_of_ethinic_hatred. He recommended the following:

1. We should step back from the article and from each other for the moment and try editing something else.
2. Vlad can try WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, or WP:MEDCOM if he wants. Biophys 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He never recommended to step out of the article, Biophys, The Liar.Vlad fedorov 05:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

Dear administrators, please disambiguate [[Russian]] to [[Russia]]n in the lead. Thanks in advance. MaxSem 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Alex Bakharev 11:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of WP:BLP policy

Vlad demands an explanation why I am reverting his changes. Here it is. I think he violates LP and other Wikipedia policies simultaneously at three levels.

3. Non-encyclopedic style. "Kill, kill, kill!" is not for Wikipedia. Some people advocate war. Their views can be easily described (and actually described in Wikipedia) in general words, without any propaganda or defamation.Biophys 15:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Violations of WP:BLP continue after unlocking this page

Vlad just included the following text:

The Stomakhin's article contained the following passages written by Stomakhin: Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown[7] [32]. Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced[32]

As I explained above many times, this is direct citation of a primary source that does not satisfy WP:SOURCE. Let me explain again. First, this is clearly a "questionable source". It has "no editorial oversight or fact-checking process...Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." WP:BLP say that questionable source "can be used in articles about those sources as long as it is not contentious; it does not involve claims about third parties, and there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it." Obviously, this text is extremely contentious, it involves unfair and unsubstantiated claims about other people, and there are even doubt as to who wrote it (author was initially indicted based on false claims that he wrote something and posted on a web site which he actually did not write). Clearly, this is not an appropriate source. Also see my objections here [6]. Biophys 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

My edits are based on reliable sources. They represent real facts. Among my sources are court sentence which is an official document you trying to eliminate from the text. Vlad fedorov 14:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just explained why this particular source is unreliable.Biophys 14:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediator Diez, already said that your sources are as relible as mine. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Boris Stomakhin. Vlad fedorov 14:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Mediator Diez promised to prepare a compromise version and asked us wait. We agreed. So, let's follow his instructions and do not start RR wars again.Biophys 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well Biophys, you dispute only two citations. But you never disputed citation of journalists from Komsomolskaya Pravda, which you delete from the article. Also I would like to learn your explanation for deleting statements of Gannushkina about "outrageous opinion of Stomakhin" and deletion of information from zaborisa.marsho.net about refusal by Novodvorskaya to defend Stomakhin. Vlad fedorov 18:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Dear Biophys, would you be so kind as not to violate WP:3RR. Please do not revert more than 3 times in 24 h. Vlad fedorov 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new attempt to compromise

Biophys, please let us discuss how could we make a citation of Maksim Sokolov in the article. You rewordings are very vague and do not translate the whole extent of Stomakhin writings. Please suggest other way of its mentioning. And by the way, why you consider Sokolov's citations as a violation of BLP. We already established that Sokolov's citation are not contradictory. So why you comsider appropriate citations of Ion Mihai Pacepa and at the same time you consider Sokolov's citations as unappropriate? Vlad fedorov 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Biophys and Vlad fedorov, could I suggest that prolonging the edit war is a waste of your time? Vlad fedorov , in edit summaries you have indicated some of the content is less contentious, in which case could I suggest you post this material on this page. After gaining consensus regarding this material, we could then move onto the more contentious (and possibly not fully sourced) areas. Addhoc 23:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably the best solution would be if we both (Vlad and me) just go away of this article and never come back, and an experienced neutral editor familiar with the subject (say Colchicum) would correct whatever he thinks should be corrected. I would certainly agree. I think any outside viewer must agree that Colchicum is a neutral editor - just looking at his work. Honestly, I simply do not like when something like "kill, kill, kill!" appears in Wikipedia, whoever and for what reason is saying that. Do you agree? Biophys 00:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, really? You suggest your best biased friend Colchicum? Thank you Biophys... You are so kind. Is it the same Colchicum who worte request for comment against me? Is it the same Colchicum who falsely accused me of wikistalking him? Is this Colchicum neutral then? Thank you Biophys, but I don't need Colchicum actually. Vlad fedorov 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Addhoc, please evaluate meticulously suggestions of Biophys, he always suggests his POV friends as neutral parties for editing. Whether you could help with Mediation breakthrough? I've seen your affiliation with MedCab. Vlad fedorov 04:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undergoing Mediation

People!! PLEASE... I am making a request to the Mediation Committee to mediate this argument. Thank you. Diez2 01:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need Signatures

Biophys and Vlad, I now need your signatures signing that you agree to enter mediation talks about this ongoing issue at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Boris Stomakhin. Thank you. Diez2 01:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political prisoner?

Simple: do we have reference(s) that call him that? If so, we can reference the controversial part with them. If not, then indeed we cannot do OR and claim that he is one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's obviously the point. But of course, if the organisation ABABAGAVA claimed Stomakhin is a political prisoner, we can't just say "Stomakhin is a political prisoner [link to ABABAGAVA]", but "Organization ABABAGAVA recognized Stomakhin a political prisoner [link to ABABAGAVA]". ellol 16:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

An open letter to G7 from Russia's human rights leaders published by PRIMA (news agency): [7] calls "to secure the release of Russian political prisoners", including Zara Murtazaliyeva, "pamphleteer Boris Stomakhin, scientists Igor Sutyagin and Valentin Danilov, and attorney Mikhail Trepashkin". Signed by Sergei Kovalev, Yelena Bonner, Gleb Yakunin and others. See also [8]. Complete English text can be found here [9]. Biophys 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union claims that Stomakhin "will become a prisoner of conscience" if remains in prison [10].Biophys 17:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)