Talk:Lubyanka Criminal Group

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov

Please note that "unreliable defamatory materials" should only be removed from a biography of a living person described in his article according to WP:BLP. This is article about a book. Therefore, it is completely appropriate to describe any materials from this book, however "defamatory" they might be in your opinion. You might only object if these materials would be included in biography of Putin. Note that I am going to expand this article by explaining every chapter of this book.Biophys 05:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The information introduced by the book is defamatory and was made with the purpose to defame. We couldn't publish rubbish and pulp fiction here in Wikipedia. If you would persist I would report your violations on the noticeboard. Original research explanation by Biophys would be deleted.Vlad fedorov 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Describing content of a reliable source, such as published book, in the article about this book is completely consistent with all Wikipedia policies! You are welcome to report it anywhere, but you can not. How can we write an article about a book without explaining what is this book about? As long as description consistent with the content of the book this is not OR.Biophys 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

You personally couldn't write an article about book. It is original research unless supported by outside reliable sources. Vlad fedorov 04:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course I can! This book is no different from any other source. It is perfectly fine to summarize and describe content of the sources. It is what we are doing in all articles. Summarizind and describing content of a source is not OR. It is quite the opposite. Of course, this book is "primary source", and review about the book is "secondary source". But it is just fine to use a primary source in the article about this sources (as well as in all other situations!) - see rules. Biophys 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is you do not publish reviews of others. You do it yourself - which is original research.Vlad fedorov 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I only use a "primary source", which is perfectly appropriate in this case. We always review and summarize different sources to create articles. In fact, this is the only thing that we do and suppose to do in Wikipedia. OR is something that is not written in the source.Biophys 18:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no provision in Wikipedia whih allows you to publish your own understanding of somebody's book. You have POV summary and original research.Vlad fedorov 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you are telling that I can not use a book as a source in the article about this book?Biophys 01:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, there is an interesting article in Russian Wikipedia Criticism of Vladimir Putin (it is related to this article). May be I will translate it to English at some point:[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biophys (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

You can use citations from the book and you could use reliable source reviews and descriptions of the book. But again I repeat you prsonal summarizing does nothing with NPOV and no orginal research rules.Vlad fedorov 04:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As about Putin's allegations, please cite properly sources. Do not represent allegations as already established facts. I highly doubt that you could introduce this material in this article - it is not relevant to this - you should create another article, but still I doubt that guys from Vladimir Putin article won't edit it. I should remind you about the presumption of innocense, which is charachteristic for civilised societies and individuals. As far as I have noticed some sources in Russian Wikipedia are taken from fortunecity personal pages, so they are definitely not reliable sources and couldn't be cited here. 99% are taken from Novaya Gazeta :-) Remember that introducing such article in English Wikipedia doesn't liberate you from BLP policy.Vlad fedorov 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Illythr comments on Gang from Lubyanka

Please stick to no personal attacks rule of Wikipedia. I never quoted Goldfarb citations in this article - it was done by Biophys. You should really learn about the existence of article edits history, which is quite useful in these cases. I just added information that Goldafarb makes money on selling this book and he is interested person. Small but meaning detail. Just in case, you should also know that your title "praise and critisism of the book" is disinformation, since you have published praises taken from the book's marketing site. And it is quite clear for mediocre readers, that this site would never publish critisism of the book. This site is made in order to advertise the book, not to kill it. Once more, please do not make false accusations and stick with WP:CIV.Vlad fedorov 06:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

1. That was no personal attack, but a statement of fact, based on the article's edit history.

The fact is - you have claimed "Vlad, you've actually distorted a direct quotation of Goldfarb". And the fact is I have never edited Goldfarb citation (what he said, his words) itself. Please state here what I have distorted in the words of Goldafarb. I have added that he is ", close friend of Alexander Litvinenko, and", a man who "who made a contract for the distribution of that book". What specific information here you label as distortion? You mean Goldfarb wasn't a close friend of Litvinenko? You mean that Goldfarb hadn't made a contract for the distribution of the book? Therefore implication is that you have lied. Considering that you are not novice to Wikipedia, I could hardly imply that it was done unintentionally. Again lies (whether deliberate or not) are considered by WP:CIV as personal attacks. I don't care about orphographic mistakes of Biophys, I am not his English grammar tutor.Vlad fedorov 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this particular edit of yours, where you have changed the word "banned" with "withdrawn", thus modifying the original Goldfarb citation. This is a fairly small issue that I corrected without much ado. I never addressed your other edits before, although I find them to be in bad faith, because I don't see a necessity to emphasize the fact that a co-author of the book was the one to receive money for it, as co-authorship implies this kinda automatically. I didn't (and won't) contest its presence, though, as you seem to think that it's very relevant. The close friend part was a good edit, IMO. PS: It's good that you remember about WP:CIV. It's just too bad that you forgot about WP:AGF. :-( --Illythr 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are the diffs: Biophys adds the original citation [2], providing a source for it [3]. Then you change it [4]. However, I see now, that Biophys had misplaced the opening quotation marks of the citation and you (apparently not having read the source) may have assumed that your change was outside the quote. I fixed this by properly placing the quotation marks.

Oh.. Now you claim that it concerns another phrase and claim that you have implied it by quotation marks, very pathetic excuse, indeed. But I don't accept such excuse - you have made personal attack. And, alas, I have apparently read this source http://prima-news.ru/eng/news/news/2004/2/1/27343.html and here we see Goldfarb citation which uses term "banning", so my question for you what have I distorted here? Goldfarb himself names it banning.Vlad fedorov 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Answered above.

Moreover, Biophys has made intentionally wrong interpretation of the book title. Not offensive "Gang from Lubyanka", but "Lubyanka Criminal Group" which is used here http://prima-news.ru/eng/news/news/2004/2/1/27343.html and everywhere on the internet. Why you are not touching this evident distortion issue, but trying to bully me with "banning" term?Vlad fedorov 19:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not see how "Gang from Lubyanka" is any more offensive than "Lubyanka Criminal Group" as both mean essentially the same. However, feel free to rename the article if you think that it is. Is there an English version of the book? --Illythr 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

2. You have deleted the "praise and criticism" section claiming that "This was about Blowing up Russia book, actually." I merely provided a source that demonstrates that the two reviews are about this book.

If we would go to its source which was given as http://prima-news.ru/eng/news/news/2004/1/30/27326.html we could clearly see that this sources tells about "Blowing up Russia" book. And there was no a single word about "Gang from Lubyanka". So the source was false. I have deleted unsourced information. Thank you that you have provided praise of the book written by co-author Goldfarb. You may as well provide the praise of Bible by God, since it would be the most objective reviewer. But, and only but, if you would name this respective section as a praise by specific person. I guess, you are not going to publish Kremlin review of this book, which would be more sincere and objective move. Moreover, I have deleted unsourced information, because it was titled as criticism too, therefore creating section with such title presumes that it would contain criticism and most importantly is presumes it should have references and sources.Vlad fedorov 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

That source tells about BOTH books ("...in connection with disclosure of state secret in the books FSB Blows Up Russia and LCG - Lubyanka Criminal Group." etc) AND tells absolutely nothing about the former "Praise and criticism" section. Now, this source provides us with the information that the section is indeed relevant to this book and your deletion of it was incorrect. If you can provide the Kremlin review of the book, I would urge you to add it to the article ASAP, as such a review would be very valuable for NPOV (I am not aware of one, especially in English). --Illythr 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess Biophys intended that section to expand, that's why he called it that way. The section originally was added by Biophys, so it's not "mine". --Illythr 10:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what Biophys intended, I have Wikipedia policy here to abide, not somebody's intentions. So far, few months have passed and I see no moves from Biophys on introduction of criticism.Vlad fedorov 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thus, I changed the section header to a more neutral name. --Illythr 21:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)