Misplaced Pages

Talk:Alexander Litvinenko: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:00, 4 April 2008 editKrawndawg (talk | contribs)1,360 editsm →Claims of Russia-Al Qaeda connections← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:41, 30 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,655,328 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(398 intermediate revisions by 66 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Skip to talk}}
{{talkheader}} {{talkheader}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Litvinenko, Alexander|blp=n|1=
{{todo}}
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Low}}
{{FailedGA|28 January 2007}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=High|pol=yes}}
{{FailedGA|2007-01-12}}
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Low}}
{{WPBiography
{{WikiProject London |importance=Low}}
|living=no
|class=B
|priority=
}} }}
{{ArticleHistory|action1=GAN
{{WPCD}}
|action1date=12 January 2007
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=100296277


|action2=GAN
== Old archives ==
|action2date=28 January 2007
{{Archive box|] ]}}
|action2result=not listed
{{Seealso|Talk:Alexander Litvinenko poisoning}}
|action2oldid=103892703


|currentstatus=FGAN
== Page move ==
}}
I have moved the old ] to ] and split the static content to this new page. -- ] 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
{{To do}}{{annual readership}}
: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. ''']]''' 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
{{Archive box|search=yes|
::Aite, I did a page move again and fixed the article histories. ''']]''' 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
* ] <small>(November 2006)</small>
* ] <small>(Dec 2006–Dec 2007)</small>
* ] <small>(Jan 2008–Oct 2009)</small>
}}
__TOC__
{{Clear}}


==Old archives==
::: I think "Comparisons to other deaths" chapter belongs to main article about Litvinenko, just as in article about ]. What do you think?] 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
{{Seealso|Talk:Alexander Litvinenko poisoning}}

==Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, and Hakamada==
I think we must include Litvinenko claim that Putin threatened Politkovskaya
life, and that ] 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): ,, . 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 ]:"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 Misplaced Pages. But the claim by Litvinenko is a fact. ] 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 ] 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Agree. But the claim itself is fact, as all other claims. So, I included it in the article. ] 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.] 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

== Poisoning section ==

Yes, we should have a separate article about the poisoning, but we also need to have a summary, however brief, on this page. Now we have a section that is empty except for a link to the poisoning subpage - that is bad style. ]<sub>(])</sub> 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? ''']]''' 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
::Put a short paragraph based on the lead to ] ] 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

==Muslim==
More about the Muslim burial: --] 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.]
:: 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 <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

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 <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:{{{2|}}}|&#32;{{{2}}}|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

: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 ] 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'.] (]) 22:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

==Al-Qaeda links?==
I'm not sure how reliable this stuff is, but some sources are now saying that links between him and Al-Qaeda are currently under investigation by the British internal security service. And an Al-Qaeda plan to purchase Polonium-210, too. But of course, theories are flying wildly right now, so who knows? Here are a few links in any case: . 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. ] 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. ] 08:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:: I think that 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. ] 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

:This 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. ] 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::According to 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 detection] 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. ] 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

=="Current Event"==
I've removed the {{tl|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 ] article, which will change quickly. Thanks, ] 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. ''']]''' 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
:I disagree. This article does not document a current event, but it is related to a ]. The {{tl|current event}} tag wouldn't belong on this article, but I believe the {{tl|current-related}} does. ]] <sup>] to electro-pop ] from 1984.</sup> 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. ''']]''' 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

== Islam ==

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

==GA stuff==

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

==Litvinenko and FSB article==
I have made serious changes in article about ] 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 ] article in the future.] 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

== Luguvoy has never been a FSB officer ==

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

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

==Photo==
Does anyone know if they can find a non-copyright version of the telling image of Litvinenko on his deathbed. It is by far the most famous view of Litvinenko and IMHO should probably be included somewhere. ] 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 ] 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.] 18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

==GA on hold==
*<s>References go right after a full-stop or comma, not in the middle of a sentence.</s>
* Lots of one sentence paragraphs, merge, remove or expand.
*<s>In the reference list there is a red wikilink, remove the wikilink as it stands out</s>
*<s>trim down see also and external links a little</s>
*<s>who is thought to have been poisoned in London., remove this as you explain it in the third paragraph</s>
*<s>Need an info box for his picture, theres one somewhere on wikiproject biography, if you cant find it I'll take another look.</s>
* 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. "
*<s>Don't wikilink solo years, ex ]</s>
* 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
*<s>expand early life ''if you can''</s> - Cant really find much on this - obituaries focus on his murder more than anything else
*<s>statement image needs fair ruse rationale</s>
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 ] 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' ] 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'' ] 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.] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ] 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

==Late Development Section==
Somebody needs to cite the source for this. ] 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

==Good Article status==
I have failed the article for Good Article status due to the image used to display his condition in his final days. The image is from the BBC News website which has a strict copyright status on the use of images from the site, see their . 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.
] 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 , 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, ] <sup>] - ]</sup> 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. ] 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

==Shooting target video==
I am posting a snapshot from the video in case the article needs it.
<small>] 05:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)</small>
* Moved the image to the article and justified its fair use. More snapshots:
**
**
**
: ] 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Links to the articles.

* , 2007-01-25, video in the bottom.
* , 2007-01-30.
* , 2007-01-31. The last article says that the video was taken in October 2002.

] 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

:Most likely it is a fake. ] 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. ] 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.] 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. ] 16:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
:::::"That's for sure" - that's what I doubted.] 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 ]. ] 00:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

== Date of birth? ==

Where did the 30/8 date come from? Not that I'm doubting it, but the Times cites his birthday as 4/12 of the same year. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:*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. ] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

==Litvinenko books==
I think it would be a good idea to create a couple of Misplaced Pages articles about Litvinenko books: ] and ]. ] 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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


==Doubtfull==

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

== Spelling of some Russian first names ==

"'''Constanyin''' Latyshonok, and '''German''' Scheglov"

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


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

--] 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.

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

== Deletion review of the deathbed statement's facsimile ==
Someone submitted the facsimile of the deathbed statement for ]. Please cast your opinion, not just a vote. My apologies for notifying a week later.] 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 Misplaced Pages, but how about leaving off the materialist fundamentalist and anti Islam propaganda for once.

30th September 2007 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

-----------------------------------------

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 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

----------------------------------------

Sentence now deleted.

02 October 2007 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

--------------------------------

Sentence removed again after Strothra reverted without justification, and who has followed me around Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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,”- ] 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. --] 03:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

== Read the news, Litivinenko was a paid MI6 agent ==

Revealed: Poisoned ex-Russian spy Litvinenko WAS a paid-up MI6 agent
EXCLUSIVE by STEPHEN WRIGHT and DAVID WILLIAMS - More by this author »
Last updated at 11:11am on 27th October 2007

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

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

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

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

I think someone has a really black sense of humor, if he puts information on Litvinenko involvement into Dissidence section and lowers the visibility of this information by degrading it into subsection. ] 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... ] 04:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::In order to be put in Misplaced Pages it needs to come from reliable source. That's all. We don't need further EVIDENCE in Misplaced Pages. And we are not lawyers in order to sort it out.] 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.] 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Mind ], 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 ? ] 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

==Categorization as victim of nuclear terrorism==

I will remove a number of categories ranging from dubious to outright ludicrous, like "nuclear terrorism victims". It's not even certain whether he was indeed murdered or died from accidental exposure. ] 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".] 05:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

::] is right. Biophys please stop moving ] iformation into dissidence. Litvinenko's wife may also be ] agent and she is a WIFE. ] 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.] 03:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::::Then why you did this revert ? Mind ], 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. ] 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. ] 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 ] case (''Reference'': by Morten Bremer Mærli, ]." In ] 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 ]. See this: ] 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:: This your (''Reference'': by Morten Bremer Mærli, ]) 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 ] from simple ]. 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, ]. That's why your categorization of this article is just political propaganda. ] 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 ]. 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.] 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
: Um. Where is the proof that he was actually murdered? ] 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

::We do not need any ''proofs'' of anything ("verifiability not truth"). We only need proper sourcing per ] and representing all significant views per ].] 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. --] 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::Why? ] 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. --] 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. ] 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. ] 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. --] 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Speculations, however numerous, are not any better than speculations of one source. ] 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 ] - clearly, adding an MI6 cat would be excessive.--] 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. ] 22:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Could you give the link to "cause of death disputed" category? I could not find it. ] 09:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::::: Here you are: ] 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.] 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?] (]) 22:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

==Categorization as a conspiracy theorist==

Litvinenko's accusations that the Moscow bombings were staged by the Russian government, right or wrong, are '''conspiracy theories''' and he should be categorized the same as, for example, people who claim the September 11 attacks were staged by the United States government (see ]). 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.] (]) 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 ]).] (]) 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 ].] (]) 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":

:: And actually, as per ] the obligation rests upon the ''accusers'' to prove that Putin is a pedophile, not the other way around (which is an absurd suggestion anyway).] (]) 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.] (]) 21:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Then, the pedophilia accusations and a lot of other accusations ''will'' appear in Putin's BLP per ]. The accusations will not be represented as facts, of course.] (]) 22:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

::: ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ]: ''An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 22:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

::::You need reliable ] 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. ] (]) 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). --] (]) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
:::::::You still need a cite for "conspiracy theorist" -not just an WP editor's opinion or ]. Putin '''is''' still alive, and calling someone a pedo is a serious charge. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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!. ] (]) 23:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I went looking at ] and related categories, such as ], 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 ] says that the only articles to be included are for advocates of one of the conspiracy theories in ]. 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. --] (]) 00:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

: In that case, I have added the ] page to ], 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. ] (]) 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 ] is a subcat of ]. --] (]) 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? ] (]) 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 ] or ] to the category (two reporters who helped uncover a real conspiracy) it would absolutely not be tolerated. --] (]) 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. Misplaced Pages 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 ] page. Don't do it here, it is just disruptive and irrelevant to the content dispute, See ]. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. ] once said that now after Litvineko murder, everyone believes all his accusations were true. So, let's describe current situation.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (not by me), and his sourced view can be included here as such.] (]) 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). --] (]) 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. ] (]) 02:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::It seems that consensus here is not to consider this as a "conspiracy theory" and so on.] (]) 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Of course, that did not look very decent. Pouring dirt on his benefactors. Given the given the rank of colonel, the money and an apartment in London, a prestigious job ... Anglophones have about the methods common dangerous method to eliminate an enemy officer even let discuss. Radioaktivnoe pollution has Led welc to numerous cases of cancer in passengers and residents of London. The cooperation of the Attorney General of the King with moskowische colleague (GLU / FSB) to be wünst closer. Kinda like Minister of the Interior (as he hoisted merely?).] (])
:::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). --] (]) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
::::I agree.] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ], ], ], ], ] 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.] (]) 01:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


== Replaced fair use images. == == Hollywood film about Litvinenko. ==


There were plans to make a film about him.
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! ] (]) 23:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like there is no mention of him in article and now I heard it's canceled.


Since I'm not his fan I'm not going to spend my time on this, but I will give a link to the news on Russian source for editors with other views on him.
== ] deletion of sourced content ==
http://news.yandex.ru/yandsearch?cl4url=www.gazeta.ru%2Fnews%2Fculture%2F2009%2F10%2F05%2Fn_1410702.shtml.
--] (]) 10:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


== Changes made to article ==
Please stop deleting sourced content just because you do not agree with it, you are violating ].--] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Despite ], ] and other threads within Archive 3, there were still massive problems with the article, including the removal of sourced information (such as Litvinenko moonlighting for Berezovsky, date of flight from Turkey, etc), POV-headings ("Persecution" as opposed to the now neutral "Dismissal from the FSB", etc), and a heap of other general fixes which were made many months ago, but reverted by Biophys, a version which takes into account those problems, and also edits made by subsequent editors, has been introduced. Please remember that removal of sourced, NPOV information from articles is frowned upon, and that discussion should be held before removal of information. --] <sup>]</sup> 23:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Please see ]. You do not get to decide what information gets inserted into the lead. The theme of ] 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. --] (]) 05:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
:It also needs to be noted that much of the information re-introduced into the article is information which Biophys has himself agreed should be present (as per talk), but has removed from the article with his September '09 revert to his favoured version. We can't allow Misplaced Pages to be used as a vehicle for advocacy or anything like that, and all POV need to be presented in articles, not just one POV. --] <sup>]</sup> 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


== LEAKED CABLE ==
:All factual information and claims are included in the article ''and in the Introduction'' (briefly). Please formulate exactly what important is missing.] (]) 16:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HAMBURG 000085
I have already provided diffs of your vandalism . The administrator was too hasty in protecting this article, there is nothing to do but wait until the protection expires.--] (]) 06:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


SIPDIS
:I said: the claims in these segments are already included in the article and in the Introduction. ''What exactly'' was not included?] (]) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC) More sources: ,,. ] (]) 04:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
SIPDIS


EO 12958 DECL: 12/19/2016
==Last edits==
TAGS KCRM, PTER, EAIR, PINR, PINS, KNNP, RS, GM, UK
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.] (]) 04:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
SUBJECT: HAMBURG POLICE TRACK POLONIUM TRAIL


HAMBURG 00000085 001.2 OF 002
: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.--] (]) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


CLASSIFIED BY: Duane Butcher, Consul General, Consulate General Hamburg, State. REASON: 1.4 (b)
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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 04:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


¶1. (SBU) Summary: Hamburg State Police (LKA) confirmed December 14 that Dmitry Kovtun had left positive traces of polonium 210 in Hamburg prior to his departure from Hamburg for London on November 1. A senior official in the Federal Interior Ministry in Berlin also confirmed the reports and noted the ongoing investigation. Hamburg police continue to examine where Kovtun was and what he did while in Germany, but are not yet able to confirm if Kovtun was transporting polonium or if he had been contaminated through contact with the substance prior to his arrival in Hamburg on October 28. End Summary.
:There have been no sources provided that assert that those 8 sources which have described those as "conspiracy theories" have changed their positions. ] 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".--] (]) 04:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


¶2. (SBU) Pol/Econ Off and FSN Investigator met Hamburg LKA Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Officer and director of this special investigation Thomas Menzel December 14. Menzel, who is also Director of the Hamburg LKA Organized Crime Unit, explained that the Hamburg investigation started because officers on his team drawing from press reports recognized a connection between the Litvinenko case and the flight from Hamburg to London and began to investigate whether Kovtun or Andrei Lugovoi had been in Hamburg. They discovered that Kovtun was a registered resident at the multi-family building at Erzberger Strasse 4 in Hamburg’s Ottensen neighborhood and that he had flown to Hamburg on October 28 on an Aeroflot flight from Moscow. Menzel reported Hamburg authorities are working closely with the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) and is receiving assistance from the Federal Central Support Unit and the Federal Office of Radiation Protection. Menzel stated that Stuart Goodwin from Scotland Yard has been in Hamburg since December 12 and that cooperation between the British and Hamburg police has been excellent. While the BKA and various German agencies are involved in the investigation, Menzel confirmed that Hamburg is leading the inquiry.
:::Unfortunately, most of your sources do ''not'' claim this to be a "conspiracy theory".] (]) 19:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


¶3. (SBU) The investigation’s main focus is to uncover Kovtun’s whereabouts between October 28 and November 1 and to discover any polonium-contaminated sites in the Hamburg region. Menzel reported that the investigation has revealed:
::Fine, I removed the disputed conjecture.] (]) 04:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


*Kovtun arrived in Hamburg October 28 on the Aeroflot flight from Moscow and was picked up from the airport in a BMW. He spent that night at the apartment of Marina Wall, his Russian/German ex-wife, at Erzberger Strasse 4. Kovtun has two apartments in the Erzberger Strasse building, his ex-wife’s residence and another apartment. Neighbors told police that he had not used the second apartment for years and it has been rented to other tenants. Wall’s apartment has tested positive for polonium.
::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.] (]) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


*On October 29, Kovtun spent the night at a house in Haselau outside of Hamburg, which is where police found the BMW. Both the Haselau residence and the BMW are contaminated with polonium.
:::Please stop your unilateral reverts conducted without any discussion.] (]) 17:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


*On October 30, Kovtun kept an appointment with the Office of Foreigner Registration in Hamburg-Altona, where he signed a document. His signature has tested positive for radiation. After visiting several locations in Hamburg, including a restaurant and gambling hall, Kovtun spent the night at the home of an Italian acquaintance on Kieler Strasse in Hamburg. None of these locations have tested positive for polonium.
== ]' deletion of sourced counterarguments ==


*Kovtun again spent the night of October 31 at Wall’s apartment on Erzberger Strasse. He departed by taxi for the airport early on November 1 and flew to London on the 6:40 am GermanWings flight.
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 ] view, and is currently given way too much weight in both the lead and throughout this article. "However" is on the list of ] 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 ] was published by Litvinenko's wife. These deletions/manipulation/hiding away of the counterarguments are all a clear violation of ].--] (]) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


¶4. (SBU) Menzel said the investigation is looking into several unanswered questions. Hamburg police are trying to discover whether Kovtun visited Hamburg prior to October 28 and where he was between November 1 and the date he arrived in Moscow. They are also looking into whether Lugovoi or any of the other individuals involved in the Litvinenko case have been to Hamburg in the recent past and have requested airlines to review their passenger lists. Other remaining questions concern whether there are any further contaminated locations in Hamburg or other parts of Germany. Investigators hope to find out more about Kovtun as an individual - what he did for a living, what his personal background was, and whether he had worked at the Russian Consulate in Hamburg in the past. Finally, Menzel was curious about a possible Italian connection to the Litvinenko
:Not at all. Let's summarize "Pro" and "Contra" views".
HAMBURG 00000085 002.2 OF 002
case and noted that Kovtun had met with an Italian national in Hamburg and that Italians played a role in the London investigation as well.


¶5. (C) Federal Interior Minister Deputy DG for Counterterrorism Gerhard Schindler discussed the status of the German investigation during a meeting on other topics with EMIN December 14. Schindler explained German officials retraced Kovtun’s steps to and from his ex-wife’s home in Hamburg. Schindler said Kovtun left polonium traces on everything he touched - vehicles, objects, clothes, and furniture. German investigators concluded Kovtun did not have polonium traces on his skin or clothes; Schindler said the polonium was coming out of his body, for example through his pores. German authorities had tested the German Wings airplane that had taken Kovtun from Hamburg to London; no traces of polonium were found. Germany had wanted to test the Aeroflot plane that flew Kovtun to Germany, and had prepared to ground it upon its next arrival in Germany. Schindler said Russian authorities must have found out about German plans because “at the last minute” Aeroflot swapped planes; Schindler said he did not expect Aeroflot to fly the other plane to Germany any time soon.
You just avoided several points I made. "However" is on the list of ] 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 ] was published by Litvinenko's wife.--] (]) 01:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


¶6. (U) This message has been coordinated with Embassy Berlin. BUTCHER <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
===Pro===
:I took the action of correcting the formatting for the above cable. This cable was released on Dec. 1 at Wikileaks. It basically removes any doubt that Kovtun poisoned Litvinenko, IMO. I added a sentence about this to the article; I would be surprised if the mainstream news doesn't pick this up soon with more analysis. -- ] (]) 17:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Several notable proffessionals claiming the involvenet of FSB to be the case: '''1''' - ] officer ], '''2''' - ] and ] scholar ], '''3''' - member of Russian ] ], '''4''' notable historian ], '''5''' - political scientist ].
'''6''' In addition, we have U.S. Senator and presidential candidate ] telling that " There remain credible allegations that Russia's FSB had a hand in carrying out these attacks" . Some of these people have written books on the sibject and they are notable experts.


Another relevant cable:
===Contra===


¶6. (S) Fried commented that the short-term trend inside Russia was negative, noting increasing indications that the UK investigation into the murder of Litvinenko could well point to some sort of Russian involvement. MGM called attention to Chirac’s statement encouraging the Russians to cooperate in the investigation. He wondered aloud who might have given the order, but speculated the murder probably involved a settling of accounts between services rather than occurring under direct order from the Kremlin. Fried, noting Putin’s attention to detail, questioned whether rogue security elements could operate, in the UK no less, without Putin’s knowledge. Describing the current atmosphere as strange, he described the Russians as increasingly self-confident, to the point of arrogance.
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.''


-- ] (]) 19:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This qualifies the case as a "controversy", not as a "conspiracy theory".
] (]) 18:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC) :A Guardian article on this at -- ] (]) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


::Agree. There are other publications about this . They should probably be described better in this article. ] (]) 23:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
===The DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact===
Whether or not it is a conspiracy is not the issue, however the DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact, supported by many sources, much much more credible than Alexander Litvinenko and co., including
*'''The Washinton Times''',
*'''The New York Times''',
*'''The Times''',
*'''Princeton University''', etc.
have referred to it as a "conspiracy theory".--] (]) 01:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


== Small changes ==
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.--] (]) 01:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I guess I should jump on here. I am making quite a few changes, but no content has been removed. Edits have been minor, ie - sentence restructuring. I am new. Please feel free to undo anything I've done. Very interesting article. Thanks to all contributors. ] (]) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
:What is the problem? All your sources are currently included in this article.] (]) 03:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


== Adding in irrelevant information about Berezovsky ==
The problem is that you have deleted/manipulated the counterarguments. You avoided several points I made. "However" is on the list of ] 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 ] was published by Litvinenko's wife.--] (]) 04:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


I understand that ] here have a of spreading negative information about certain living persons, but it doesn't automatically mean that information should be copy-pasted onto each article that mentions the word "Berezovsky", especially if the particular information is strictly related to describing Berezovsky himself and has little relevance to other people (in this particular case, to Alexander Litvienko). Soo... don't do that ;-)] (]) 05:16, 11 September 2012 (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.] (]) 19:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


== Allegiance ==
==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.] (]) 02:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


His Allegiance was not to the FSB, but to the British government, as he was UK spy. Why is this not reflected in the "allegiance" tab on his biography? He was not loyal to the Russian government or people, betraying both. ] (]) 04:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
:This is the same situation as the ] 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 – 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.--] (]) 05:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


==Comment==
::''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 ] 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.] (]) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I do not see too much recent work here. This page needs attention of someone familiar with the subject. I made a few quick obvious fixes... ] (]) 06:10, 24 March 2013 (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 :"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.--] (]) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Why no mention of the Millennium Hotel and it's Pine Bar - the location of the alleged poisoning??? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::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''.] (]) 23:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
::::::O'K, I made phrase you do not like shorter. Looking for a compromise...] (]) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


:::::::That was just an example I gave.--] (]) 00:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


I propose adding the following paragraph after the last paragraph of 7.1 Inquest in London. Does anyone object?
::::::::So, you did not provide any arguments but deleted exactly ''that'' phrase !] (]) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
--On February 5, 2016, the ''Guardian'' presented an analysis of Robert Owen's inquiry that it titled "Six reasons you can't take the Litvinenko report seriously" by media business analyst William Dunkerley (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/05/litvinenko-report-get-it-wrong-putin). The ''Guardian'' itself added that the "Inquiry points the finger at Vladimir Putin and the Russian state, but its findings are biased, flawed and inconsistent."
--] (]) 20:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)


== on Radioactive "Marlboro" ==
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.] (]) 16:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Geleesen in newspapers, on a big rod "Marlboro" cigarettes, this jemmand in office millioner Platon Elenin has forgotten / left. This Marlboro, reportedly was prepared less with radioactive materials. Radioaktieve "Marlboro", supposedly, A. Litvinenko out smokes. WHILE flights in Aer- Bus. And, WHILE investigation was a Diplomant Russia, allegedly poisoned to death. Would, perhaps, possible to supplement this article with info on Sorte this radioactive "Marlboro". It exestieren but different. Thank you.] (]) 15:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
::Could you also please give me 20 minutes for editing to avoid edit conflict? Thanks.] (]) 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.] (]) 17:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Das ist das übliche Praktik für "Rauchere" vergiftete Zigarete zu zuschmeisen oder verschenken. Wie in London so auch z.B. in Brüssel. Kopfschmerzen, Abmagerung , Übermüdigkeit , - das ist das erste Simptomen.] (]) 12:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Poisoning by cigarettes, poisoning with green tea, poisoning with fatty fish. Colonel of the FSB, - did not know the internal regulations of the service? Here, compare with Colonel GRU Rezun (author of many books under the pseudonym "Denis Suvorov"). So he even published in Moscow. And they paid money. Well, part of the fee went to the self-financing of the GRU. All chiefs of the FSB-SWR Residences are cultural people, diplomats of the Russian Embassies. We have to negotiate, Verhandlen. Quite right! They and we (boys and girls Wikipeda.org), too, travkat. But, correctly, diplomatically. Little by little. And, I'll give them a part of the fee. With self-financing will help. Protection for promotion is organized. After all, "Metnilmercury" is the strongest, deadly poison! The lethal dose is 30 micrograms (0.000030 grams). Perhaps, the thesis played a role: to whom much has been given so much will be asked. Toest, on the contrary: they gave a lot to ask a lot. Toist, you need to be interested in the topic. Events are developing ....] (]) 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


== Accepting Islam ==
:::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. ] (]) 17:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Shouldn't this be "Conversion to Islam?" <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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.


::Why? What religion did he convert from? If we don't know, and can't verify it, we can't assume he had a religion, let alone guess at which one he might have had. So let's merely say he accepted or embraced Islam. Best regards, ] (]) 12:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
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.


:::More to the point, where is the reliable, neutral source for his alleged conversion in the first place? --] (]) 18:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
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. ] 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. ] (]) 17:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


== Much of the text fails to conform to the three basic article policies: (1) no original research, (2) neutral point of view, and (3) verifiability. ==
: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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


After an extensive exchange NeilN and I agree that we have come to an impasse.
:It's a significant claim that he made, so it should be in the lead, along with the rest of his significant claims. ] (]) 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Please see the exchange here:
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. ] (]) 17:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NeilN#Alexander_Litvinenko
: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. ] (]) 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Can someone please help? Thanks. ] (]) 07:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009
::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. ] (]) 18:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


== Good source? ==
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.] (]) 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 18:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC) I removed several dubious "facts" referenced to William Dunkerley's ''The Phony Litvinenko Murder'' ({{ISBN|978-0615559018}}). This does not seem to me like a reliable source. What do others think? --] (]) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|John}} See the section right above this one for a link to an extensive discussion. You've wikilinked to a different author, BTW. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
::I had read part of that. You are right about the wikilink, I have removed it. --] (]) 21:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)


*And likewise for the ''Daily Mail''. We cannot use this for BLP (I know the subject no longer qualifies for this, but others mentioned do) except for the most uncontroversial of facts. If it is worth mentioning it will have been covered elsewhere. --] (]) 16:35, 28 January 2015 (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. ] (]) 18:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
**Based on prior discussions at ], I agree. --] <sup>]</sup> 16:41, 28 January 2015 (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. ] (]) 18:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
**I disagree. One of the sources removed by John was an article by the man himself. Any points made which mention other people and where BLP is a concern can certainly be addressed, just not by a blanket ban on all Daily Mail (or similar) sources used in this article. The Daily Mail hasn't been blacklisted, so it should presumably be evaluated to see if it's reliable for the point it's supporting, just like everything else. ] (]) 17:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
***I've evaluated it and I think it isn't a good source. I think ] is saying the same. Why do you think this is a good source for this particular item? Did you only restore the one you think is ok or did you restore everything? --] (]) 18:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::::You've been bold, reverted and now we discuss. (Sorry, given who you are, I know I'm being facetious here!). You are the one who removed the sources; what did you feel was wrong with them. Other than your well known, and not entirely unjustified, hatred of all things Daily Mail? For example, will you admit that the reason you removed the sources, and the statements they attached to, was ''not'' because you reviewed the statements and their points, but rather because you remove all things Daily Mail? Hence the repeated removal of an article by Litvinenko himself.
::::Anyway, I've reverted pending discussion. I'm expecting you, as the one who wishes to make changes, to explain those changes. If you're playing the Admin card, tell me, and I'll desist. ] (]) 21:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::If Litvinenko's assertions are noteworthy, they will have been covered by better sources. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
::::::I'm afraid I agree with NeilN again. Are there proper books which discuss these allegations of eight years ago? If not, why not? Have more reputable sources than the ''Mail'' picked them up in the intervening years? If not, why not? I have explained my changes, and linked you to ]. If you want to restore the material, the ] is on you to justify it. It disturbs me that you are saying that ''one'' of the items you are restoring is justified because the source claims the subject said this himself (though you don't explain why this would make it more reliable), yet you are blanket-restoring all the dodgy material, not just that one. I am not wearing my admin hat on this one, but if I was that would make me raise my eyebrows slightly. --] (]) 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
:::::::] doesn't apply here re. Litvinenko, as you recognised earlier. So presumably we can ignore that, which means the "more reliable sources" point that NeilN raises (taken from BLPSOURCES) doesn't apply here. Instead what applies is whether or not the points belong in the article and whether or not the sources are reliable on the points they support. Consensus had, I would assume, been achieved in the 3+ years that the claim by Litvinenko had been in the article, so ] also doesn't really apply; certainly it's verifiable that he said it. I see you'd disagree with that; not sure what to say. Have you any examples of people who've written articles for the Mail then saying they've been altered somehow? How do you feel about articles that he wrote for Chechenpress that we're citing?
:::::::The exception to that is presumably where a point is made about someone else, when BLP will apply to them. However, I assume we can still report what the subject of this article has written, even if that's negative (even if he's lying or mistaken)? We just attribute it and move on.
:::::::In terms of the other items I restored. One is merely a second-cite, so I've less problem with it going. I am concerned that there's a reasonable chance that failure to review the other sources in cases like this may well lead to statements being apparently supported when they are not; perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps you did review the existing cites, but then why is the IHT one (which regurgitates the Daily Mail) still there? The other, the boy-kissing incident, seems to have been dealt with properly by the Mail, which provides non-contentious information that isn't (currently) sourced elsewhere. However, on reflection, I can see that the strict application of BLP (re. Putin) on this point will lead to it's removal, even though the Mail quotes that are in the article underline just how batshit crazy that suggestion was (i.e. they defend Putin). So I was going to remove it now, but we probably need to find another example of the "British media" to add to that sentence, as just one cite doesn't really cut it, and I'm out of time. Unless we retain it for the reaction point ("sensational and unsubstantiated") alone? Certainly the Daily Mail is part of the UK media. ] (]) 01:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


== Possible conversion to Islam ==
:::: 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


We used to have a section on this, but it was removed a week ago. It's pretty easy to source that he may have converted to Islam - I'd suggest that is a poor pop-quiz sort of ref, but there's from 2006. More recently, there's the statements of Robin Tam in the inquiry (not sure if he has a corner to fight; I assume not). Should be more on this as the inquest unfolds.
:The argument by Pietervhuis is pretty much neutral. Let's remove it from introduction. This claim is not especially notable or relevant.] (]) 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. ] (]) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC) Shouldn't there be some mention of this? Personally, I'd go with the quote from the Telegraph article, as it nicely sums it up: ''"We are keeping an open mind. In the state he was, heavily sedated and on his death bed, it is impossible to say. It was his last few days and he was under a lot of influences, medical, mental and emotional."'' ] (]) 17:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
*Before removing the bit, I googled the topic and discovered it was essentially rumor and posthumous allegations. It is obvious the person was irreligious as any professional career KGB officer was and is (as belonging to the kgb is in itself a religious affiliation). He might have gone through the motions of conversion (as it is quite easy to do in islam: one simply is required to utter a solemn statement) for the political benefit of his friends from the Ichkeria government. Apart from removing the section, I added the bit on his burial that mentions that a muslim prayer was said; the source also says that his wife wanted it to be non-denominational, which suggests there had not been any meaningful conversion: otherwise his will would have dictated otherwise. That said, I would not object to some qualified statements to that effect being added.] (]) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::Time CBC NBC Daily Mail The Guardian The Rolling Stone etc..This is a well known, relevant claim. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Of course the claim will stay in the lead just as his other claims are per ].--] (]) 01:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
::"Great" argument: ''"Of course the claim will stay in the lead"'' ] (]) 02:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081212163921/http://www.iht.com:80/articles/ap/2006/12/10/europe/EU_GEN_Britain_Poisoned_Spy_Wife.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/12/10/europe/EU_GEN_Britain_Poisoned_Spy_Wife.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081225184931/http://www.axisglobe.com:80/article.asp?article=1140 to http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=1140
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070523121256/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/article/0,,30100-1266771,00.html? to http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1266771,00.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
===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.] (]) 01:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
:Well, I made a quick follow-up and found this . Should we use it? Those are allegedly statements by Russian officials.] (]) 01:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
==Original research==


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 10:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
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''"


== External links modified ==
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. ] (]) 01:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:Exactly. Furthermore, point out in the article where they mention that the incident made suspicions of paedophilia, they don't.--] (]) 01:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:10|one external link|10 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
::Please relax. If we are going to be so confrontational, someone will create an article ] and who knows what else. Do you want that? I do not.] (]) 02:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211142149/http://www.prima-news.ru:80/news/articles/2002/10/10/17299.html to http://www.prima-news.ru/news/articles/2002/10/10/17299.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050913232153/http://www.lenta.ru:80/world/2001/05/15/litvinenko/statement.htm to http://www.lenta.ru/world/2001/05/15/litvinenko/statement.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090116165906/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/world/europe/the-litvinenko-files-was-he-really-murdered-819534.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/the-litvinenko-files-was-he-really-murdered-819534.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090114085313/http://www.dziennik.pl:80/article48074/Russian_special_forces_shot_at_Litvinenko.html to http://www.dziennik.pl/article48074/Russian_special_forces_shot_at_Litvinenko.html
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chechenpress.info/english/news/2005/03/23/03.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071219040336/http://cicentre.com:80/Documents/russia_islam_not_separate.html to http://cicentre.com/Documents/russia_islam_not_separate.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070929104844/http://www.itv.com/news/index_de20839cb1d32bc0891bbbd13c6a4c1e.html to http://www.itv.com/news/index_de20839cb1d32bc0891bbbd13c6a4c1e.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111028171001/http://www.compromat.ru/main/fsb/litvinenkolpgg4.htm to http://www.compromat.ru/main/fsb/litvinenkolpgg4.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.chechenpress.info/events/2006/07/05/03.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120210162444/http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7225032942379831216&q=Anna+Politkovskaya to http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-7225032942379831216&q=Anna+Politkovskaya


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
:::Confrontational? Would you rather we just revert without discussing or explaining our reasoning? ] (]) 02:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
::::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.] (]) 01:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 16:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
==Recent edits==
According to ], "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 ], but also ]. 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).] (]) 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
:So why did you remove his accusation of Prodi being a friend of the KGB? It's a direct quote from a BBC article. ] (]) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::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.] (]) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
:::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". ] says: "The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth." ] (]) 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111210003336/http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2007-07-23/Lugovoy_case_unsubstantial_Russian_prosecution.html to http://www.russiatoday.com/Top_News/2007-07-23/Lugovoy_case_unsubstantial_Russian_prosecution.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
:::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. ] (]) 22:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
::::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 ].] (]) 22:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]:Online</sub></small> 08:04, 1 March 2016 (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. ] (]) 16:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::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.] (]) 17:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
:::If this line of arguments continues, we will be looking at a separate article ].] (]) 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, ] (]) 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). ] (]) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
: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.] (]) 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... ] (]) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified {{plural:8|one external link|8 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::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. ] (]) 18:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.prima-news.ru/news/articles/2002/10/10/17299.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lenta.ru/world/2001/05/15/litvinenko/statement.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114085313/http://www.dziennik.pl/article48074/Russian_special_forces_shot_at_Litvinenko.html to http://www.dziennik.pl/article48074/Russian_special_forces_shot_at_Litvinenko.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120111002912/http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/907jbmkm.asp to http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/907jbmkm.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219040336/http://cicentre.com/Documents/russia_islam_not_separate.html to http://cicentre.com/Documents/russia_islam_not_separate.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.compromat.ru/main/fsb/litvinenkolpgg4.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chechenpress.info/events/2006/07/05/03.shtml
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929102924/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005782642 to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005782642


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
------


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
If you're citing ], then please take into account that accusing something of being "POV" isn't a valid reason to remove content from an article. It states:


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 12:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
*''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.''


== External links modified ==
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..?] (]) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
-----


I have just modified {{plural:31|one external link|31 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
: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. ] (]) 00:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/alexander-litvinenko-425720.html
::And you please don't try to sneekingly insert them. ] (]) 00:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5omVzcL6j?url=http%3A%2F%2Frt.com%2FRussia_Now%2FRussiapedia%2FThose_Russians%2Flaleksandr-litvinenko.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20100401113025/http://rt.com/Russia_Now/Russiapedia/Those_Russians/laleksandr-litvinenko.html on http://rt.com/Russia_Now/Russiapedia/Those_Russians/laleksandr-litvinenko.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1535094/Alexander-Litvinenko.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article649185.ece
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5oGgci30O?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailymail.co.uk%2Fnews%2Farticle-490007%2FRevealed-Poisoned-ex-Russian-spy-Litvinenko-WAS-paid-MI6-agent.html with https://web.archive.org/web/20100329034829/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490007/Revealed-Poisoned-ex-Russian-spy-Litvinenko-WAS-paid-MI6-agent.html on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-490007/Revealed-Poisoned-ex-Russian-spy-Litvinenko-WAS-paid-MI6-agent.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wps.ru/ru/pp/tv-review/2006/11/30.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalinterest.org/BlogSE.aspx?id=13150
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208212745/http://www.agentura.ru/timeline/1998/urpo/ to http://www.agentura.ru/timeline/1998/urpo/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208212745/http://www.agentura.ru/timeline/1998/urpo/ to http://www.agentura.ru/timeline/1998/urpo/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rg.ru/Anons/arc_2002/0330/hit.shtm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/news/newsid_1331000/1331949.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kommersant.com/p738293/r_530/Litvinenko_Shooting_Gallery/
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5ombY346X?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2006%2Fdec%2F03%2Frussia.world with https://web.archive.org/web/20100315035137/http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/03/russia.world on http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/03/russia.world
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5omWvxKlb?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk%2Fuk%2F2006%2Fdec%2F03%2Fworld.russia2 with https://web.archive.org/web/20100315035247/http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/03/world.russia2 on http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/03/world.russia2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/14/litvinenko/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/russian/07%2817%29AM.pdf
*Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5omYjLpcq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.weeklystandard.com%2Fprint%2FContent%2FPublic%2FArticles%2F000%2F000%2F012%2F907jbmkm.asp with https://web.archive.org/web/20120111002912/http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/907jbmkm.asp on http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/907jbmkm.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121162852/http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/russia__terrorism_takes_front_stage_130217 to http://news.sbs.com.au/dateline/russia__terrorism_takes_front_stage_130217
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025042808/http://eng.terror99.ru:80/publications/098.htm to http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/098.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/86/00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180758/http://www.svobodanews.ru/Transcript/2006/12/04/20061204200017950.html to http://www.svobodanews.ru/Transcript/2006/12/04/20061204200017950.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/23/uk.spypoisoned/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061124/55967399.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901354_pf.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6179074.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-418652/Why-I-believe-Putin-wanted-dead-.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6165596.stm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524045305/http://voanews.com/english/2007-05-22-voa13.cfm to http://voanews.com/english/2007-05-22-voa13.cfm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070829/75649246.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-16-1408012780_x.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.itv.com/news/entertainment_272e8dca5cfa3bcb61859ffd84edce8c.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
:::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. ] (]) 00:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
::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?] (]) 00:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 14:02, 8 October 2016 (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. ] (]) 00:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::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.] (]) 00:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::: 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 01:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
: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. ] (]) 01:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114085313/http://www.dziennik.pl/article48074/Russian_special_forces_shot_at_Litvinenko.html to http://www.dziennik.pl/article48074/Russian_special_forces_shot_at_Litvinenko.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071219040336/http://cicentre.com/Documents/russia_islam_not_separate.html to http://cicentre.com/Documents/russia_islam_not_separate.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031085346/http://www.echo.msk.ru:80/interview/44072/ to http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http://www.echo.msk.ru/interview/44072/


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::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! ] (]) 01:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::Oh, sorry. I forgot the "It discredits his other claims" argument. ] (]) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
::::Actually that was Miyokan's argument. ] (]) 01:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 22:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
----


== ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck ==
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. ] (]) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


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


About a month or two ago, I visited the Russkiy yazik (Russian) Langauge version of Misplaced Pages and found some deliberately misleading, false, fraudulent, and defamatory statements there about Alexander Litvinenko ({{lang-rus|link=no|Алекса́ндр Ва́льтерович Литвине́нко|p=ɐlʲɪˈksandr ˈvaltərəvʲɪtɕ lʲɪtvʲɪˈnʲɛnkə}}. It practically looked like it was written by the FSB, and had _very little similarity_ to the English Misplaced Pages Treatment of the Subject. For instance, there was a statement, maybe well coerced, above the fold by Litvinenko's 'father' saying that Litvinenko was an embarrassment, and there was a whole lot of invalid uncertainty and disinformation about the mechanism of death and the traceability of the death back to the Inquiry's identified culprits, and the involvement of Vladimir Putin.
==Russiablog==
Russiablog is an internet portal of The Real Russia Project, organized by the ]. 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. ] (]) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Of course, ru.wikipedia.org is under pressure itself. Authors in Russia can get killed for editing Litvinenko article, like the dozens of journalists now who have disappeared or been killed in mysterious circumstances. But I can't keep monitoring this for neutral point-of-view myself, and i'm past the limit of machine translation: there are natural langauge 'tricks' of bias that I can't catch, in the interstices of machine translation capability on Translate. So, what I'm proposing, and what I've done here, is include a link at the very top to "ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck", which redirects bilingual volunteers (RU>EN + EN>RU) to that page to fact-check Misplaced Pages across Langauges. The Neutral Point of View on Litvinenko, following the exhaustive UK Litvinenko Inquiry, should not be any different on the basic facts, and any divergence should be subject to questioning, if the ru.wikipedia.org seems to be deliberatively misinforming Russian Langauge Readers.
==Claims of Russia-] 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-] materials together. This is not skeweing of a material, but combining different materials on the same subject. Both pieces are about ] and ]. That is why they belong to the same section.] (]) 23:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


This link is syntax-positioned just before the deep name, in local endonym, of the Notable Person or Event. This Litvinenko cross-link model might serve as a template for other cases. Let me know if you have any suggestions for the syntax. The ideal thing would be to link at the name itself, but that's proven difficult, given the existing display code.
:It was not me who inserted accusations about Russia-Al Qaeda connections. It was you and RJ_CG. I only did formatting here.] (]) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


This Litvinenko scandal, more than any other, that has traction in a popular, more neutral reconsideration of Putin's Plutonium + Polonium Reign. Who has access to Polonium, aside from the authority chain of centralized state control, and how could this have been done, and remain unprosecuted locally, without authorization and protection at the highest level, extending to a ru.wikipedia.org Disinformation Campaign? So please, to keep this from repeating again, if you would, please consider supporting this syntax for cross-lingual factchecking in versions of Misplaced Pages that proliferate through the world, and may be subject to Governmental disinformation campaigns. Certain articles, like the Litvinenko Article, show Revision HSTRY that is indubitably driven by politics, not facts.
::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.


Another that merits close fact-checking attention right now would be the assassination of Kim Jong-Un's older, regime-critical brother, Kim Jong-nam 김정남, without any JARA (Journal on Asylum, Refugees, and Assassination) 007 License. North Korea is claiming that the death was a heart clot (in vulgar English, a heart attack). We know from Indonesia that's disinformation, and it's so inculpatory to disinform the Public about this that Kim Jong-Un might be subject now, if not before, to a JARA 007 Recommendation. It's hard to mistake VX Nerve Gas for a Heart Clot in a toxicology report. Unless, perhaps, Misplaced Pages means to claim that these are ambiguous in toxicology testing, or that there's a conspiracy in Indonesian Toxicology Labs to bring down Kim Jong-Un.
:::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.


ko.wikipedia.org might not penetrate into Hermit Kingdom, and might be written almost entirely by the Republic of Korea, but it's still worth a factcheck link, while cross-lingual accounts might diverge, so that bilinguals can participate in either langauge contesting Neutral Point-of-View with Facts, as they come in. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::And chechenpress is not an unreliable source. Are you claiming they made the whole interview up? ] (]) 00:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::I may agree that ] 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 ]? ] (]) 00:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::::: 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. ] (]) 00:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified 27 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::::::In the both statements Litvinenko accuses FSB of connections with Islamic terrorists - Al Qaeda.] (]) 00:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/alexander-litvinenko-425720.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1535094/Alexander-Litvinenko.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article649185.ece
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wps.ru/ru/pp/tv-review/2006/11/30.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalinterest.org/BlogSE.aspx?id=13150
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/europe/03iht-spy.3760139.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rg.ru/Anons/arc_2002/0330/hit.shtm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/news/newsid_1331000/1331949.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kommersant.com/p738293/r_530/Litvinenko_Shooting_Gallery/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/12/14/litvinenko/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/russian/07%2817%29AM.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.azg.am/EN/2005050307
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/907jbmkm.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/86/00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.echo.msk.ru%2Finterview%2F44072%2F
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061207044901/http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/133.htm to http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/133.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061124044529/http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/23/uk.spypoisoned/index.html to http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/23/uk.spypoisoned/index.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061124/55967399.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901354_pf.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6179074.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-418652/Why-I-believe-Putin-wanted-dead-.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6165596.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0%2C%2C30100-1266771%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016222702/http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/262/ to http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/262/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070224230746/http://www.electorat.info/oligarx/22196-1/ to http://www.electorat.info/oligarx/22196-1/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070829/75649246.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-10-16-1408012780_x.htm


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I just noticed that you changed what I had originally inserted into the article and input your out of order interpretation.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
'''DIRECTLY FROM THE SOURCE COPY PASTED''':
*''The correspondent: Alexander, who, in your opinion, is the originator of this terrorist attack?''


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 00:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
*''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.''


== External links modified ==
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?] (]) 01:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:You just changed it again! I am seriously on the verge of reporting you this is absolutely ridiculous.] (]) 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


I have just modified 7 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
: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.] (]) 01:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/world/europe/03iht-spy.3760139.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/russian/07%2817%29AM.pdf
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=13&issue_id=596&article_id=4407
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006113209/http://jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?issue_id=570 to http://jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?issue_id=570
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=13&issue_id=574&article_id=4199
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061129203038/http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2006/1120.html to http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2006/1120.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211235729/http://www.chechenpress.co.uk/english/news/2006/07/05/01.shtml to http://www.chechenpress.co.uk/english/news/2006/07/05/01.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160121122438/http://www.france24.com/en/20160121-uk-police-still-want-extradition-two-litvinenko-suspects to http://www.france24.com/en/20160121-uk-police-still-want-extradition-two-litvinenko-suspects
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080415151727/http://www.dreamscanner-productions.com/litvinenko/index.html to http://www.dreamscanner-productions.com/litvinenko/index.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
::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'''.] (]) 01:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::O'K, then let's restore eveything as it was.] (]) 01:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 10:31, 20 September 2017 (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. ] (]) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:41, 30 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alexander Litvinenko article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconRussia: Politics and law High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconSoviet Union Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconLondon Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Former good article nomineeAlexander Litvinenko was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 28, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

To-do list for Alexander Litvinenko: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-01-29


Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Archiving icon
Archives

Old archives

See also: Talk:Alexander Litvinenko poisoning

Of course, that did not look very decent. Pouring dirt on his benefactors. Given the given the rank of colonel, the money and an apartment in London, a prestigious job ... Anglophones have about the methods common dangerous method to eliminate an enemy officer even let discuss. Radioaktivnoe pollution has Led welc to numerous cases of cancer in passengers and residents of London. The cooperation of the Attorney General of the King with moskowische colleague (GLU / FSB) to be wünst closer. Kinda like Minister of the Interior (as he hoisted merely?).TurOkPridurOkZweite (talk)

Hollywood film about Litvinenko.

There were plans to make a film about him. Seems like there is no mention of him in article and now I heard it's canceled.

Since I'm not his fan I'm not going to spend my time on this, but I will give a link to the news on Russian source for editors with other views on him. http://news.yandex.ru/yandsearch?cl4url=www.gazeta.ru%2Fnews%2Fculture%2F2009%2F10%2F05%2Fn_1410702.shtml. --Oleg Str (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Changes made to article

Despite Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko/Archive_3#Current_edits, Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko/Archive_3#Comparing_of_articles and other threads within Archive 3, there were still massive problems with the article, including the removal of sourced information (such as Litvinenko moonlighting for Berezovsky, date of flight from Turkey, etc), POV-headings ("Persecution" as opposed to the now neutral "Dismissal from the FSB", etc), and a heap of other general fixes which were made many months ago, but reverted by Biophys, a version which takes into account those problems, and also edits made by subsequent editors, has been introduced. Please remember that removal of sourced, NPOV information from articles is frowned upon, and that discussion should be held before removal of information. --Russavia 23:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It also needs to be noted that much of the information re-introduced into the article is information which Biophys has himself agreed should be present (as per talk), but has removed from the article with his September '09 revert to his favoured version. We can't allow Misplaced Pages to be used as a vehicle for advocacy or anything like that, and all POV need to be presented in articles, not just one POV. --Russavia 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

LEAKED CABLE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 HAMBURG 000085

SIPDIS SIPDIS

EO 12958 DECL: 12/19/2016 TAGS KCRM, PTER, EAIR, PINR, PINS, KNNP, RS, GM, UK SUBJECT: HAMBURG POLICE TRACK POLONIUM TRAIL

HAMBURG 00000085 001.2 OF 002

CLASSIFIED BY: Duane Butcher, Consul General, Consulate General Hamburg, State. REASON: 1.4 (b)

¶1. (SBU) Summary: Hamburg State Police (LKA) confirmed December 14 that Dmitry Kovtun had left positive traces of polonium 210 in Hamburg prior to his departure from Hamburg for London on November 1. A senior official in the Federal Interior Ministry in Berlin also confirmed the reports and noted the ongoing investigation. Hamburg police continue to examine where Kovtun was and what he did while in Germany, but are not yet able to confirm if Kovtun was transporting polonium or if he had been contaminated through contact with the substance prior to his arrival in Hamburg on October 28. End Summary.

¶2. (SBU) Pol/Econ Off and FSN Investigator met Hamburg LKA Criminal Investigation Department (CID) Officer and director of this special investigation Thomas Menzel December 14. Menzel, who is also Director of the Hamburg LKA Organized Crime Unit, explained that the Hamburg investigation started because officers on his team drawing from press reports recognized a connection between the Litvinenko case and the flight from Hamburg to London and began to investigate whether Kovtun or Andrei Lugovoi had been in Hamburg. They discovered that Kovtun was a registered resident at the multi-family building at Erzberger Strasse 4 in Hamburg’s Ottensen neighborhood and that he had flown to Hamburg on October 28 on an Aeroflot flight from Moscow. Menzel reported Hamburg authorities are working closely with the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) and is receiving assistance from the Federal Central Support Unit and the Federal Office of Radiation Protection. Menzel stated that Stuart Goodwin from Scotland Yard has been in Hamburg since December 12 and that cooperation between the British and Hamburg police has been excellent. While the BKA and various German agencies are involved in the investigation, Menzel confirmed that Hamburg is leading the inquiry.

¶3. (SBU) The investigation’s main focus is to uncover Kovtun’s whereabouts between October 28 and November 1 and to discover any polonium-contaminated sites in the Hamburg region. Menzel reported that the investigation has revealed:

  • Kovtun arrived in Hamburg October 28 on the Aeroflot flight from Moscow and was picked up from the airport in a BMW. He spent that night at the apartment of Marina Wall, his Russian/German ex-wife, at Erzberger Strasse 4. Kovtun has two apartments in the Erzberger Strasse building, his ex-wife’s residence and another apartment. Neighbors told police that he had not used the second apartment for years and it has been rented to other tenants. Wall’s apartment has tested positive for polonium.
  • On October 29, Kovtun spent the night at a house in Haselau outside of Hamburg, which is where police found the BMW. Both the Haselau residence and the BMW are contaminated with polonium.
  • On October 30, Kovtun kept an appointment with the Office of Foreigner Registration in Hamburg-Altona, where he signed a document. His signature has tested positive for radiation. After visiting several locations in Hamburg, including a restaurant and gambling hall, Kovtun spent the night at the home of an Italian acquaintance on Kieler Strasse in Hamburg. None of these locations have tested positive for polonium.
  • Kovtun again spent the night of October 31 at Wall’s apartment on Erzberger Strasse. He departed by taxi for the airport early on November 1 and flew to London on the 6:40 am GermanWings flight.

¶4. (SBU) Menzel said the investigation is looking into several unanswered questions. Hamburg police are trying to discover whether Kovtun visited Hamburg prior to October 28 and where he was between November 1 and the date he arrived in Moscow. They are also looking into whether Lugovoi or any of the other individuals involved in the Litvinenko case have been to Hamburg in the recent past and have requested airlines to review their passenger lists. Other remaining questions concern whether there are any further contaminated locations in Hamburg or other parts of Germany. Investigators hope to find out more about Kovtun as an individual - what he did for a living, what his personal background was, and whether he had worked at the Russian Consulate in Hamburg in the past. Finally, Menzel was curious about a possible Italian connection to the Litvinenko HAMBURG 00000085 002.2 OF 002 case and noted that Kovtun had met with an Italian national in Hamburg and that Italians played a role in the London investigation as well.

¶5. (C) Federal Interior Minister Deputy DG for Counterterrorism Gerhard Schindler discussed the status of the German investigation during a meeting on other topics with EMIN December 14. Schindler explained German officials retraced Kovtun’s steps to and from his ex-wife’s home in Hamburg. Schindler said Kovtun left polonium traces on everything he touched - vehicles, objects, clothes, and furniture. German investigators concluded Kovtun did not have polonium traces on his skin or clothes; Schindler said the polonium was coming out of his body, for example through his pores. German authorities had tested the German Wings airplane that had taken Kovtun from Hamburg to London; no traces of polonium were found. Germany had wanted to test the Aeroflot plane that flew Kovtun to Germany, and had prepared to ground it upon its next arrival in Germany. Schindler said Russian authorities must have found out about German plans because “at the last minute” Aeroflot swapped planes; Schindler said he did not expect Aeroflot to fly the other plane to Germany any time soon.

¶6. (U) This message has been coordinated with Embassy Berlin. BUTCHER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.18.99 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I took the action of correcting the formatting for the above cable. This cable was released on Dec. 1 at Wikileaks. It basically removes any doubt that Kovtun poisoned Litvinenko, IMO. I added a sentence about this to the article; I would be surprised if the mainstream news doesn't pick this up soon with more analysis. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Another relevant cable:

¶6. (S) Fried commented that the short-term trend inside Russia was negative, noting increasing indications that the UK investigation into the murder of Litvinenko could well point to some sort of Russian involvement. MGM called attention to Chirac’s statement encouraging the Russians to cooperate in the investigation. He wondered aloud who might have given the order, but speculated the murder probably involved a settling of accounts between services rather than occurring under direct order from the Kremlin. Fried, noting Putin’s attention to detail, questioned whether rogue security elements could operate, in the UK no less, without Putin’s knowledge. Describing the current atmosphere as strange, he described the Russians as increasingly self-confident, to the point of arrogance.

-- Kevin Saff (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

A Guardian article on this at -- Kevin Saff (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. There are other publications about this . They should probably be described better in this article. Biophys (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Small changes

Hi. I guess I should jump on here. I am making quite a few changes, but no content has been removed. Edits have been minor, ie - sentence restructuring. I am new. Please feel free to undo anything I've done. Very interesting article. Thanks to all contributors. Albeit27 (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding in irrelevant information about Berezovsky

I understand that some users here have a specific agenda of spreading negative information about certain living persons, but it doesn't automatically mean that same exact information should be copy-pasted onto each article that mentions the word "Berezovsky", especially if the particular information is strictly related to describing Berezovsky himself and has little relevance to other people (in this particular case, to Alexander Litvienko). Soo... don't do that ;-)98.116.120.85 (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Allegiance

His Allegiance was not to the FSB, but to the British government, as he was UK spy. Why is this not reflected in the "allegiance" tab on his biography? He was not loyal to the Russian government or people, betraying both. 2602:306:C475:A790:B095:C27B:EEE3:63E8 (talk) 04:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment

I do not see too much recent work here. This page needs attention of someone familiar with the subject. I made a few quick obvious fixes... My very best wishes (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


Why no mention of the Millennium Hotel and it's Pine Bar - the location of the alleged poisoning??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.141.193.246 (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


I propose adding the following paragraph after the last paragraph of 7.1 Inquest in London. Does anyone object? --On February 5, 2016, the Guardian presented an analysis of Robert Owen's inquiry that it titled "Six reasons you can't take the Litvinenko report seriously" by media business analyst William Dunkerley (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/05/litvinenko-report-get-it-wrong-putin). The Guardian itself added that the "Inquiry points the finger at Vladimir Putin and the Russian state, but its findings are biased, flawed and inconsistent." --Tikva2009 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

on Radioactive "Marlboro"

Geleesen in newspapers, on a big rod "Marlboro" cigarettes, this jemmand in office millioner Platon Elenin has forgotten / left. This Marlboro, reportedly was prepared less with radioactive materials. Radioaktieve "Marlboro", supposedly, A. Litvinenko out smokes. WHILE flights in Aer- Bus. And, WHILE investigation was a Diplomant Russia, allegedly poisoned to death. Would, perhaps, possible to supplement this article with info on Sorte this radioactive "Marlboro". It exestieren but different. Thank you.80.201.244.122 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Das ist das übliche Praktik für "Rauchere" vergiftete Zigarete zu zuschmeisen oder verschenken. Wie in London so auch z.B. in Brüssel. Kopfschmerzen, Abmagerung , Übermüdigkeit , - das ist das erste Simptomen.Moncrief1 (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Poisoning by cigarettes, poisoning with green tea, poisoning with fatty fish. Colonel of the FSB, - did not know the internal regulations of the service? Here, compare with Colonel GRU Rezun (author of many books under the pseudonym "Denis Suvorov"). So he even published in Moscow. And they paid money. Well, part of the fee went to the self-financing of the GRU. All chiefs of the FSB-SWR Residences are cultural people, diplomats of the Russian Embassies. We have to negotiate, Verhandlen. Quite right! They and we (boys and girls Wikipeda.org), too, travkat. But, correctly, diplomatically. Little by little. And, I'll give them a part of the fee. With self-financing will help. Protection for promotion is organized. After all, "Metnilmercury" is the strongest, deadly poison! The lethal dose is 30 micrograms (0.000030 grams). Perhaps, the thesis played a role: to whom much has been given so much will be asked. Toest, on the contrary: they gave a lot to ask a lot. Toist, you need to be interested in the topic. Events are developing ....195.244.180.59 (talk) 14:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Accepting Islam

Shouldn't this be "Conversion to Islam?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.39.8 (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? What religion did he convert from? If we don't know, and can't verify it, we can't assume he had a religion, let alone guess at which one he might have had. So let's merely say he accepted or embraced Islam. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
More to the point, where is the reliable, neutral source for his alleged conversion in the first place? --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Much of the text fails to conform to the three basic article policies: (1) no original research, (2) neutral point of view, and (3) verifiability.

After an extensive exchange NeilN and I agree that we have come to an impasse.

Please see the exchange here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:NeilN#Alexander_Litvinenko

Can someone please help? Thanks. Tikva2009 (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)tikva2009

Good source?

I removed several dubious "facts" referenced to William Dunkerley's The Phony Litvinenko Murder (ISBN 978-0615559018). This does not seem to me like a reliable source. What do others think? --John (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@John: See the section right above this one for a link to an extensive discussion. You've wikilinked to a different author, BTW. --NeilN 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I had read part of that. You are right about the wikilink, I have removed it. --John (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • And likewise for the Daily Mail. We cannot use this for BLP (I know the subject no longer qualifies for this, but others mentioned do) except for the most uncontroversial of facts. If it is worth mentioning it will have been covered elsewhere. --John (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Based on prior discussions at WP:BLPN, I agree. --NeilN 16:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I disagree. One of the sources removed by John was an article by the man himself. Any points made which mention other people and where BLP is a concern can certainly be addressed, just not by a blanket ban on all Daily Mail (or similar) sources used in this article. The Daily Mail hasn't been blacklisted, so it should presumably be evaluated to see if it's reliable for the point it's supporting, just like everything else. Bromley86 (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
      • I've evaluated it and I think it isn't a good source. I think User:NeilN is saying the same. Why do you think this is a good source for this particular item? Did you only restore the one you think is ok or did you restore everything? --John (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You've been bold, reverted and now we discuss. (Sorry, given who you are, I know I'm being facetious here!). You are the one who removed the sources; what did you feel was wrong with them. Other than your well known, and not entirely unjustified, hatred of all things Daily Mail? For example, will you admit that the reason you removed the sources, and the statements they attached to, was not because you reviewed the statements and their points, but rather because you remove all things Daily Mail? Hence the repeated removal of an article by Litvinenko himself.
Anyway, I've reverted pending discussion. I'm expecting you, as the one who wishes to make changes, to explain those changes. If you're playing the Admin card, tell me, and I'll desist. Bromley86 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
If Litvinenko's assertions are noteworthy, they will have been covered by better sources. --NeilN 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I agree with NeilN again. Are there proper books which discuss these allegations of eight years ago? If not, why not? Have more reputable sources than the Mail picked them up in the intervening years? If not, why not? I have explained my changes, and linked you to WP:BLPSOURCES. If you want to restore the material, the WP:ONUS is on you to justify it. It disturbs me that you are saying that one of the items you are restoring is justified because the source claims the subject said this himself (though you don't explain why this would make it more reliable), yet you are blanket-restoring all the dodgy material, not just that one. I am not wearing my admin hat on this one, but if I was that would make me raise my eyebrows slightly. --John (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLPSOURCES doesn't apply here re. Litvinenko, as you recognised earlier. So presumably we can ignore that, which means the "more reliable sources" point that NeilN raises (taken from BLPSOURCES) doesn't apply here. Instead what applies is whether or not the points belong in the article and whether or not the sources are reliable on the points they support. Consensus had, I would assume, been achieved in the 3+ years that the claim by Litvinenko had been in the article, so WP:ONUS also doesn't really apply; certainly it's verifiable that he said it. I see you'd disagree with that; not sure what to say. Have you any examples of people who've written articles for the Mail then saying they've been altered somehow? How do you feel about articles that he wrote for Chechenpress that we're citing?
The exception to that is presumably where a point is made about someone else, when BLP will apply to them. However, I assume we can still report what the subject of this article has written, even if that's negative (even if he's lying or mistaken)? We just attribute it and move on.
In terms of the other items I restored. One is merely a second-cite, so I've less problem with it going. I am concerned that there's a reasonable chance that failure to review the other sources in cases like this may well lead to statements being apparently supported when they are not; perhaps I'm wrong, and perhaps you did review the existing cites, but then why is the IHT one (which regurgitates the Daily Mail) still there? The other, the boy-kissing incident, seems to have been dealt with properly by the Mail, which provides non-contentious information that isn't (currently) sourced elsewhere. However, on reflection, I can see that the strict application of BLP (re. Putin) on this point will lead to it's removal, even though the Mail quotes that are in the article underline just how batshit crazy that suggestion was (i.e. they defend Putin). So I was going to remove it now, but we probably need to find another example of the "British media" to add to that sentence, as just one cite doesn't really cut it, and I'm out of time. Unless we retain it for the reaction point ("sensational and unsubstantiated") alone? Certainly the Daily Mail is part of the UK media. Bromley86 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible conversion to Islam

We used to have a section on this, but it was removed a week ago.diff It's pretty easy to source that he may have converted to Islam - I'd suggest that this is a poor pop-quiz sort of ref, but there's The Telegraph from 2006. More recently, there's the statements of Robin Tam in the inquiry (not sure if he has a corner to fight; I assume not). Should be more on this as the inquest unfolds.

Shouldn't there be some mention of this? Personally, I'd go with the quote from the Telegraph article, as it nicely sums it up: "We are keeping an open mind. In the state he was, heavily sedated and on his death bed, it is impossible to say. It was his last few days and he was under a lot of influences, medical, mental and emotional." Bromley86 (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Before removing the bit, I googled the topic and discovered it was essentially rumor and posthumous allegations. It is obvious the person was irreligious as any professional career KGB officer was and is (as belonging to the kgb is in itself a religious affiliation). He might have gone through the motions of conversion (as it is quite easy to do in islam: one simply is required to utter a solemn statement) for the political benefit of his friends from the Ichkeria government. Apart from removing the section, I added the bit on his burial that mentions that a muslim prayer was said; the source also says that his wife wanted it to be non-denominational, which suggests there had not been any meaningful conversion: otherwise his will would have dictated otherwise. That said, I would not object to some qualified statements to that effect being added.Axxxion (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 10:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 16:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 08:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 12:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck

Hi Misplaced Pages,

About a month or two ago, I visited the Russkiy yazik (Russian) Langauge version of Misplaced Pages and found some deliberately misleading, false, fraudulent, and defamatory statements there about Alexander Litvinenko ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ва́льтерович Литвине́нко, IPA: . It practically looked like it was written by the FSB, and had _very little similarity_ to the English Misplaced Pages Treatment of the Subject. For instance, there was a statement, maybe well coerced, above the fold by Litvinenko's 'father' saying that Litvinenko was an embarrassment, and there was a whole lot of invalid uncertainty and disinformation about the mechanism of death and the traceability of the death back to the Inquiry's identified culprits, and the involvement of Vladimir Putin.

Of course, ru.wikipedia.org is under pressure itself. Authors in Russia can get killed for editing Litvinenko article, like the dozens of journalists now who have disappeared or been killed in mysterious circumstances. But I can't keep monitoring this for neutral point-of-view myself, and i'm past the limit of machine translation: there are natural langauge 'tricks' of bias that I can't catch, in the interstices of machine translation capability on Translate. So, what I'm proposing, and what I've done here, is include a link at the very top to "ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck", which redirects bilingual volunteers (RU>EN + EN>RU) to that page to fact-check Misplaced Pages across Langauges. The Neutral Point of View on Litvinenko, following the exhaustive UK Litvinenko Inquiry, should not be any different on the basic facts, and any divergence should be subject to questioning, if the ru.wikipedia.org seems to be deliberatively misinforming Russian Langauge Readers.

This link is syntax-positioned just before the deep name, in local endonym, of the Notable Person or Event. This Litvinenko cross-link model might serve as a template for other cases. Let me know if you have any suggestions for the syntax. The ideal thing would be to link at the name itself, but that's proven difficult, given the existing display code.

This Litvinenko scandal, more than any other, that has traction in a popular, more neutral reconsideration of Putin's Plutonium + Polonium Reign. Who has access to Polonium, aside from the authority chain of centralized state control, and how could this have been done, and remain unprosecuted locally, without authorization and protection at the highest level, extending to a ru.wikipedia.org Disinformation Campaign? So please, to keep this from repeating again, if you would, please consider supporting this syntax for cross-lingual factchecking in versions of Misplaced Pages that proliferate through the world, and may be subject to Governmental disinformation campaigns. Certain articles, like the Litvinenko Article, show Revision HSTRY that is indubitably driven by politics, not facts.

Another that merits close fact-checking attention right now would be the assassination of Kim Jong-Un's older, regime-critical brother, Kim Jong-nam ko.wikipedia.org/factcheck 김정남, without any JARA (Journal on Asylum, Refugees, and Assassination) 007 License. North Korea is claiming that the death was a heart clot (in vulgar English, a heart attack). We know from Indonesia that's disinformation, and it's so inculpatory to disinform the Public about this that Kim Jong-Un might be subject now, if not before, to a JARA 007 Recommendation. It's hard to mistake VX Nerve Gas for a Heart Clot in a toxicology report. Unless, perhaps, Misplaced Pages means to claim that these are ambiguous in toxicology testing, or that there's a conspiracy in Indonesian Toxicology Labs to bring down Kim Jong-Un.

ko.wikipedia.org might not penetrate into Hermit Kingdom, and might be written almost entirely by the Republic of Korea, but it's still worth a factcheck link, while cross-lingual accounts might diverge, so that bilinguals can participate in either langauge contesting Neutral Point-of-View with Facts, as they come in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamtheclayman (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Alexander Litvinenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Categories: