Talk:Anna Politkovskaya

This article should focus on her

The assassination page is a bloated, rambling review of everybody else's reaction to the assassination, along with conspiracy theories. Please try to ensure that this article focuses on the subject, while she was alive, and her identifiable legacy.--76.221.184.185 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you point out a conspiracy theory in the article for example?

You deleted the sentence on the state-owned news agency discarding her investigation in Chechnya as "tales" but left Politkovskaya's response to such counter-action,

"She claimed that the Kremlin tried to block her access to information and discredit her for that reason".

ilgiz 12:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

I have made a few changes in Introduction to explain why she is notable. First, she is known for her reports and books from Chechnya, where she continued to work despite the danger, mock execution, and so on. Second, her assassination is notable because Vladimir Putin was publicly accused of ordering her murder by Alexander Litvinenko, and because the murder took place at the Putin's birthday. It is also relevant that Litvinenko was killed himself soon after making this accusation, and that Russian government refused to extradite the suspect of his murder, even after the official indiction by UK justice. That is really notable.Biophys 21:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this really notable? I mean that Berezovsky Litvinenko accused Putin of pretty much everything bad that happened in Russia. Why should his (out of all the people's) opinion be mentioned in the intro? Alæxis_¿question? 06:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two reasons why his accusation is much more notable than anything told by others. First, it is the scale of his accusation. He blames a head of state. If anyone as notable as Alexander Litvinenko accuses someone as notable as Vladimir Putin of the murder, this should be also included in Introduction. Second, it is the fate of Litvinenko himself. He publicly accuses Putin and ... he is killed very soon by the state-controlled radioactive polonium, which is widely regarded in the Western press as a plot from Moscow, especially after the Lugovoy indiction and refusal to extradite him. Biophys 13:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

His death doesn't make him an expert in this issue. We may write that Russian authorities were/are suspected to be behind the murder (with all due references) but this is not the only point of view in Western or Russian press. See for example Yulia Latynina's opinion about the latest events (and she can hardly be described as a person who sympathises Putin and Co). Alæxis_¿question? 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an unrelated question, but if you are hinting that Litvinenko can not be trusted, could you please provide at least one his statement that was proven to be wrong? Even claim that Putin is pedophile has never been officially denied by Moscow. Same thing with Litvinenko claims that Putin provided protection for drug trafficers before he became a president.Biophys 13:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think these questions are really related. Why do you think Litvinenko is notable (if we don't take into account the way he was murdered, that is)? I'd be really surprised if Russia officially denied or commented on any of his accusations. Try to imagine Mr. Blair, Mr. Brown or Queen Elisabeth denying accusations made in some obscure Russian book or tv-show. Alæxis_¿question? 14:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But Putin actually made a number of statements with regard to Litvinenko and Politkovskaya, precisely because their cases are so notable and have been widely described in numerous publications, which are not "obscure Russian book or tv-show". Yes, Litvinenko became so widely known only after his murder. Is he a good expert on FSB-related subjects? This is something debatable but does not affects his notability. We do not tell that his statement about Putin was proven.Biophys 15:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, he responded to their deaths, not to Litvinenko's accusations, didn't he?

Litvinenko wasn't the only person who accused Russian authorities of the Politkovskaya's murder, right? Since this is the article about her there's no reason to mention Litvinenko in the intro. His accusations could be mentioned in the article itself. Alæxis_¿question? 15:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we probably need some outside opinions on this issue. My point is that we are talking about two most high-profile political assassinations in the recent Russian history (based on the number of publications on this subject). It was claimed that both assassinations were ordered by Putin who had all means and motifs to do this (both victims wrote books where they criticized Putin personally). So, I think this should be noted somehow in the introduction.Biophys 19:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Substantivation of my contribution if anyone cares

Staff journalists of Novaya Gazeta carried out a separate investigation of Politkovskaya murder, during which they closely cooperated with the General Prosecutor's Office.

Sergey Sokolov: И, во-вторых – мы действительно проводим собственное расследование, мы действительно очень плотно сотрудничаем со следствием. And, the second point is that we really carry out our own investigation, we really very closely cooperate with the investigators. [1]

In August 30, 2007, journalists of Novaya Gazeta and son of Anna Ilya Politkovskiy have issued a statement about the ongoing investigation. In it they have claimed that not all involved people were arrested; as well as the Prosecutor's Office has yet to do lots of routine work to prove the guilt of those arrested, however Novaya Gazeta's own investigation shows that "arrested people were really involved in this crime in this or that degree".

First, it’s not all involved who are arrested.

Second, the guilt of those arrested is to be proved. Our own investigation done allows us to assume that the arrested people were really involved in this crime in this or that degree, but the prosecutors will have to do a lot of routine work: interrogations, confrontations and additional searches. It’s not today or this year that the trial will be held. [2]

The major issue addressed by journalists of Novaya Gazeta was the leak organized in the media, which has seriously complicated the work of investigators and could let other involved people escape. According to the journalists, "It seems that someone had a wish to make the currents list of suspected to be final and, besides, not to let solving other crimes that could possibly have been done by the arrested."

Fourth, and the main, the leak organized in the media because someone had a wish to gain something and someone wanted to prevent investigation to establish all the circumstances of the contract murder of the journalist, this leak has complicated the whole situation. ... Now those people can guess the main direction of the investigation and have opportunities to escape.

Details of the investigation were kept in secret for almost ten months, that being controlled by the chief of official investigative group and journalists of Novaya Gazeta on their side. In August 27, Prosecutor General and special service officers held press-conferences. Although that wasn't a major breech in the secrecy of the case (besides one of the arrested, lieutenant colonel of FSB Pavel Ryaguzov, being named), it triggered a snowball of journalist publications and official appearances. Two things had worsened the deal — at first, as Sergey Sokolov has mentioned in September 2 interview, "each office had people who had obtained a bit of information — and they started to sell it to journalists", the second thing was seeming involvement of some people in these structures, due to "interpenetration of crime and law enforcement bodies", internal intrigues and fear that if investigators "unraveled this tangle, then the details of many celebrated unsolved cases would be disclosed".

After disclosing the name of the arrested special service officer the information just burst out. Different versions of the list of arrested, photofit picture of the conjectured killer, video records made by video cameras at the entrance to the block of flats on Lesnaya Street and the photos of chief of investigative group Pyotr Garibyan appeared in abundance in the Internet. All possible has been done to prevent investigation and to provide the lawyers of the suspected with a good line of defense. For ten months before there had been no serious leak which was a very rare phenomena in our modern practice. The chief of official investigative group was controlling that from his side and we were controlling it from ours.

Дальше произошло следующее – каждое ведомство должно было отметиться – это номер раз. Номер два – в каждом ведомстве есть люди, которые обладают кусочком информации – они начали ее продавать – это два. Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Продавать вы имеете в виду что? За деньги? С.СОКОЛОВ: Продавать журналистам.

This is interpenetration of crime and law enforcement bodies that Anna wrote about many times. This is absence of control that makes warrant officers and majors sell their official powers. It must be stressed that this is the joint business established years ago and based on the grave crime and offence. If we unraveled this tangle, then the details of many celebrated unsolved cases would be disclosed. Judging from the latest events, this is what is being prevented from.

Considering the client of the murder of Politkovskaya, journalists of Novaya Gazeta have noted: "We do not exclude possible involvement by 'runaway oligarchs' and other characters. There are several versions of who was the client of Politkovskaya’s murder. We consider it that the client didn’t leave Russia. None of the versions is proved with evidence now and so all speculations must be stopped for the moment."

ellol 20:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. Novaya Gazeta's position wasn't adequately represented in the article before that. Alæxis_¿question? 05:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian people on all this

Many western people crys that Politkovskaia was right protector BUT She was an american citizen and not even Russian no one in Russia actually care who kill her because she was protect killer terrorists and bandits calling them poor patriots and insult our army If on west people likes when someone insult them and their army protect their enemys We dont like it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.105.190 (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please don't speak for all Russian people. Alæxis_¿question? 08:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There was an opinion poll soon after her murder. [3] Over 50% haven't ever heard about Politkovskaya, just below 40% felt "Anger, indignation" after they heard about her death. ellol 12:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Sergei Kovalev, Putin's statement on insignificance of Politkovskaya's work confirms that he failed his duty. "And when the president says that these publications were taken absolutely indifferently by the country, he is admitting a cynical, illegal approach to his office duty. [He is admitting] that he is not a guarantor of constitutional norms but a political manipulator."[4],computer translation ilgiz 15:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll just remind you, that it was October 10 press-conference, on which Putin has said: "This journalist was indeed a fierce critic of the current authorities in Russia. But, as the experts know, and as journalists should realise, I think, her impact on Russian political life was only very slight. She was well known in the media community, in human rights circles and in the West, but her influence on political life within Russia was very minimal." And so on: "The murder of someone like her, the brutal murder of a woman and mother, was in itself an act directed against our country and against the Russian authorities. This murder deals a far greater blow to the authorities in Russia, and in Chechnya, to which she devoted much of her recent professional work, than did any of her publications." [5]

I don't actually see what's wrong here. In the same time, some Kovalev's activities were met as controversial in Russia. [6]. ellol 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for a lil offtopic... As it's now: "the murder could have been organized by certain figures who wished to undermine the Russian state". The dictionary states: "Undermine, sabotage: destroy property or hinder normal operations". Just thought it would be kinda in the spirit of the modern "wild capitalism"/Russian state to consider murder of Politkovskaya as destroying property that belongs to Russia... No point, just fun. ellol 15:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That was actualy pretty stupid, what you sad. Cos you take ENGLISH word and tell us how cinycal all is. Realy not smart. Sory for no login. Oleg_Str.

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of October 21, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The article is written in clear and understandable language. However, per WP:LEAD please merge and condense the lead into no more than 4 paragraphs.

2. Factually accurate?: Cited well throughout the article to an impressive (61) good WP:RS sources. However, there are a couple portions where I could tell the cite was also pointing to further down in a subsection, but you should take care to actually place the same cite at the end of that paragraph if that is the case.

3. Broad in coverage?: Article is very thorough and covers a wide range of topics, both with respect to chronology and the controversial issues involved.

4. Neutral point of view?: Appears to be written in neutrally worded language.

5. Article stability? I see some edit conflicts and heated discussions, but I had to go back to the last archive to see that, from over four months ago. Looking at the article history in the past month, unfortunately it does look like there have been some issues of disagreement. However, there have not been significant revert wars or large changes during that same time period. Please do keep an eye on this, and keep in mind WP:CIVIL, and discuss issues on the talk page if/as they come up, and not in the edit histories.

6. Images?: 2 images, one from Wikimedia Commons, the other copyrighted but allowed use for any purpose provided credit is given.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. — Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 11:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life

I don't suppose the page could be updated with more information on Anna's personal life. Her daughter, Vera, isn't even mentioned for example. :) --82.36.177.31 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image

Maybe someone can find another image of her for commons? The one that's up now makes her look a bit weird IMO. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a v good, unstressed picture on the Novaya gazeta search page for articles by and about Politkovskaya http://politkovskaya.novayagazeta.ru/ (in black-backed column to the left). The paper would certainly agree to its use here - can someone technically competent insert it? Voronov (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Killer identified

"Russian investigators have identified the killer of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, an aide to the prosecutor-general has said. The suspect was not named, but the official, Vyacheslav Smirnov, said "all measures are being taken to find and detain him. "[7] Krawndawg (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

He'll have an alabi in no time. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

peer review then wp:fac

I've listed this article for peer review because it's better than wp:wiaga standards but could use some comments and minor cleanup. someone (preferably sb who has worked on it) shld nominate it for wp:fac eventually Solenodon (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is a good idea.Biophys (talk) 04:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

IMHO if the article is going for FAC we need significantly expand the material about her life. She is notable primarily as an accomplished author and just then a murder victim and the amount of material is in reverse. I would try to mention most of her investigative materials - they were important. The detention story is incomplete - it was officially investigated and was not confirmed. Whether the investigation was a whitewash or the detention story invented is not finally proven. Both versions should be presented. Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

go ahead then, {{sofixit}}. Solenodon (talk) 13:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Alex, I think your first comment is exactly right. As about detention story, I am only familiar with her own writings and do not know much about the "other side". If you can expand something, that would be great.Biophys (talk) 13:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup completed but content expansion still needed

I've cleaned up/made consistent grammar, punctuation and style; however, the article still needs to be updated/completed. *momoricks* (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Anna Politkovskaya

Hello. I've found a web page you may find interesting if you are updating Anna Politkovskaya's factfile. Enjoy. Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 09:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed most info regarding assassination

I removed all info regarding her assassination except the summary paragraph and photo. As others have said before, it is redundant to have that info in this article when there is another article that focuses specifically on the assassination. *momoricks* (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You're not the owner of the article, moron! Before making such decision, you should have asked here if it was appropriate! Idiot!

References

Hello. I thought you might find these links useful.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 10:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://lenta.ru/lib/14161170/%20А&1085;&1085;&1072;%20&1055;&1086;&1083;&1080;&1090;&1082;&1086;&1074;&1089;&1082;&1072;&1103;%20&1074;%20&1051;&1077;&1085;&1090;&1072;&1087;&1077;&1076;&1080;&1080;&hl=en&ie=ASCII

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://grani.ru/Events/Crime/m.112521.html%20Б&1080;&1086;&1075;&1088;&1072;&1092;&1080;&1103;&hl=en&ie=ASCII

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://tapirr.com/polit/politkovskaya.htm%20С&1090;&1072;&1090;&1100;&1080;%20&1040;.&1055;&1086;&1083;&1080;&1090;&1082;&1086;&1074;&1089;&1082;&1086;&1081;&hl=en&ie=ASCII

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://grani.ru/Events/Crime/m.112521.html%20Б&1080;&1086;&1075;&1088;&1072;&1092;&1080;&1103;&hl=en&ie=ASCII

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://tvoygolos.narod.ru/personalia/15-p/politkovskaya.htm%20Б&1080;&1086;&1075;&1088;&1072;&1092;&1080;&1103;&hl=en&ie=ASCI

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://www.inosmi.ru/stories/01/05/29/2996/213816.html%20А&1085;&1085;&1072;%20&1055;&1086;&1083;&1080;&1090;&1082;&1086;&1074;&1089;&1082;&1072;&1103;:%20&1103;&1076;,%20&1055;&1091;&1090;&1080;&1085;%20&1080;%20&1084;&1086;&1103;%20&1073;&1086;&1088;&1100;&1073;&1072;%20&1079;&1072;%20&1089;&1074;&1086;&1073;&1086;&1076;&1091;&hl=en&ie=ASCII

http://translate.google.com/translate?langpair=ru%7Cen&u=http://politkovskaya.novayagazeta.ru/%20С&1072;&1081;&1090;%20&1087;&1072;&1084;&1103;&1090;&1080;%20&1040;&1085;&1085;&1099;%20&1055;&1086;&1083;&1080;&1090;&1082;&1086;&1074;&1089;&1082;&1086;&1081;&hl=en&ie=ASCII

Who Killed Anna Politkovskaya?

[8] Grey Fox (talk) 14:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationality/Ethnicity etc.

I believe we have been through this before but now we have a new round of edit warring. Politkovskaya was certainly a Russian author: her education, culture, professional work - everything belongs to Russia and Russian language. Her ethnicity was Ukrainian, I am not sure why it is matter, but as it important to some, I have put ethnicity parameter to her infobox. Her American citizenship (the second one) was a result of an accident - being born in the USA to diplomat parents. She never lived in the USA or worked for an American employer. Obviously, she used only Russian for her works. Thus, I see no reason to refer to her as a Russian-American journalist. She was plainly Russian journalist Alex Bakharev (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Being born in the USA to diplomat parents does not entitle one to US citizenship. What is is the origin of the dual citizenship? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Her parents worked for the United Nations [9]. From the American law they were not "ambassadors" and so the 14th Amendments stayed Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[10]

The general rule does not apply to foreign sovereigns, accredited foreign diplomats or their families since under International law they are not subject to the law of the foreign country which has received them. Accordingly, children born in the United States to such individuals are not entitled to United States citizenship. However, these children may be eligible for lawful permanent residence. The INS position is that such a birth in the United States creates only eligibility for permanent resident status, and that such status is abandoned if the children return to their native country. Such children may apply for the creation of a record of lawful permanent residence.

Foreign sovereigns are deemed to include only heads of a foreign state on an official visit to this country; they do not include those who are not visiting this country in their official capacity as heads of their government. Accredited diplomatic officials are only those with recognized diplomatic status and immunity, and include ambassadors, envoys extraordinary ministers planipotentiary, ministers resident, commissioners, charges d'affaires, counselors, agents, secretaries of embassies and legations, attachés, and other employees attached to the staff of the embassy or legation, as well as members of the Delegation of European Communities. The term also includes persons with comparable diplomatic status and immunity who are accredited to the United Nations or to the Organization of American States, and other individuals who are accorded comparable diplomatic status.

I guess her parents (or at least one of them) did not hold formal diplomatic immunity (e.g. Alexander Yakovlev (diplomat) did not held diplomatic immunity) Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Kadyrov opinion

I have moved Kadyrov opinion to Anna Politkovskaya assassination. I think it belongs there. Here we only give a brief summary of the events and Kadyrov's opinion would be an undue weight if set here Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added {{expand}} to the article, because it is quite underdeveloped article. I've also added {{unbalanced-section}} to that particular section as it only really includes information which implicates the Russian government of being behind the murder, but without any information from the accused themselves. I've also reduced the amount of text devoted to the CoE, as large rambling quotes are a blight on articles (in my opinion) and the gist of what he said can be summarised in our own words. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Lt. Col. Dmitry Pavlyuchenkov arrested

• http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,782084,00.html
• OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Bidder, Benjamin. "Retired Police Officer Arrested in Russia." Der Spiegel. 24 August 2011. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Anna politkovskaia paris.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anna politkovskaia paris.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Anna politkovskaia paris.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Putin's Birthday & the lead

I removed mention of Putin's birthday from the lead. It simply does not belong there, unless it is universally acknowledged that she was killed on that date precisely because Putin did not like her. In reality this may well be what happened, or someone may have wanted to create that impression, or he may have been behind the death and the date was coincidental, or any other speculative possibility. Putting it into the lead looks too much like trying to opinion-form. Bromley86 (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what was the exact reason of the killing but the idea of the birthday prsent, like of many birthday presents, wasn't because Putin did not like her but because someone believed Putin would like she were killed. Do you always obtain wished presents?Xx236 (talk) 10:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@Bromley86: I could not agree more, although belatedly. Unfortunately, Putin's birthday resurfaced in the section Murder, investigation and trial. Why not replace Putin by Desmond Tutu, since it is also his birthday? At least that wouldn't violate NPOV, it would just be comically absurd. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Natuarlly, if you find a major notable source connecting murder of Politkovskaya and birthday of Desmond Tutu if would be worth to add to the article. Speaking of birthdays it might be more helpful to find a source connecting murder of Politkovskaya with birthday of Ramzan Kadyrov Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

You might have a point with Kadyrov. But, you know, he never tells me anything. Now, seriously, this link between Putin's birthday and Politkovskaya is preposterous. What was it? A birthday present? I don't think many people are going to read that, but it doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia. It makes it sub-Daily Mirror standard. If you believe that conspiracy theory yourself, I suggest you see a psychiatrist as soon as possible. Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Whether or not this fact was significant should be decided by sources. OK, let's take a reliable secondary source (a book) by experts/historians where one chapter was dedicated exclusively to political murders in post-Soviet Russia. This is book by Yuri Felshtinsky and Vladimir Pribylovsky, The Corporation. Russia and the KGB in the Age of President Putin, ISBN 1-59403-246-7, Encounter Books; February 25, 2009, description. A part of the chapter about political murders was about the murder of Politkovskaya (pages 479-452) . It actually starts from noticing the fact that she was murdered at the Putin's birthday and explains why. So should be on this page. This should be noted in introduction, simply because the same was done in a secondary RS on the subject. If there are other books by experts, specifically on the subject of political assassinations in Russia that tell something different, please quote them here. And no, the birthday of Kadyrov was at a different date. My very best wishes (talk) 13:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone realize that this is libel pure and simple and that, in the extremely unlikely case Mr Putin decided to sue Wikimedia, he would very probably win in court? Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No legal threats. One can be blocked for doing this. Back to the book by Felshinsky and Pribylovskiy, they mentioned this "coincidence" also in the introduction to the book as highly significant. But it probably belongs to another page, Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. My very best wishes (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Where do you see a legal threat on my part? Do you think I am Mr. Putin? I am just saying that in a court of law this would be considered libel, I am not threatening any one with legal action, since I have nothing to do with the case and it would be quite impossible for me to sue (in fact, you know all this perfectly well). Now, is it honest to allege an imaginary violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats on my part in order to justify your threat of blocking me? With regard to Felshinsky and Pribylovskiy, you also know that their reputation as historians is questionable as is their objectivity. Againstdisinformation (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• My very best wishes, I'm going to remove the phrase from this article; not from the longer one since I haven't looked at it. Any editor who wants to restore it needs to do so with an expansion of some sort in the text that explains why it is relevant. It will probably require a hell of a lot of text, so my suggestion is not to mess with it. Libel, maybe not--innuendo, that it is. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It should stay here as well. There are many more russophone RS that make a point of connecting the two events.--Lute88 (talk) 20:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

http://www.topnews.ru/news_id_54102.html the investigaing officer's explicit opinion that the murder was a b-day gift to Putin.--Lute88 (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Lute88 because this connection appears in a large number of sources (such as one above) in the following context: someone wanted to make a statement by killing her at the birthday of Putin. This should probably be clarified, which does not require a lot of text. Hence this is not a libel. Neither this is innuendo because it was noticed on this page only once and not in the introduction. My very best wishes (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No. You all are not getting it. You have not made a connection. The bare fact that it happened on someone's birthday means nothing explicitly until you make it mean something explicitly. Lute88, if that's someone's opinion, that can be a ground for sticking it in the article, but then the question is what weight the person's opinion has, etc. And that is why you need a significant amount of words, to clarify it. Now, I am not afraid to invoke NPOV and stuff like that and to throw some administrative weight around: this is important enough, and we cannot be playing fast and loose here. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think the connection can be briefly explained in the text (if that is what you mean). The connection was made directly by the sources. According to the publication provided by Lute88, senior investigator of her case tells that her murder on this day was not at all a coincidence, but served for intimidation. Same in the book by two politologists (see above), except that according to them, the murder was probably an informal deal arranged by Kadyrov in exchange for receiving his position in Chechnya. Word probably is obviously important.My very best wishes (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. What you and Lute mean, of course, is that Putin did it. If sources point that out, you can say that sources point that out. But it has to be spelled out, and it has to be done economically. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

No, this not what these sources tell. In particular, the investigator (link by Lute) does not make this claim, and even the historians I mentioned are very careful to mention several possible versions of the events, one of which they consider as the most probable. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course you agree with Lute88, it doesn't come as a surprise. Such a phrase, especially with the impeccable sources provided by Lute88, should be set in stone. Alas, I am afraid that in real life, someone making such claims without very strong evidence would be in trouble with the law. No, this is not a legal threat, please don't block me. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not insert 'just a coincidence, not an innuendo' after 'Putin's birthday'? Sorry to poke fun at you, but don't you see that your contrived reasoning exposes you to it? And, believe me, I am not the only one to laugh. It's just a pity that some editors, blinded by their bias, allow Wikipedia to become the laughing stock of the (publishing) world. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Why do I smell this? - http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/russia-troll-factory-putin/ --Lute88 (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Againstdisinformation, I have a suggestion for you: stop poking fun, stop making pointy edits. Lute88, your opponent's joking around is as unfunny as your suggestion. I don't know what you are smelling and why, but if I smell something I usually look around the room before wondering if my netbook developed Smellovision. If you two can't take stuff seriously, go play elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No fun intended. Againstdisinformation has been pushing the proRussian POV envelope here for some time. And there has been recent media coverage of some professional (and paid too) POV promoters on Wiki. Just being vigilant...--Lute88 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)23:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Lute88 enough is enough. Either you take back immediately your slanderous accusations and apologise or we shall continue this discussion on ANI. I don't know if you realise that not only do you violate all basic policies of WP, but you violate the most fundamental principles of civilised society. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone needs to stop throwing around words like "libel" and "slander", and the article should not make a connection between the death and Putin's birthday without an extremely strong citations from a very reliable source. That about covers everything, I think. BMK (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, no, one other thing: both Antidisinformation and Lute88 have violated 3RR, and if either of them reverts again, I plan on reporting both of them to WP:ANEW. BMK (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK It's comforting to see that you agree on the substance. For such accusations, you need extremely strong evidence. Now, I cannot agree that I must not speak of slander when I am accused of being paid by the Kremlin for editing Wikipedia. What would your reaction be? Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've been accused of many things in my 10 years on Wikipedia, and when I know them to be untrue (which they almost always are), I state that they are untrue, and then, if necessary, freeze out the editor. Making quasi-legal threats, or demanding apologies or withdrawals never got anyone anywhere. BMK (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK I would completely agree with you if my opponents did not themselves complain that I am making personal attacks and violating WP policies because I say that, since they are Eastern European or have Eastern European origins, Russia might be a very sensitive issue for them and that that might affect their impartiality. As for legal threats, I make none, not even quasi. I am just making the point that such accusations of murder would be considered libel by a court of law. At no point do I threaten to sue anyone. In any case, on the general statement, I agree with you that it is best to ignore insults. Againstdisinformation (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In this case though, there's a TON of sources which bring up the fact that the murder was done on Putin's birthday. Google books brings up more than 60 hits for "Politkovskaya "Putin's birthday"". Some: [11] [12] itkovskaya%20%22putin's%20birthday%22&f=false [13] [14] [15]... and that's just off the first page.

Regardless of what one thinks of the connection/insinuation/coincidence/whatever the fact is that it is brought up in so many sources means that it definitely belongs in the article. Volunteer Marek  05:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's incorrect. A crime which takes place on, say, (US) Independence Day indisputably takes place on July 4th, but saying that it took place on "Independence Day" implies some connection between the crime and the event of the day. If there's actual evidence of a connection, that's fine, but if it's simply reporting of a (possibly) coincidence, the connection between the two should not' be mentioned in the article, as it's irrelevant. None of your cites draw any convincing connection between the two, just suspicions and conspiracy-theory thinking. I will continue to remove any mention of Putin's birthday unless and until there is a clear and cogent citation from a reliable source which connects the murder with the birthday. BMK (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

We are not looking for "the truth". This is reference work. An evidence as it appears in science or courts does not matter that much. It only matters if a fact (and that's a fact) was considered significant in multiple RS. Of course one must explain why the fact was considered significant in sources, etc. Highly notable hypotheses/conjectures must be mentioned and have been described in a number of pages around here. In your example, if a crime had happened on the Independence Day because someone wanted to make an anti-American statement (per sources), this must be noted in the page about the crime. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

"If there's actual evidence" - not up to us to judge whether there's "actual evidence". Up to us to say what the sources say and the sources appear to think that this is important. Volunteer Marek  14:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)^

Volunteer Marek By the same token, a great number of RS: The New York Times, The Washington Post, among others, are having articles speaking of a military intervention of Russia in Syria. Would it be acceptable, according to you, to have an article on this "intervention"? Everything that appears in the media should not necessarily have a place in an encyclopedia. We are not a news summary. Againstdisinformation (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and we already have such article, Russia's role in the Syrian Civil War. But this is completely irrelevant to the subject under discussion here. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

As an FSB agent (Lute88) I am totally incompetent. You see, I was not even aware. If you were a little less blinded you would see that I am not trying to defend Mr. Putin, but rather WP. Don't you see that your way to proceed in fact harms the cause you purport to defend? Againstdisinformation (talk) 16:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• There is indeed a very large number of sources that directly connect these dates, even in a title like here ("Politkovskaya and Putin. Day of death and day of birth", a discussion on RFE/RL). And what she wrote about Putin has also been widely published [16]. My very best wishes (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• OK, there are numerous secondary RS which make this claim, including this article by Masha Gessen, this book by Edward Jay Epstein and the book by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky I mentioned allready. All these sources were published in English, which helps to avoid translation disputes, and qualify as secondary RS. However, probably the most concise and telling quotation comes from this book by Boris Volodarsky. He described a series of "signature political murders" in Russia and tells:

"The next signature murder was on 7 October when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin birthday. They certainly could not afford another method – the whole effect would be lost should she die in a car accident or of a heart attack. It was all self-protection, of course, as the lady had slapped Putin in the face by publishing her book Putin's Russia in the West"

So, if no one objects, I am going to include this claim to the page, with appropriate referencing. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I object, since the source makes no connection between the two. You must provide a citation which provides that connection, not one that simply notes that ithappened on Putin;s birthday - that fact is not in doubt, but the relevance of a connection between the two is in dispute. If you it insert it without such a citation, I will remove it. BMK (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that we are not looking for a proof (as in court) that such connection actually exists. We are only looking for a claim in multiple RS that such connection was important and therefore deserves inclusion. I think all these sources make such claim (if you read them). Are you looking for direct quotations that make such claim? For example, would something like that be better (by Masha Gessen)?

And then there was the fact that Politkovskaya was killed on Oct. 7, the birthday of President Vladimir Putin of Russia. To the conspiracy-minded, this was clear evidence that Politkovskaya, who had written articles and books highly critical of Putin — the president then, too — had been killed on his orders. To the even more conspiracy-minded, it was evidence that she was not killed on his orders. Only someone out to set the president up to look like the killer would have staged the murder on his birthday.

My very best wishes (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No, as far as I can tell, all of the sources simply note that the murder took place on Putin's birthday. That is not sufficient, there must be a credible claim of a connection between these two events, from a clearly reliable source, otherwise Occam's Razor insists that it be taken as pure coincidence. What is being suggested is some kind of causal relationship, not simply correlation because both events happened on the same day. This is comspiracy-theory territory, where extra-ordinary claims require extra-ordinary evidence, and nothing even close to that has been provided. BMK (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If you wanted to add that conspiracy-theorist have suggested, without evidence, that there is a connection (such as the quote above says), that might have been acceptable, if it didn't fall afoul of WP:BLP, considering that Putin is still alive. BMK (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No, these sources do not "simply note that the murder took place on Putin's birthday". According to first source, she was shot by someone on the Putin's birthday (a) to make a statement [that all his critics will be executed], and (b) as a measure of "self-protection" which implies that Putin ordered the hit. According to second source, the "coincidence" was highly significant and widely debated in various contexts. How exactly this should be included is another question, and of course, looking for a few additional sources would be a good idea... My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, not sufficient, given BLP. No implications, no suspicions, no reporting about debates about it - real evidence of a real connection is required, from a really reliable source. Anything that's not that is going to be a BLP violation, which is removable on sight. BMK (talk) 23:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I will not include anything right now because of your opposition (I have better things to do than dispute here). However, you are wrong about our policies. (a) Those are real and very good RS (we can ask on wp:rsnb if you wish). (b) What do you call "real"? This is reference work. As far as a claim appears as significant in multiple RS, it deserves inclusion. Speaking more informally, that does not really harm anyone because the claim has been already widely published.My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you need to read WP:BLP again, it's not good enough to cite "claims". I really don't care how widely spread the rumors are, all I care about is that we remain a reliable source of confirmed information. BMK (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What exactly part of the policy you are talking about (any link)? We are not judges or police. "Evidence" and "confirmation" in this environment (e.g. the burden of evidence) only means using and quoting good sources. Therefore, according to WP:BLP, only "unsourced or poorly sourced" materials should be removed. These are not. Most important, we are not talking about any rumors, but about interpretations by historians, politologists and journalists - as reflected in multiple secondary RS. If this is not clear, one can provide a lot more RS. Would that be OK? And just in case, one more quotation from the book "Corporation" by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky (page VII - from the Introduction; this is only their conclusion - the whole text is too large to quote it directly here):

Those who killed Politkovskaya could have done the job on October 6 or October 8. But they knew that Putin would be pleased by a gift from them on his birthday. Apparently the gift did please the recipient. On March 2, 2007, Ramzan Kadyrov became the president of the Chechen Republic.

My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If I understand the quotation, Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky assert that Ramzan Kadyrov killed Politkovskaya on Putin's birthday in order to please him. Not being ungrateful, Putin rewarded him with a nomination as Chechen president. I am quite confident that, from such "eminent historians", it cannot just be a wild guess. I am certain their claim is based on a deep analysis, supported by very strong evidence. Could you please let us know a little more about the evidence they provide? Againstdisinformation (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you understood correctly their version of the events. How did they come to such conclusion? Please read the entire book. I have no judgement and do not argue that their version is necessarily the truth. The purpose of this thread is to only establish that the fact has been described in a large number of RS as highly notable and therefore deserves inclusion in this page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If you have read the book, and the book has the kind of evidence I've been talking about, then it should be a snap to briefly summarize that evidence here, and fashion an addition to the article which incorporates that evidence showing a causal and not coincidental connection between the murder and Putin's birthday. BMK (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps some of that is available on the internet (I should check). Right now I can only quote another RS, the book by Edward Jay Epstein:

Who really gave the orders and paid to have Politkovskaya assassinated on Putin’s birthday? The theory of the prosecution is that the contract to assassinate Politkovskaya ultimately came from the leaders of the Russian-backed regime in Chechnya. A second theory is that Putin’s enemies abroad paid the killers … to undermine Putin. Finally, there is a theory that Putin himself ordered the hit to intimidate journalists.

Here is the bottom line. Yes, there are different explanations and interpretations of this fact in different RS, but a lot of them consider this fact as something highly significant, and it therefore deserves inclusion on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Theories, speculation, no evidence. Worthless as a RS connecting the murder to the date of Putin's birthday. And no, a lot of them present the possibility of significance, but nothing that's been presented here has had a scintilla of evidence that it is connected. Without evidence, I will remove it as speculation about a BLP. BMK (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? No, as should be clear even from citations above, all these sources actually claim that the fact was significant, even for the official prosecution. No one here should prove or conduct his own analysis that events have been actually connected. We should only reproduce what reliable sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Your interpratation of what they say is... mistaken, to say the least. Barring a source which validates the speculation, hypotheticals, conspiracy theories etc. with hard evidecne, I will remove any mention of a connection between the murders and Putin's birthday as a BLP violation -- and this most assuredly does not come from any love for Putin. BMK (talk) 05:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with BMK. Theories and speculations in a book written by two relentless opponents of Vladimir Putin do not add up to an evidenced fact in RS. Especially since the "RS" propose "different possibilities", thus showing that there is in fact not a shred of evidence. Another editor suggested that it is simply a fact that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday and, therefore, we should include it in the article. I replied that if no connection is intended, we could as well put 'Desmond Tutu's birthday's since it is the same as Putin's and I concluded that this is sheer madness and even libelous and in violation of BLP. This has been construed by you as "POV-pushing", "vandalism", "personal attacks" and "legal threats" and has constituted the base of your incessant posts against me on the ANI. No matter what, I'll will maintain to the end that including that innuendo is a violation of BLP. Not out of love for Putin, but out of love for sanity and WP. Againstdisinformation (talk) 12:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK, you are demanding, incorrectly, evidence that there was a connection between Putin's birthday and Politkovskaya's murder. Nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it state that we must provide such. We are not investigators, we are not researchers, we are not lawyers. We simply report what reliable secondary sources say. And if reliable secondary sources - a ton of them - explicitly connect the murder to the birthday, which they do, then we mention that as well. BLP is more than satisfied. I'm sorry but MVBW is correct here and it is you who is "interpreting" sources and claiming a policy says what it doesn't say. Volunteer Marek  17:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

SOrry,m you are incorrect. There must be a valid connection established to include this, and none of the sources have done that. As such, it is a BLP violation, connecting Putin in some way to the murder. Remember that BLP is to be construed broadly, not narrowly, and that removing BLP violation is immune from 3RR. BMK (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"There must be a valid connection established to include this..." - says who? Show me the wording in the policy. If a ton of reliable sources note that she was killed on Putin's birthday and state so explicitly and even emphasize the fact that is all that is needed. Stop inventing policy out of thin air. And anyway, several of the sources do make the connection explicitly as pointed out by MVBW.

And yeah go ahead and claim "immunity from 3RR" and see how well that is going to work out for you. Volunteer Marek  18:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Basically this involves a bad-faith invoking of WP:BLP to actually get rid of something per WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. You can always go to WP:BLPN and ask for input there. Volunteer Marek  18:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

No need to, BLP is clear. And so is your intention to edit war this back in, despite it being a BLP violation. BMK (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You'[re using the same basic argument that the TV networks and CNN etc. use when they report on scurrilous stories which have little or no basis in fact: "The story is out there so we have to talk about it." Well, maybe they do, but we don't. We have a policy that says we don't include that kind of material about a living person anywhere on Wikipedia unless and until it is proven fact, not just something the people are "talking about" or "suspicious of" or hold conspiracy theories about or are talking about at the water cooler -- and that's because we are an encyclopedia and not a news source. We report well-founded facts supported by citations from reliable sources -- not the fact that there are suspicions, but the fact that there's a proven connection. If the Russian prosecutors show in a court that the murderers deliberately chose that date, then that can be in the article (with a proper source), but simply reporting that there a suspicion about a connection between the murders and Putin's birthday implicitly involves Putin in the murders, which is a clear and extremely significant BLP violation. Once there's real, hard proof, then of course it's fair game, and the proven facts can be reports, but until then, it's out -- we don't do "We have to do it because it's 'out there' about lving people. Period. BMK (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

And lest anyone thing this is about anything other then out strict BLP policy, I wouldn't give a fig if Putin was toppled from office tomorrow. I think he's a dangerous throwback to the old pre-Glastnost Soviet-style rulers, with the capacity for creating significant problems for the rest of the world. But all of that is no matter, we simply do not include suspicions and rumors about living people, no matter how many sources repeat them, unless they are proven as fact. Y'all need to grok BLP better, 'cause you're being blinded by your POV, I think. BMK (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Volunteer Marek, sorry, but BMK is correct. If you state something happened on Putin's birthday you are obviously making a connection to Putin. That connection better be made in reliable sources, reliably--not reported as some coincidence or innuendo or whatever. Otherwise we might as well say it happened on Desmond Tutu's birthday. And you can't say "it's a fact that it happened then"--no. It's a fact that it happened on a certain day. That that day was Putin's or Tutu's birthday is not intrinsically relevant: you understand very well what it means when you say it. So if y'all want to hammer out which sources are reliable, and what text should be added to make the connection explicit, that's fine, but you can't just leave it as a "fact". Because if you do, you are paving the way for Againstdisinformation to laugh in everyone's face. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and such connection has been actually made in a large number of sources (see quotations above as a few examples). That does not mean that anyone was guilty. That only means that the fact is significant enough (per sources) to be included in this page. This is not for us to decide that the fact was significant. This is something claimed by a number of historians, and this has been published in books. My very best wishes (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) There are four quotes from reliable sources provided by MVBW above which make the connection explicitly. They do not report it as coincidence or innuendo (none of them say "by coincidence...", they say "whoa! it happened on Putin's birthday!". They report it as a relevant fact. Now, of course it could've been a coincidence but then it would've been a very strange coincidence indeed and that's what the sources are noting.

Honestly, one could trot out scores of quotes supporting this material just by going through the numerous reliable sources which talk about this murder - pretty much every single one notes it was on Putin's birthday. If pretty much every single reliable sources notes something it's obviously notable. It's just I don't know if I honestly wish to make that effort since I'm pretty sure it will just be met with obstinacy. Volunteer Marek  19:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on their comments, it seems that BMK insists that we should provide some evidence that Putin was actually guilty. Yes, there is some circumstantial evidence of this, but this not the question under discussion here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly the point. We cannot have innuendo. As I said here a few days ago (I think I did), you have to write that connection. The moment you do that we can fight over how well it's written--neutral, well-verified, etc--but for now we have nothing to fight over. You can say that a million sources report it, but if you don't report what you report what it means (in acceptably neutral language), you simply can't do it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Basically what you're asking for is a source which says "Putin ordered to have Politkovskaya killed on his birthday". That source doesn't exist. But that source is not what we need to put in the fact that she was killed on Putin's birthday into the article. The benchmark you and BMK are setting up is way way way way above anything that Wikipedia sourcing policy or BLP policy requires.

If you are NOT demanding a sources which says "Putin ordered to have Politkovskaya killed on his birthday", then what exactly are you demanding? Can you articulate what would satisfy you?  Volunteer Marek  20:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, two sources I quoted do claim that the hit was almost certainly ordered by Putin. However, explaining how exactly authors came to such conclusion does not really belong to this page, this would be difficult to do given the complexity of the case, and this still will not satisfy BMK as something based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, I would rather not try it on this page (and this is not requited to justify inclusion of the widely debated fact). My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

What I'm asking for is what is required by the BLP policy: not speculation, not reports that people are discussing it, not conspiracy theories, not possibility, none of those things, no matter how many sources report them. I have absolutely no doubt that that kind of speculation, suspicions, discussions and theorizing is going on, and the source provided all prove that it is going on. What none of the sources provide is what is required in connecting a living person to a heinous crime, which is evidence of the connection. All you have provided is evidence of the speculation, theorizing, suspicions etc., and that's not what BLP requires of you. You'd be better off reading WP:BLP again and understanding its purpose and requirements, rather then edit warring to include the unincludeable. BMK (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Please report this to WP:BLPNB if you really believe that was a BLP violation. I explained above why this is not a BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no requirement to report BLP violations to BLPN; in fact, it is every editor's responsibility to remove BLP violations on sight, which is why the removal of BLP violations is immune from 3RR, while edit warring to insert an obvious BLP violation is not immune. BLP policy is to be broadly and liberally interpreted, so if you think it is not a BLP violation, you are welcome to bring it to BLPN, but you must leave the disputed BLP violation out of the article. BMK (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is NOT a BLP violation. It would be a violation if sources didn't mention the fact that the murder occurred on Putin's birthday. But for fuck's sake, (almost) every goddamn source which discusses this murder says explicitly "it happened on Putin's birthday". Some just mention it in passing. Others analyze what it means. But they all pretty much do it. Because it's significant. You are arguing that BLP policy somehow requires us to ignore what reliable sources are saying. This is topsy-turvy.

There's two possibilities here. EITHER you are asking for a source which says "Putin ordered to have Politkovskaya killed on his birthday", in which case you clearly don't understand WP:BLP, OR you are not asking for such a source, in which case you are unfamiliar with the sources (somehow despite the fact that several have been provided to you here).

So let me restate my request again: If you are NOT demanding a sources which says "Putin ordered to have Politkovskaya killed on his birthday", then what exactly are you demanding? Can you articulate what would satisfy you? What would be enough to have this included? Volunteer Marek  20:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've said what I'm going to say. My statements have been very clear, and completely in line with BLP policy. That you don't want to accept that is obvious, nonetheless they are accurate. I have no interest in repeating myself more than I already have. BMK (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@BMK. According to WP:BLP, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. However, these are not "poorly sourced materials" by any means. Please self-revert. My very best wishes (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, they are not "poorly sourced", they are completely unsourced, something which you clearly don't understand. You're attempting to insert into this article innuendo that Putin is in some way connected to the murder, but what you've sourced is not the connection, it's the existence of the innuendo. It's quite obvious that you're not understanding the difference, but it's very important and very real, and it's why you can't include that info in the article. 'Nuff said. BMK (talk) 20

51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

IF the article said "Putin ordered Politkovskaya murdered on his birthday" then you'd be right. But that's not what the article says. The article says "Politkovskaya was murdered, and many sources noted that this happened on Putin's birthday". That is extremely well sourced. You are the one who appears to completely fail to understand this. Volunteer Marek  20:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

BMK, I don't think your statements have been clear at all. You are just invoking BLP without really explaining what is necessary to satisfy it. I think my question is straightforward: Can you articulate what would satisfy you? What would be enough to have this included? If you can't answer that and you do not wish to discuss any more, that's fine, but then please don't engage in edit warring or further reverting on this article. Volunteer Marek  20:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

My statements have been crystal clear. It's your understanding of them that is muddy. Sorry, but that's just the way it is. BMK (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, can you indulge my stupidity for just a bit longer? ARE YOU demanding that a source is presented which says "Putin ordered Politkovskaya murdered on his birthday"? Or something else?

If you wish to be evasive about it and refuse to participate in discussion, that's your business but then don't revert others. Volunteer Marek  20:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It is comforting to see that, apart from editors with a long history of anti-Russian POV-pushing, everyone agrees with me now. I was shocked when I first read the 'Putin's birthday' innuendo. Thinking this had no place in an encyclopaedia, so I had a look at the talk page to see other people's opinions. There I noticed the comment made by Bromley86, which had lain dormant since October 2014. I wrote that I could not agree more and proceeded to delete the offensive innuendo. Little did I know then that this would earn me a pariah status, being insulted and getting a dressing down on ANI, where advocates of the 'Putin's birthday' connection are hell-bent on having me indefinitely blocked. I am sorry, but I can't accept that "paving the way for Againstdisinformation to laugh in everyone's face" is a valid argument; I am not a malevolent agency. Nor do I accept to appease people whose good faith is dubious by assuring them that, for my part, I would love to see Putin's demise. These are weak and irrelevant arguments. The only thing that matters is that, for reasons better explained above than I could, the 'Putin's birthday' innuendo has no place in an ency clopaedia and that it is very harmful to Wikipedia. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)