Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:11, 13 April 2008

I see that the authors of the article detected a culprit and, not waiting for the court's decision, put the blame on him in the second passage of the article. Presenting journalistic speculations as the ultimate truth is simply not acceptable. --Ghirla 12:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no original research here and the article does not name any culprit. It is reporting what has been said and attributes the various quotes to the people concerned. That is perfectly within the bounds of Misplaced Pages policy and in accordance with journalistic standards. -- Hux 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko

I deleted the Litvinenko poisoning section, as it provided no information whatsoever about how Litvinenko's death is relevant to Politkovskaya's assassination.

Reverted. Not only did the deleted text explain the link to Politkovskaya's murder, the BBC citation backs it up, as do any number of online news sources. It's very relevant to this article. -- Hux 06:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

merge

It's mostly the same as in the main page. --HanzoHattori 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is because someone just copypasted this article back to the main article after this article was created. It was originally intended that the main page would contain only the first several paragraphs about the assassination but not the subsections (government reactions etc). The main article should be more about her biography and not so much about the assassination. See Olof Palme and Olof Palme assassination - that's how these articles should be handled. ---Majestic- 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with -Majestic-. Same thing with articles about Alexander Litvinenko.Biophys 00:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So, I copied last paragraph from Anna Politkovskaya article (part Assassination) to this article. 1-st, 2-nd and 4-th paragraph in part "Assassination" of Anna Politkovskaya article should probably remain there. Biophys 00:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Majestic. In cases where the person is known for something other than just being assassinated, there should be two articles - the biography and the assassination article. The assassination should be briefly mentioned in the bio article and then linked to its own page, as we've done here, otherwise the bio page gets way too long. -- Hux 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by DarthJesus

DarthJesus clearly has a problem with the appearance of comments from the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (CRI) in this article. Initially he deleted them entirely, citing that the CRI is not a recognized government and that therefore the comments should not appear in the "Government Reaction" section. After several edits and reversions between himself and other editors, I changed the title of that section to "Political Reaction" and put the comments back in. As far as I was concerned, this should have solved the problem. Now, however, DarthJesus is continually moving the CRI comments to the bottom of that list, without any edit note to explain why, and in such a way that it breaks the page's formatting and looks horrible. This situation is becoming ridiculous.

Given how central Chechnya was to Politkovskaya's work, the CRI's comments are clearly relevant to this article. DarthJesus seems to have accepted this since he has stopped attempting to delete the comments outright. He also seems to have accepted that it is acceptable to have those comments on a list titled, "Political Reaction". However, he clearly has a problem with those comments appearing at the top of that list. As my edit notes explain, this list is ordered alphabetically so as to avoid creating a POV by implying that one source is more important than another. The CRI happens to be first in that list due to that alphabetical order so that is the place where it should go.

DarthJesus: please do not keep reverting this edit. If you have an issue with it then let's discuss it here and attempt to come up with a compromise that is agreeable to everyone. Constantly moving the CRI comments to the bottom of the list without any edit comment is not reasonable -- Hux 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Connection between Litvinenko and Politkovskaya

Hux, where is the connection between Litvinenko and Politkovskaya? I read it and failed to see the connection. Could you please explain it, or were you just bullshitting, in which case I will delete it.

Thanks, USer XYZ

As it says in the article, the connection is that Litvinenko was investigating Politkovskaya's murder when he was killed. There is a citation there to a BBC news article to back it up. Additionally, we dealt with this a while ago further up this talk page.

I've added another link to that cite after the first paragraph in the Litvinenko section, in order to make the connection more clear.

PS Try to remain civil. -- Hux 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging/Demerging of Politkovskaya sections

Sorry if I'm late getting into this discusion.

The Politokovskaya entry's already way overlength – a case of more is less, I fear.

It wouldn't hurt to separate out the journo and murder from the murder victim and political repercussions.

Whether it's policy or not, it would make it more readable. And that couldn't hurt.

A See also... link would direct those who want to add to the entry to the right entry/subentry

Renaissanceperson 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

factorings

When you factor out a section, it pays to demark what should be in the "assassination" article and what should be in the "main" biography. I have done my best to separate these two things, but there is probably now some duplication in this article. I am not going to sort that out.--76.221.184.185 11:09, 27 August 2007 (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. " Krawndawg (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, the page looks much more organized now. Krawndawg (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Novaya gazeta article

english version

It's kind of misleading to just use the title in this article when deeper in the article it is much more complicated than "Secret services did it".

This sentence implies that they aren't sure themselves and that they reject theories about secret services doing it: "The question here is not about total plot by special services (let this be left for American action movies) or about omnipresent Berezovsky (let it be left for state TV journalists and those who needs the topic for saving one’s career). The problem is how to understand: who serves whom and when?" Krawndawg (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced what was there with a full quote from the article since they imply two very different things. That second paragraph about it being connected to the official report has to go too, since it's just original research/speculation. If that story is consistent with the official report, people will see that for themselves. Krawndawg (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you replaced the summary by selective citation out of context. Please explain what is wrong in summary and wait for reply. If you think something is missing, please add what is missing rather than delete.Biophys (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I already explained the problem. The article is much more complicated than the summary title. There's a reason they wrote a huge article on it instead of publishing the 10 word title and leaving it. It can't be left like that. And you restored original research based on connections you drew yourself: "The report was consistent with the official version that Nukayev indeed organized assassinations of Politkovskaya and Paul Khlebnikov. " Krawndawg (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed this phrase.Biophys (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

claims that Putin did it

Politically motivated claims by dissenters/traitors/defectors are hardly worth their own section, let alone such a large one. Should it be mentioned? Sure, but certainly not a 4000 word essay in its own section so high up on the page. And the next time you tell me to "get consensus" and revert my changes, take a look at your own edits first and think real hard about whether starting an edit war is really such a good idea. Krawndawg (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is a notable claim because it was made by notable people like Alexander Litvinenko and others, and it was done with regard to a notable person, Putin. This claim was never disproved. Hence it deserves a separate section.Biophys (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fringe theory made by people who are politically motivated. The theory is not supported by anyone neutral or without obvious bias, and is a blind accusation with no convincing evidence. It deserves to be mentioned, briefly, but not have it's own huge section. And if you want to just blindly revert all of my changes with no explanation and pretend you own this article I promise you I'm not going to consider any compromises. You can either rework it into a single paragraph or leave it out. Regardless, please refrain from inserting large controversial edits without complete consensus. Krawndawg (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

These claims were referenced to multiple reliable sources including books by historian and notable writers. If you want to dispute these claims as "fringe theory", please provide a much larger set of equally reliable secondary sources which specifically dispute the claim about Putin's involvement. Then we can make a "criticism" section or something like that.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

historians and notable writers? Only one, and he is a well known dissenter with questionable motives and a possible/probable political agenda. Krawndawg (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you're going to revert my changes with no legit reason, I'm not going to be very cooperative with you in return. Krawndawg (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)