Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Litvinenko

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.244.180.59 (talk) at 14:32, 22 June 2017 (→on Radioactive "Marlboro"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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)[reply]

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 I'm chanting as we speak 23:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 I'm chanting as we speak 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I took the action of correcting the formatting for the above cable. This cable was released on Dec. 1 at Wikileaks[1]. 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)[reply]

Another relevant cable:[2]

¶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)[reply]

A Guardian article on this at[3] -- Kevin Saff (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. There are other publications about this [4]. They should probably be described better in this article. Biophys (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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/wiki/User_talk:NeilN#Alexander_Litvinenko

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

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)[reply]

@John: See the section right above this one for a link to an extensive discussion. You've wikilinked to a different author, BTW. --NeilN talk to me 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had read part of that. You are right about the wikilink, I have removed it. --John (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Based on prior discussions at WP:BLPN, I agree. --NeilN talk to me 16:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. One of the sources removed by John[5] 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If Litvinenko's assertions are noteworthy, they will have been covered by better sources. --NeilN talk to me 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[6] Should be more on this as the inquest unfolds.[7]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck

Hi Wikipedia,

About a month or two ago, I visited the Russkiy yazik (Russian) Langauge version of Wikipedia and found some deliberately misleading, false, fraudulent, and defamatory statements there about Alexander Litvinenko ru.wikipedia.org/factcheck (Russian: Алекса́ндр Ва́льтерович Литвине́нко, IPA: [ɐlʲɪˈksandr ˈvaltərəvʲɪtɕ lʲɪtvʲɪˈnʲɛnkə]. It practically looked like it was written by the FSB, and had _very little similarity_ to the English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko&oldid=786945739"