Talk:Aeroflot

Undue and POV/BLP information removed from the article

I have removed information from the article, as per some previous discussions.

Articles are supposed to give an overview of a subject, and the information in relation to the KGB, as presented, is WP:UNDUE for the article. Articles are supposed to give an overview of the subject, not delve into every controversy. I have dozens of books, magazines, journals, etc on Aeroflot, both in English and Russian (and a few in couple of other languages), and they are benchmarks for information on Aeroflot. Whilst operations for the Soviet military and KGB are mentioned, they do so albeit briefly.

Suvorov's claims are also WP:UNDUE, and are going to require some damn good extraordinary sources. As per WP:UNDUE

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

The reasons extraordinary sources are required (and even then the information doesn't belong in this article) are:

1. If these allegedly drugged and unconscious people were forcibly repatriated to the USSR by Aeroflot, then they would have to check-in at the airport, go through immigration, customs, passport control, etc, etc. It was written in the article in such a way that this was a regular occurrence. KGB agents dragging drugged unconscious recalcitrant citizens through airports around the world, and onto civil flights, would have been something for the press to jump onto. This is especially true, given that Aeroflot flights were not restricted only to Soviet citizens, but they were often the only way for westerners to get into the Soviet Union, and the flights were used by diplomats, business people, tourists, etc. And this also includes flights from Warsaw Pact nations to the Soviet Union. This would be common knowledge, not some revelation by a disgruntled ex-spy.
2. If civilian flights weren't used, they would have been military flights. As all reliable sources on Aeroflot mention, many military aircraft were operated in Aeroflot livery, but they were operated by the military. The An-22 is but one example of this. Refer to User:Russavia/SU fleet for photographic and written evidence of this. This would then make them not Aeroflot, but military flights. This would have been the only way possible to do anything without public attention, and these would only have been possible from friendly nations.

The rest of Kuzminov's claims are very much WP:UNDUE. This may rate a mention in an ancillary article (as noted above), but in this article it is a minor viewpoint, and that is noted above.

Now, in relation to Berezovsky. And this has been discussed before as well. As noted at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Embezzlement_and_whitewashing_of_this_article the embezzlement of funds by Berezovsky and associates from Aeroflot is a byline to this article, only because it is not a major event in all that is written about Aeroflot. But it is a major event in the biography of Berezovsky, who fled Russia after the embezzlement came to notice, he was charged, tried in absentsia, and has a sentence to serve. But the problem with the information presented is that it is one-sided advocacy (propaganda) written by Alex Goldfarb, who is a close Berezovsky associate, and Marina Litvinenko (the wife of Alexander), in a book all but published and paid for by Berezovsky. As it is overly COI/self-serving material that was entered, some more reliable sources are required, and it needs to present an NPOV account of the affair, not one-side POV propaganda.

It omits facts that the companies set up by Glushkov and Berezovsky relied on a web of shady and offshore accounts and companies in places like Panama, etc. It certainly wasn't an above board operation as has been presented. Try getting sources which are reliable. Propaganda is not a reliable source. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 10:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit is an open violation of your interaction ban. Please self-revert. This information is obviously relevant to the subject and sourced to several books (secondary RS). This also has nothing to do with BLP. I would rather not discuss this with you in more detail, because you are under interaction ban with me. Thanks. Biophys (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion on the information removed by Russavia appears to be more like a political controversy rather than an encyclopedic part of the carrier's history. Perhaps this should be discussed in much detail, but my opinion is that this removed paragraph shouldn't be reinstated. As a reader, I'm really not interested in being informed such political things when I'm into an airline article looking for proper information on the airline itself. That said, I'll support the inclusion of that information in a new article, if there's not an article that already covers the topic. By contrast, the frequent flyer programme section should be available to readers again, considering that the airline is a member of an airline alliance, and that the alliance article does not provide much detail on each of the frequent flyer programmes for the constituent members.--Jetstreamer (talk) 13:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is not an ordinary airline company. Just as many other Soviet/Russian state-owned organizations, it was used for multiple purposes, even as a front organization (per multiple secondary RS). For example, if certain Soviet scientific academic institutions were used as a cover of Soviet biological weapons program (per sources), this must be noted in articles about such institutions per NPOV. Biophys (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me Jetstreamer, I was in the middle of incorporating it into another section, when other issues arose. I'll reinstate it for now. Good thing you mentioned the alliance article -- perhaps this is where all of the FFP information of constituent airlines can go, seeing as they are all so similar within alliances. It's in relation to my comments on WP:AIRLINES talk page, which I think you commented on. What do you think about that? Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it mean that you are not going to self-revert and stand by your revert of my edit? Biophys (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this single discussion should be split, as we are talking about two very different matters, and it is really becoming a hydrid one! Regarding the political framework Aeroflot was or not involved in, I repeat I'll support the creation of a new article on this particular topic (letting the bloodbuster to begin among the ones that may be involved in its edition; I'll step aside). A tentative name could be “Controversies around Aeroflot” or so. It would be interesting, though, and will also give room to insert another kind of information on the proper running of an airline. On the (very) other hand, the SkyTeam article of course should include all the stuff regarding the frequent flyer programme of its members. Nevertheless, I think we should focus on getting some articles ready for the time being (at least I'll do so), before beginning to make improvements to another ones. Despite I don't have much time due to my “non-Wiki life”, I recently got involved in editing Uzbekistan Airways just after I found an IP vandal (the same who yesterday vandalised the Aeroflot page) added fictitious airliners to both its current and retired fleet.--Jetstreamer (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are doing stuff on HY, you may want to check Andrew Dyubin's template on commons at the link I have given ; he has some great pics of the aircraft - others have nice pics too if you need them. As to creating Controversies on Aeroflot, it would be taken to WP:AFD as it would be a dumping ground for advocacy, using really bad sources, such as those I presented above. I'll defer to Igny's comments below, which mirror mine above, in relation to creating a "controversy" article. Anyway, if you need pics of HY, go get 'em and upload. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is the litmus test. An article on IBM says about IBM's collaboration with Nazi here the following

In 1937, IBM's tabulating equipment enabled organizations to process unprecedented amounts of data, its clients including the U.S. Government, during its first effort to maintain the employment records for 26 million people pursuant to the Social Security Act,[20] and the Third Reich[21], largely through the German subsidiary Dehomag. Also in 1937, the company president met with Adolf Hitler, and discussed issues on the supply of equipment, and in 1941 were made ​​leasing supplies to camps to accommodate the prisoners.

Note the NPOV wording, nothing about number of killed Jews due to IBM's efforts or other such things. On the other hand, the book IBM and the Holocaust has all the details on this controversy. So there is a simple suggestion. If there is an article on evil wrongdoings of KGB and FSB, you can add the properly sourced claims on Aeroflot's contributions if it is any relevant there. Here all you can say is that Aeroflot was used by the various government offices (including KGB and FSB) for multiple government business related purposes. Note that I myself did not check the validity of the claims here, I am just proposing to remove the irrelevant material from here and add it where it is more relevant. (Igny (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Speaking as a potential passenger, I would be very much interested to learn if I am transported together with improperly packaged deadly pathogens. So yes, this is an important information, and yes, it belongs to this article. How reliable this is? That was published in a printed book by an expert (and he said he picked up the pathogens from the planes himself) and never disputed in other sources to my knowledge (yes, these programs are very much active today). Biophys (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your personal feelings aside, it is impossible to prove that this particular was never disputed anywhere. It is relatively easy for you to prove whether such claims have been accepted and verified independently. As our previous disputes showed we have very much different views on who is and who is not an expert. Anyway, as my case with IBM demonstrated there is a very neutral way to deal with any particular controversy, and that is not to add irrelevant material everywhere you feel it belongs to. (Igny (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

Re and he said he picked up the pathogens from the planes himself. Sorry, it is not an independent verification. (Igny (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC))

It's like reading the Litvinenko article. As is written there, the thing with conspiracy theories is that the more outlandish the claim, the harder it is to disprove. Anyway, as a passenger who is interested in Aeroflot, most passengers would want to know if the service is like what they have heard about (surly and abrasive as in Soviet times), and whether the airline is really as unsafe as what they have heard. In the rewrite I have been working on, these issues will be discussed. Of course, there are always passengers who would want to know if they are going to get polonium poisoning by flying Aeroflot, due to a KGB agent being the chairman (ommitting of course he is also a politician and businessman), who has links to Putin, and we all know about Putin. Those types of passengers are called the WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE passenger, and frankly, they are better off flying another airline. --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 15:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, the poisoning while flying an Aeroflot plane is a real possibility. That is what had happened with Politkovskaya when she flied to Beslan: [1]. Biophys (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

So much fun. See [2] where Russavia solicited Igny's appearance here. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we had enough time for everyone to respond. Let me just briefly summarize:

1. My edit was improperly reverted in a violation of an interaction ban.
2. So far, no one explained why quoted book/sources do not qualify as RS.
3. I do not see why sourced information about Aeroflot should not be included in this article. Frankly, if they helped military, why we can not also note that they helped intelligence operations.

So, if no one strongly objects, I would restore at least a part of the removed content. Biophys (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I really don't care if I am banned from interacting with you Biophys. Your addition was previously removed from the article by OTHER editors many months ago. Your addition to the article was merely you using the interaction ban against me as a weapon in order to lock me out of articles. An article, mind you, which is directly in my area of expertise.

I'll be damned if sword-wielding skeletons are going to continue destroy Wikipedia, and allow major contributors and experts on articles to be sidelined, by way of using arbitration decisions as a weapon against editors. Taken in with your recent stalking of me Biophys, I will wait with baited breathe your AE request.

Additionally, numerous editors above have rejected your edits, as per the logical reasoning given. You are not going to turn this article into a battleground Biophys.

Oh, and if anyone doubts I am an expert, I will happily provide the Arbitration Committee with confidential evidence of this. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 06:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian Aeroflot articles

Hi, I've scoured through the Flight Global archives, and came up with the following sources for any interested in rewriting the "Recent developments" section. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 09:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The Bullish Bear. 1992
All Change at Aeroflot. 1993
The Price of Change. 1994
Independence days. 1995
Fighting back. 1997