Talk:Anna Politkovskaya

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: [1] [2] itkovskaya%20%22putin's%20birthday%22&f=false [3] [4] [5]... 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 [6]. 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)

User:Volunteer Marek, what if the following were an accurate statement: "She was killed on Putin's birthday, a fact remarked on in many sources, though they disagree on what it means--whether the killing was a birthday present for Putin, the result conspiratorial logistics meant to indict Putin, or just a coincidence". Something like that, if rigorously verified, would be acceptable. But, in my opinion, you have to say something--if you don't, you are basically saying "She was killed on Putin's birthday and you, perceptive Wikipedia reader, you know very well what that means". Suggestion by omission is as bad as more explicit suggestion, and that is where I agree with BMK, that the statement as I removed it was a BLP violation. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The first part of the sentence, up to "what it means" is fine. Except for the bit of original research (do they really disagree?) it's basically how I tried to phrase it. Which was reverted. The second part is a little bit problematic because the sources mostly consider the first possibility the most likely, with maybe one or two considering the third. AFAIK no source takes the possibility that this was done to make Putin look bad, seriously. Volunteer Marek  02:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the first part without the second part is nothing--it's innuendo. I don't care whether I wrote OR or not, I tried to give an example. I think that conspiracy thing comes from a quote on this page in a comment from My very best wishes. But I'll say it again, you cannot say "it was on his birthday" without explaining what it means according to which sources. Oh, I'd leave Againstdisrinformation's comments stand without responding to them. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's the problem. Almost every source mentions this was done Putin's birthday. Omitting that from the article, when every single source does it, constitutes misrepresenting sources. So we say that it was "a fact remarked on in many sources". So far so good. Now, you insist that we must also say WHY these many sources bring up this fact. Well, that's essentially original research since it asks us to guess what the sources were thinking when they made that choice, which isn't our job as Wikipedians. But ok. Why do the sources bring that up? Or more pertinently, do they really "disagree on what it means"? Actually no, not really. The only real disagreement in the sources about this is whether it was done on Putin's birthday because he ordered it, or because someone was trying to kiss up to him independently. There might be a source out there which considers it a pure coincidence. So to speculate and mischaracterize the sources ("they disagree") is a problem. That's actually why it is better to just say that sources note that fact. Unless of course you want to say "She was killed on Putin's birthday, a fact remarked on in many sources which suggest that it implicates Putin or one of his supporters in the murder". That would be more accurate and no more original research than your wording. Volunteer Marek  03:38, 14 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, 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)

editors with a long history of anti-Russian POV-pushing - exactly how many fucking times have you been warned about making personal attacks and accusing others of being "anti-Russian"? It's not only insulting but moronic. Are the Russian authors who note that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday "pushing anti-Russian POV"? Oh wait! Obviously Poltkovskaya herself was "anti-Russian". Please stop being a ridiculous thoughtless jerk. Volunteer Marek  21:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

""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."" - what else is needed?  Volunteer Marek  21:19, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes. With such reliable sources as the ones you cite I could as easily make the case That 9/11 happened conveniently to support the neocon's agenda to invade Iraq and reshape the middle east. Then you would call me a conspiracy theorist, and rightly so. Do you see the point or are you too blinded by your political passions? Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying that books by a professional historian and political scientist are not reliable? Oh, wait, it must be because they're "anti-Russian". Funny, cuz it appears both of them actually are Russians. Man, these self-hating-well-educated-Russians who write these horrible unreliable sources using their higher education and then somebody on Wikipedia will want to use these guys as sources in an article related to Russia. Thank god we have User:Againstdisinformation to tell us all that these sources are not reliable and that those who try to use them are just "anti-Russian".

I'm starting to see what Lute88 was going on about. Volunteer Marek  22:38, 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. Yes, well said. If needed, we can quote these sources in more detail (as above) to explain what they are actually telling. And no, we are not in the business of tracing and verifying conclusions by professional historians in their books, as BMK seem to suggest.My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful side discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop whining. Using the same casuistry you used with regard to the birthday, I could say that I never named anyone, so that it can't be a personal attack, you just happened to post on this page when I was. This is a notable fact and very well sourced. I was personally accused, not to be a mere pro-Russian editor, but a Russian agent paid by the Kremlin to edit Wikipedia. When I complained, someone advocated blocking me indefinitely "until such time that they can understand the difference between a snippy remark and a full on personal attack". I don't remember that you jumped to my defence then. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "Please stop whining." - you really are begging for a block aren't ya?  Volunteer Marek  01:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Hillary Clinton famously compared Putin with Hitler, adding that he had no soul. If your 'eminent historians' are right, she really was too soft. She should have compared him with Nero or Caligula. Againstdisinformation (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC) WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, please stop disrupting the talk page. And yes, they do happen to be prominent historians and political scientists. If you got a problem with that, go and complain about it somewhere else. Volunteer Marek  01:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC) I don't know what makes you think they are "prominent" historians but, at least, "Историки Владимир Прибыловский и Юрий Фельштинский не скрывают своей оппозиционности к ныне действующему президенту и кандидату в президенты России." casts a doubt on their neutrality. Againstdisinformation (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Actually it doesn't. And what is that supposed to be anyway? A random sentence written in Cyrillic and put into quotation marks. Did you write it? Why then not express the same opinion in English so that everyone here can understand it? And why should we care?  Volunteer Marek  02:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

@ Volunteer Marek the most self-hating Russians are actually uneducated. The same thing is with self-hating Germans.--Aktionsfront für Korrektur (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources for Politkovskaya being murdered on Putin's birthday

I guess it is necessary to spell out all the sources which make this connection. Here they are:

1. "There is a darkly intriguing symbolism in the fact that (the murder) took place on President Putin's birthday", The Current Digest of the Post-Soviet Press
2. "...it will not resolve the real mystery: Who really gave the orders and paid to have Politkovskaya assassinated on Putin's birthday?", Edward Jay Epstein, former PoliSci prof at Harvard, MIT, UCLA
3. "...by arranging for the journalist to be murdered on President Putin's birthday..." American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studie
4. "It may be a chilling coincidence that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, but her friends and supporters are in little doubt that her dogged, gloomy reporting of the sinister turn Russia has taken...", The Economist
5. "She was slain on the exact date of the president's (Putin's) birthday, Putin's Labyrinth by Steve LeVine, Random House
6. "On 7 October 2006, Putin's 54th birthday, the journalist Anna Polikovskaya... was shot dead", The Strongman by Angus Roxburgh
7. "A number of major reports continued the theme, going so far as to suggest that Politkovskaya's death on Putin's birthday was actually his present to himself", Putin by Chris Hutchins
8. "The next signature murder was on 7 October 2006 when Anna Politkovskaya was shot on Putin's birthday. They certainly couldn't afford another method - the whole effect would be lost...", The KGB's Poison Factory by Volodarsky
9. "On Vladimir Putin's birthday, October 7, Politkovskaya ... was shot four times", The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
10. "Some have noted that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday, suggesting that her killers may have wanted to give Putin a present", The New Censorship by Joel Simon
11. "Two days later, on Putin's birthday, Politkovskaya was assassinated", War on Words: Who Should Protect Journalists?
12. "We may also recall the death of Anna Politkovskaya, "coincidentally" (sic) murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday', Transformations in Central Europe between 1989 and 2012, scare quotes in the original
13. "Politkovskaya was shot and killed in the elevator of her apartment on Putin's birthday on October 2006", The Oligarchs" by Claes Ericsson
14. Quotes Russian Union of Journalists chairman Alexei Simonov: ""October 7th was Putin's birthday. Was this his present?" he asked rhetorically referring to Politkovskaya's murder", Marked for Death by Terry Gould
15. Quotes historian Yuri Felshtinsky: "the choice of date for her murder links her irrevocably with President Putin. 'You know, Politkosvkaya was killed on his birthday. It was definitely someone who wanted to offer a present for Putin's birthday", Litvinenko File by Michael Sixsmith
16. "Anna Politkovskaya was murdered as she came home with some groceries on a Saturday afternoon, October 7, 2006, Vladimir Putin's birthday", Keith Gessen in The New Yorker

This is a lot of work. Here's more 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, [Vice News 30], 31, 32, 33... even RT talks about it!

Come on guys. We have a fact which is mentioned in every. single. source (more or less). And you are insisting that we ignore this. The date of her murder and the fact it's Putin's birthday is a key part of the topic and you simply cannot exclude it when so many sources explicitly connect the two.

I could easily find another 30+ sources along these lines. Volunteer Marek  04:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and this is something everyone knows. I mean everyone who is familiar with this subject. We simply tell what reliable sources tell. How anyone familiar with the subject can treat mentioning this fact as a BLP violation is a mystery. As about WP:NPOV, which is the leading policy here, it does not require a neutral description of anything or anyone. It only means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. If most of the sources claim something (whatever this might be), that should be reflected on the page and exactly as described by sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Well...?  Volunteer Marek  05:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

If no one objects, I am going to place this back. But a lot more should be improved on this page and many other pages related to human rights in Russia. (Un)fortunately, I do not have time for this, among other things. My very best wishes (talk) 12:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I object, and will remove the claim if added. As stated numerous times above, by numerous editors, these are sources for the existence of the claim, which nobody doubts, not for the truth of the implications of the claim. However much one may dislike him, Putin is a live person, and comes under BLP policy. BMK (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No, as was noted already, not telling something that almost all reliable sources on this subject tell (as in current version) is an outright misrepresentation of the sources and goes against WP:NPOV, which is our ruling policy. As was also noted before, you should make a post about this on WP:BLPNB if you think this is a BLP violation, rather than edit war here. In my opinion, there is no way to treat this as a BLP violation. So, unless you are going to post this matter on BLPNB, I am going to include this info. My very best wishes (talk) 15:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The source are NOT for the "existence of the claim" - that's just false. Those would be sources which state "such and such claimed that she was murdered on Putin's birthday". What we have are in fact source which make the claim (which is trivially true) - "she was murdered on Putin's birthday". You can read whatever you want into the fact, but that's your business. We simply report what sources say, in a way which is as close to what sources say without actually violating copyright. And there's sixteen sources right there which say it.

Please stop misrepresenting sources. Volunteer Marek  17:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm also extremely annoyed by the fact that BMK 1) refuses to discuss this question in any meaningful way, 2) refuses to address the sources, 3) only comments when reverted and otherwise does not participate in the discussion. This isn't proper Wikipedia behavior. I also think it may be worthwhile to go to an outside venue to discuss this, like WP:BLPN (the fact that BMK refused to do this previously sort of suggests that they are aware that they're on shaky ground here). Volunteer Marek  17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? It's been discussed to death, VM. There is no evidence of the truth of the matter, just of the existence of the claim. Until there's some evidence to support the implications, it's BLP violation, and I will delete it. That's the bottom line, and it hasn't changed. BMK (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So, you do not want to post this matter to BLPNB? Note that according to instruction on BLPNB, ("Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles") this is your responsibility to post, because you are the only person who claims BLP violation in this latest thread (a lot of additional supporting sources have been added recently, which matters). My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

this "discussion to death" has involved myself and MVBW presenting sources, over and over again, and you just stone-walling. That's not a discussion. I am very much open to discussing HOW this info should be included but again, for the millionth time, seeing as how almost every single source mentions it, it must be included in some form. Otherwise we are misrepresenting sources.

BLP is only violated if the material is unsourced or sourced in a shoddy way. This is not the case here at all. Volunteer Marek  19:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

What can I tell? BMK not only continued edit warring, but posted a message on my talk page that is simply untrue because this edit was fully sources to several books by historians, in addition to ~30 sources provided by you above. My very best wishes (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're both wasting your time and energy. The only conceivable reason for wanting to note that the date of the murders was Putin's birthday is to imply a connection between them. That's a clear BLP violation unless and until there is some evidence -- not speculation or theorizing --- of a connection. You have shown numerous sources which speculate or theorize, and none that have shown a connection, so you simply cannot have it in the article. I understand you hate Putin, I don't like him either, but you cannot bend policy to get in a dig at someone you hate with no evidence to support it. You don't have it, and it will not go into the article until you do.

This is my last comment on this issue. I will continue to remove BLP violations from the article, which, you'll remember, is immune from edit warring charges, whereas the addition of BLP violations is not. BMK (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I can only repeat that according to WP:BLP, Contentious material about living persons ... 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. But this is something obviously well-sourced. Therefore, 3RR exemption does not apply. Since you do not want to collect more opinions on WP:BLPNB, perhaps we should ask on WP:NPOVNB or make an RfC? But I am not certain we should waste other people's time. My very best wishes (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I concur. We do not accuse Putin in the murder. That is only one phrase: Many sources have noted that she was killed on Vladimir Putin's birthday although these do not necessarily explicitly state the significance of this fact.[49][50][51]. It is well sourced and relevant. I have restored the fragment. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• We're right back where we were a month ago; I have protected again--no doubt it's the WRONG VERSION. Two weeks ought to be enough to figure this out, preferably on BLPN. I'm not the only admin who thinks that the BLP is in fact...let's say challenged here, and it ought to be the burden for the includers to prove that the BLP is not violated: we err on the side of caution, even if the LP in question is a muscular, hockey-playing leader of a world power. Good luck with it. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are the only admin who thinks that. I see two other admins here, but they seem to think otherwise. BMK is not an admin, I don't think. And as far as "proving" that BLP is not being violated - well, there's more than 30 sources right up above. What else do you want? This looks like a case where no matter what kind of "proof" is presented, in the form of reliable high quality sources, the editor on the other side will just keep on ignoring it. Which is why they were blocked here.

Also, you really shouldn't 1) participate in an edit war, 2) unblock other parties to the edit war who agree with you and 3) protect your preferred version of the page. I know that people try to stretch and abuse the definition of WP:INVOLVED sometimes, but in this case, I do think you really crossed a line. Volunteer Marek  06:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Marek, this one has some weight to it: these were the same edits. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Simply looking at this article editing history, one can tell that BMK reverted edit made by five contributors. This is obviously a WP:Consensus to include this material and consensus that the edit was not a BLP violation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• We have noticeboards to attract a larger and possibly more...uninvested editors. Consensus on a talk page on BLP matters is much less convincing than consensus reached in a broader forum. Drmies (talk) 23:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Inviting "uninvested editors" is frequently a bad idea because they do not really know the subject. Therefore, a consensus on specific page between people who actually contributed to the page and related subjects may be a better indicator. I also looked at the page and can see a number of problems. In particular, there is no section which describes journalist investigations by Politkovskaya. For example, while investigating the Moscow theater hostage crisis, she took an interview from Terkibaev, an FSB agent-provocateur who directed terrorists to the theater and left the building before it was taken by FSB forces [7]. But unfortunately, I do not have time for that. The time was spent on a totally ridiculous discussion that was started by now banned user Againstdisinformation who was supported by some other participants for reasons I do not understand. My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is a contentious issue, so I suspect however it is closed someone will be unhappy. Still, the discussion has died down, someone needs to read the arguments and do the closing. The best I can do is to try to thoroughly explain my reasoning for the close - so please bear with me if this seems a bit long.

Just counting voices we have 18 that support (some with qualifications), 8 that oppose (and 1 meh - thanks, Guy). But more important than how many the voices are is what they say. The supporters cite WP:NPOV, based on large quantities of reliable sources, some highly reliable, at least mentioning this fact, with some of the Russian mainstream media sources devoting articles to this fact (FWIW, yes, I can read the Russian). The opposers cite WP:BLP, and point out that there is no reliable source that accuses or even directly links Putin to the killing. Both are policies and important. WP:NPOV however states "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." and Volunteer Marek's 30 mostly book sources and Alex Bakharev's 16K of links headed by highly respected mass media sources clearly demonstrate that without writing about this fact we would not be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

Of course there are times - rare times - that we still leave out information that multiple reliable sources write about. One article that I can point to is Star Wars Kid, where multiple reliable sources printed the name of a teenager playing in a viral video, and we, Wikipedia, decided to leave it out of the article in a case that is still cited as one of the founding stones of WP:BLP. (Among others by Newyorkbrad, who has been accused of overwriting in explaining decisions. My role model!) But there, the "kid" was: a minor; in no way notable beyond the video; demonstrably suffering from the publicity; and his name wasn't vital to the readers' understanding of the article; none of which applies to Putin, one of the most notable and powerful men living, notoriously resistant to criticism, and repeatedly, unavoidably, mentioned elsewhere in the Politskovskaya article. (As a footnote, the "kid" brought up the issue himself in public appearances after coming of age, and so his name can today be found in the article. So it goes.)

In sum, both editor consensus, and policy as correctly interpreted by editor consensus, is to put the birthday fact in.

That said, there were a number of important points that were brought up in the discussion by editors on both sides of the issue that should not be overlooked in the way in which we do that.

• Two editors specified the item should not be mentioned in the lead. None contradicted them. That has consensus, this fact should not be in the lead.
• KoshVorlon, among others, wrote that we can not write or imply "that this means that the kills may [be] at the behest of Mr. Putin." That has consensus: we can not write or imply that, there are no sources for that.
• How to avoid that remains an issue, however. Not writing it is easy, not implying it is hard, but we have to try. Two editors wrote that we should write the fact only, not any opinion or speculation. Three editors, on the other hand, wrote that we need to include "hedging language", and "carefully written context". I can't say which of those apparently conflicting suggestions has consensus; I can say that, in general, we, Wikipedia, tend to settle these things by writing more to explain the issue, not less, but that and other specifics will have to be decided by the dedicated editors. Good luck.
• Bagumba wrote that this fact might be "better suited for Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya", and he does have a point. However no one else discussed this suggestion, and most of the arguments were for including or excluding the fact which would not change for that article, so this closing can't rule on it. --GRuban (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

---

• Question: should this article describe the connection some observers have drawn between the date of Politkovskaya's murder and the date of Putin's birthday, using some or all of the sources indicated at the top of this section? 20:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Support

• Of course, it's quite reliably sourced. That's what matters. NE Ent 20:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, sure. This is merely a factoid. Almost every RS on the subject tells about this fact as something highly significant. Hence it must be included per WP:NPOV. Not telling something that almost all RS tell would be an outright misrepresentation of sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion in the article. Google search for "Politkovskaya Putin's birthday" brings 16K hits in English and 110K hits in Russian. Among the hits are The Guardian, Reuters, Russia Today, RFERL,NewsRu - I just looked on the first pages of each search. It is absolutely stupid not to include this factoid into the article. On the other hand I am oppose to putting the info in a more prominent location, as indeed the connection is not proven Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Obviously since almost every single source about her mentions this very fact. If every almost every single source states something it needs to be in the encyclopedia article about the subject. There really should not be any controversy about this. Volunteer Marek  23:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Support User:Beyond My Ken's specious laundry list of other events on the same date is belied by the fact that not one source references a connection to any other event on that October 7 date other than Vladimir Putin's birthday. Our job here is not to establish and prove facts; It is to demonstrate verifiablity. BMK's persistent demand that we must satisfy his demand for proof indicates a complete and total lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about. The number of sources that make the connection is overwhelming; the excuses offered to ignore these sources offer no meaningful rebuttal. Alansohn (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of this fact. Things that are widely reported in reliable source are not rumours, they're speculation. Rumours are when there's no source. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support for mention of the single observable fact that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday, because nearly every single WP:RS out of the dozens if not hundreds that exist mention that fact as notable and noteworthy, per WP:CENSOR. Possible support for examination of the import of this as speculated/theorized in various media, only if couched in very clear terms as mere speculation, and only if each speculation is directly attributed, in text, to the source of the speculation, and only if the source is unquestionably reliable, neutral, independent, and credible. Softlavender (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support mention of fact Oppose using the fact to add opinion/speculation as who to ordered any death. Collect (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The claim that this is a BLP violation is absurd and I've been appalled by BMK's edit warring based on that claim. He should have stayed blocked over his bad behavior. BLP seems intended to protect ordinary living people, not leaders of superpowers like Putin. More to the point, this isn't an article about Putin, it's about someone else. My attitude here is that if it's a reliable source -- and clearly there are a lot of them -- that's all it should take. We decide content based on reliable sources, not whether BMK is satisfied that this has been proven to be truth. Msnicki (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I agree with the above user. If the information is coming from a reliable source and represents a widely reported fact, then it should be included. This is not a rumor if it has reliable sources backing it up. Also - almost every source mentions this so-called relationship. Cheers, Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 00:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Anna_Politkovskaya was killed October 7, wich was the birthday of Nicole Jung, an American-South Korean singer, dancer, and actress (born October 7, 1991). This is a factual factoid but, guess why, quite nobody is reporting. Pldx1 (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: should include at least some hedging language ("some sources noted"), and perhaps (?) a sourced denial from a credible Russian source. I understand that this is at least potentially BLP, and so I do want to stay well away from that area. GAB^Hello! 19:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This is actually a good point. The fact was so notable and so widely published, that the denial was issued by Putin himself. On 10 October 2006, 2,000 demonstrators called Putin a "murderer" during his visit to Dresden, Germany. Putin replied: "This journalist was indeed a sharp critic of the present Russian authorities...but the degree of her influence over political life in Russia was extremely insignificant. She was well-known in journalistic circles, among human rights activists, in the West. I repeat, her influence over political life in Russian was minimal. And in my opinion murdering such a person certainly does much greater damage from the authorities' point of view, authorities that she strongly criticized, than her publications ever did.". My very best wishes (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

References

However, including a denial would beg the question, "What are they denying," which would inevitably lead to the assertion that the Russian government was involved... so maybe it's not such a good idea after all. GAB^Hello! 23:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This is basically a fact/claim that has been published everywhere and everyone knows, or at least everyone familiar with the subject. "Hiding" that is stupid and goes against WP:NPOV. Something that everyone knows is not going to ruin anyone's reputation any more than it has been already ruined. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Meh. Conspiracy theories qualify for inclusion only as long as we have adequate sourecs showing them to be just that: conspiracy theories. I don't think Putin really has people killed to celebrate his birthday. Guy (Help!) 01:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

An important and nearly undisputable fact about this is that people who hired the killers were never brought to justice [8]. Hence a number of experts (I mostly mean the books) conducted their own analysis of the case. Some quotations above are not speculations or conspiracy theories, but conclusions by experts; more about this can be found in quoted sources. Most experts agree about the involvement of the "Chechen leadership" (meaning Kadyrov) and Russian state security services (FSB) in organizing the assassination - based on people who have been arrested or convicted and other details of the criminal case. However, I think this is not really the question under discussion/voting here. Some of the most recent publications noticed 15 similar features/facts between her case and the recent murder of Nemtsov [9] (unfortunately, this is a Russian language source).My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- the extent of sourcing on this is so impressive that it's obviously necessary to include it in this article. (Let's put it this way: not including it is hardly going to make it go away.) The idea, already evident below, that there's no point in even discussing it because it's a BLP violation is amusing. In reality, there's no provision of BLP that would be violated by including some careful coverage of this topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, on the conditions described by GAB above; there is no BLP issue so long as all we do is note that others have made the connection, without saying in Wikipedia's voice that there's anything to it or not. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC).
• Support inclusion, widely mentioned by reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion. Summoned by RfC bot. Worth a couple of sentences. Coretheapple (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support a mention that sources have discussed it. To report it as a fact without any context could very well be a BLP violation. Conspiracy/fringe theories can be worth noting, as long as we don't promulgate them as if they were the mainstream view. This needs to be carefully written if it's included. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support, but... not as innuendo in the lede. I support including the fact that she was killed on Putin's birthday for what it is: a fact that is a source of much conjecture about the meaning of her killing. Include it in the body of the article with consideration about weight. To include it in the lede is innuendo and a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. SageRad (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

• Per my extensive arguments above, what is reliably sourced is the existence or rumors, conjecture, speculation, and conspiracy theorizing. There is no dispute about that, or about the date of the murder being Putin's birthday. What is missing, and what is required by BLP policy, is verifiable evidence in reliable sources of any actual real-world connection between the events. Without such evidence, the implication that Putin is in some way involved, either personally or via the murder being a "gift" to him from the murderers, is a gross BLP violation and should not be in the article.
  In any event, an article talk page discussion may reach a local consensus concerning this issue, but it cannot override BLP policy, so the proper place for this discussion is not here, but at the BLPN thread I started here. BMK (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Off topic discussion

Moved to User talk:Volunteer Marek § Anna Politkovskaya discussion

NE Ent 13:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with BMK here - there is no verifiable causal connection, only verified speculation. If anything, report that it has been speculated, but the connection should not be made in WP voice. I'd say caution and the conservative principle behind BLP suggest leaving it out. Minor4th 21:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with the oppose. 7 October is also the day that Desmond Tutu, Joy Behar, Oliver North etc etc were born. If some writer speculated that there was some connection it would not be appropriate for the article either. MarnetteD|Talk 22:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• worthless factoid whose single purpose is to attach blame to Putin without any evidence. We should also consider adding, Ms. Politkovskaya’s murder, Mr. Putin said, brought Russia “far greater injuries and damage than her publications.”Govindaharihari (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Opppose including this factoid unless actual evidence (as opposed to rank speculation) is produced which shows that there is a connection between the killing and the birthday. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cullen328. The sources only speculate that the kills may at the behest of Mr. Putin. Without some reliable source actually saying that they are, we cannot put that back in, per BLP. Strongly suggest we close this as opposed, because even with an overwhelming consensus of "for" we can't violate BLP KoshVorlon 16:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Simply mentioning this fact does not mean that the murder was done on behest of Mr. Putin. In fact, Mr. Putin openly suggested himself (quotation above) that it was done by his enemies to discredit him. His statement was simply an additional indication of notability of this fact, discussed by nearly all sources. Hence this is not a BLP violation and required to be included per WP:NPOV. Yes, a number of RS (books that were also quoted above) claim explicitly that it was done by someone on his behalf. If that should be included is a different question. My very best wishes (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We are NOT putting into the article that "the murder was done on behest of Mr. Putin" - that's a ridiculous framing of the issue (in fact most sources don't even speculate about that - the ignorance of this comment strongly suggests you haven't bothered looking at the sources provided!). Please stop trying to construct strawmen arguments. We are putting in info about the data on which the murder happened, which is mentioned in almost every source on the subject. Hence, according to WP:BLP, this is NOT a BLP violation as it is extensively sourced to reliable (including scholarly and academic) sources. Please read WP:BLP again. Volunteer Marek  01:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Though supported in RS, it reads like a factoid and there is no correlation, just speculation. Meatsgains (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Better suited for Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya if there is consensus that WP:DUE weight is met there, and then only if WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is followed. Nobody has offered an explanation at #Discussion below why this bio should not summarize Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya per WP:SUMMARY. I doubt the birthday would warrant mention in the assassination article's lead; therefore, it seems too detailed to be mention here in the general bio.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

WP:BLP policy reminder: "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." (emphasis mine) NE Ent 20:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@BMK. Yes, many sources above claim about the existence of "an actual real-world connection between the events" (as you asked). Are these claims "verifiable"? Yes, absolutely - in WP meaning. This is reference work. We must only fairly summarize what RS tell on the subject - per WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:NOR. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Response to a comment above:

" 7 October is also the day that Desmond Tutu, Joy Behar, Oliver North etc etc were born." - yes but none of these other birthdays are mentioned in the sources. However the fact that it happened on Putin's birthday is mentioned in almost every source which discusses this topic

" some writer speculated that there was some connection it would not be appropriate for the article either" - if ONE writer speculated that there was some connection, it would not be appropriate to include. If TWO writers speculated that there was some connection, it would not be appropriate to include. IF ALMOST EVERY SINGLE SOURCE on the topic includes the info, then yes, it is appropriate to include. Why is this so hard to understand? We follow sources. That's the only thing that gives us credibility as an online encyclopedia. You ignore what (all) sources say, you throw out that credibility. Volunteer Marek  22:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't we just include some hedging language to the effect of "some sources noted," or move it out of the lede? GAB^Hello! 01:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Well it shouldn't be mentioned in the lede by any stretch, in my opinion (except possibly in the lede of Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya). I agree that "Some sources noted that ..." might be useful, although it should rightfully state that "Many sources noted that" because you'd be hard-pressed to find a reliable source that didn't note it, so in effect the entire preface is somewhat of a tautology. Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Alright. Whatever works. GAB^Hello! 16:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll let others assess if WP:DUE weight exists to warrant it's mention. However, if consensus is that it belongs, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should then be applied. "Many sources have noted ..." needs to be supported by a reliable source stating the scope. Otherwise, temper it with "Some sources ...", or just directly attribute it to a few notable sources by name without assessing how widespread the opinion is.—Bagumba (talk) 22:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that if this part will be inserted, this is the best and least-controversial way of doing so. GAB^Hello! 22:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Another concern that I will leave to the experts is the weight of the assassination in relation to her bio. Currently, it dominates the article in a larger proportion than it is discussed in the lead, which is inconsistent with WP:LEAD. Also, given that Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya exists, I would expect her assassination to be handled summary style. Unless Putin's birthday belongs in the lead of the assassination article, I wouldn't expect such detail to be in the summary of her death in the main bio. However, the dedicated assassination article would have more leeway to include mention of the birthday.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Without any context this is all meaningless. Just saying she was killed on Putin's birthday is trivial. With out evidence any connection or suggestion of Putin's involvement is a BLP violation but there are exceptions. The presence of a widely known (for lack of better term) Conspiracy theory would be acceptable. There are boundaries to this. Specifically the NPOV policy, which applied would be that we can not give weight to it actually being true. Think of the Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. While we can't present it as true as an encyclopedia we do record it as it is highly notable. The question would be if this is similar to the Obama birther conspiracy.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There's an important difference: we know the birther theory is untrue. We certainly do not know that there is no truth to the "Putin birthday connection" theory. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It's neither trivial nor a conspiracy theory if every single one of the hundreds of WP:RSs covering her assassination mentions the fact. Softlavender (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many reliable sources mention she was killed on Putin's Birthday, it's still trivial. It would be just as trivial if you mentioned Fanni Kaplan attempted to assassinate Vladimir Lenin on the day of her birth 50 years before. Only with context it is not trivial. In context you would mention the conspiracy theory. It's not relevant if we know that this conspiracy theory is untrue, it's only relevant that we do not know if it is true. We don't record the obama birther conspiracy because we know it's untrue, we record it because we know that it is notable. We record conspiracy theories related to the Chappaquiddick incident that we neither know as true or untrue. If this conspiracy theory is notable, that is if it would merit an article of it's own, then the birthday along with the conspiracy theory would have some place in the article. Context is everything. POV, Mentioning this birthday attempting to subtlety lead people to believe that putin had something to do with the death. NPOV, Mentioning the conspiracy theory, balanced, and outside of wikipedia voice to neither give it weight as either true or false.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "it doesn't matter how many reliable sources mention" it? What Wikipedia policy did you pull that out of? It's NOT trivial. How do we know it's not trivial? Because every freakin' source mentions it. YOU don't get to decide what is "trivial" and what is not. Sources do.

It's not that hard. Just follow Wikipedia policy rather than the fancies of your own imagination. Volunteer Marek  14:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nearly all sources not simply mention this fact, but explicitly claim an actual connection - based on analysis of other factual information related to the case. According to Putin, that was done by his enemies abroad to upset him. According to independent experts, that was done by his friends to please him. But according to nearly all sources, these events are actually connected. My very best wishes (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It means that it doesn't matter how many reliable sources you have to say she was killed on Putin's birthday because this in itself is trivial. You can grasp at straws because you lack an actual argument and ignore the rest of what I have said. You want to put it in the article? Cool! That's fine. Make it non-trivial. How do you do this? Context. There is a context in which Putin's birthday becomes highly relevant. The unproven accusations, the multiple and highly notable unproven accusations. Now there's whole need to handle with care. If these independent experts for instance mentioned by My very best Wishes haven't proven that Putin's friend did it for him as a favor you can't present it as fact. You also present the other side of the coin, Putin's claim that his enemies did it. You also present the other conspiracy theories.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, exactly which Wikipedia policy is it that says that a user named Serialjoepsycho gets to decide what is "trivial" and what is not? Oh, that's right, none. None Wikipedia policy says that. Whether something is "trivial" or not is determined by whether it's mentioned in sources not by your own personal opinion. You don't like that? Change the policy or find an internet project more amenable to your interest in conducting original research. Volunteer Marek  21:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Omg that's right. Wikipedia has hard and fast rules. What was I thinking? Oh wait no it actually doesn't. Some things actually left to common sense and editorial judgement. You aren't new so I wonder why you are ignoring this. Is this something that you don't like? There's other projects that you can of course join. Or perhaps you could stay on this project and give an actual reason that this isn't trivial. And context is not Original research. A two second google search uncovered this source [10]. It talks about Putin's birthday. They also do something crazy and give some actual context to why her death on Putin's birthday is relevant. It's actually very likely that most if not all reliable sources give some kind of context as well. There's not tendency for reliable sources to say "George was murdered today and the Sky was Blue." However the sources have said the Sky was blue and we arguing somehow this is important. It's suggested above that there is a source of Putin coming out on the very subject and addressing it. Context is an amazing thing. With out context you have an article about a woman who was an ardent critic of Putin that ends with BTW she was murdered on Putin's birthday. You are left with undue weight without the context and the context can be reliably sourced.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Link/source you provided is a perfect example. This is an article in "Independent" that provides brief and fair summary of the events. Most other sources tell basically the same. This source did mention the fact and placed it in a certain context, just as most other sources. The only thing we should do is to fairly summarize the content of the sources, that is to mention the fact and to place it in the same context as sources do. There is nothing really to discuss here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

precisely.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BLPN

Please see this. BMK (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This article is well written and sourced. I also note some very thorough and capable editors are involved already. This sounds like it needs dispute resolution services not BLP services. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Already enacted; see the RfC (which is a WP:DR process) above. Softlavender (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC a RFC can be ended if it is moved to another dispute resolution forum. BLPN would seem o be another dispute resolution forum.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC a RFC is held on the talk page of the affected article; this Rfc is clearly linked from BLPN so it has equivalent visibility here. Placing the discussion here ensures that whatever the final consensus is, it will be clearly available in the archives in case the question comes up again in the future. NE Ent 13:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry it wasn't readily clear that this RFC was opened as an action of said BLPN.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, this RfC was an instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING after one editor didn't get the outcome they wanted at WP:BLPN. Really, the discussion at WP:BLPN should've settled the issue. Volunteer Marek  20:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: There's an existing article on Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya

Some of the discussion/opinions about this article may be altered/affected by the fact that there is a separate article on Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. Some of the new visitors to this article may be unaware of that. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just FYI: Today Collect and BMK removed all mention of Putin's birthday from that article. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The above claim is inaccurate. In fact my edit states "That day is also the birthday of Russian president Vladimir Putin[1][2]" so it is viciously wrong to say I "removed all mention of Putin's birthday from that article". I would appreciate a redaction of that claim about me. Collect (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right. It was BMK's two edits that removed all mention of Putin's birthday from the article. Redacted accordingly. Softlavender (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Removed innuendo from lede

I know that this has been a topic of controversy at this article. I have read some of the above discussion, and it seems painfully obvious to me that the innuendo does not belong in the lede of this article, as it's not even supported by the body of the article, was unsourced in the lede, and is the sort of conspiracy innuendo that is not welcome in Wikipedia. So i removed it from the lede.

I'm not saying that her death being on Putin's birthday is not significant, as it may be -- i don't think anyone knows, do they? But we don't have sources that say it is significant. I think the best path would be for the body of the article (not the lede) to state that there are some suspicions about the death being on Putin's birthday, if there are indeed reliable and non-fringy sources for this. If there are sources above tabloid-level sources, then it could possibly be stated, with attribution, to say something like "According to X, some people find it significant that her death was on Putin's birthday because ..." but even that seems like a dubious bit of content to me. But... just not in the lede without any mention in the article body. It does not belong there. SageRad (talk) 07:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• Now i must note that an editor has reverted my edit asserting that "consensus is pretty clearly the other way" whereas i had added this talk page section and there are multiple editors who agree with what i have said, that this innuendo is inappropriate for the lede in any case, so i think your edit was against consensus, although you assert the opposite. In any case, there is not a unified consensus and to err on the side of caution would be prudent instead of adding unsourced innuendo to the article. SageRad (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It's unsuitable for the lead, because only a number of sources have emphasised this fact and it is generally regarded as a conspiracy theory.Dorpater (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There's an RfC right above. There appears to be consensus for inclusion of this information. This isn't innuendo. It's what EVERY. SINGLE. SOURCE. ABOUT. THE. SUBJECT. SAYS. "Only a number of sources" is, frankly, a completely dishonest way of characterizing the sources. Please quit it with the original research and POV pushing. Volunteer Marek  01:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

In fact I provided more than 33 (THIRTY THREE) sources right above. To characterize that as "only a number of sources" and remove it on that basis is ridiculous. Volunteer Marek  01:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Reading the above RfC, it's clear there is not consensus to include it, and it's equally clear that among those who support its inclusion, most say that it must be described in context, not as an innuendo-laden statement in the lede. Note that i even support inclusion of this material in the RfC, but not as innuendo in the lede. SageRad (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's pretty clear consensus to include.

So what is your suggestion for how to include it?  Volunteer Marek  08:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a clear consensus to include, for many do oppose and many of those who do support inclusion have conditions on its inclusion, such as it not belonging in the lede. SageRad (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a helluva lot more !votes to include than not to include. There's a whole TON of sources which support inclusion. I think you're reading the votes in a biased way which fits with your preset views.

And if you're going to argue that there's consensus for inclusion but not in the lede then the ball is in your court. HOW do you think it should be included? That's the question I asked you. Volunteer Marek  20:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, everyone, this is getting ridiculous: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Please stop the edit warring.

I suggest strongly that we should not have the questionable content in the lede while we wait for the RfC to close and while we discuss it. It's generally better to play it safe rather than sorry, in regard to the state of the article while discussing content of this nature. Volunteer Marek, Minor4th, Lute88, Dorpater, Edward321, Msnicki... this is appearing to be a slow-motion edit war among a group. My pinging you does not mean that i think you did anything wrong, but i do urge us to let the content not be in the article while we wait for the RfC to close, and then discuss the content and whether and/or how to include it. Let us be civil and sensible about this. SageRad (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The RfC appears to have consensus for inclusion. This looks like a bad faithed attempt by those on the loosing side to influence the outcome by altering the "status quo" (everyone knows that the status quo has an effect on outcomes, even if we pretend it doesn't). They figure that if the statement is not in the article when the RfC is closed there'll be a greater chance it will be excluded. And since they're on the loosing side of the argument they're trying to usurp and WP:GAME the outcome. It's pure bad faith.

It'd be different if this statement was unsourced or weakly sourced. But it's exactly the opposite. It's extremely well sourced and the individuals in question are edit warring to remove it based solely on their own personal feelings, original research and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

So sure. Let's stop reverting. As soon as the initial version is restored - which would be the neutral thing to do. Volunteer Marek  20:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Really i would hold a mirror up, because your words apply to your behavior, VM. There is a clear reason to have the article in a "safe state" while this is under deliberation, and that is to err on the side of caution in regard to WP:BLP.

Secondly, the statement is "sourced" in that many sources state it, but having it in the article by itself, in Wikivoice, is innuendo. It is sourced to the extent that we could state that many sources mention this and make conjecture about it. It's not right to have it standing there being suggestive of an unproven conspiracy theory about a living person. I am no fan of Putin, but Wikipedia has guidelines for a reason. SageRad (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This was already discussed at WP:BLPN. The consensus was that this wasn't a BLP violation. Because that discussion didn't go as some editors hoped, the above RfC was opened up in an egregious instance of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. But even that is not turning out as some want, with a pretty clear consensus for (perhaps conditional) inclusion. Volunteer Marek  16:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the RfC was closed by another editor. It was in the lede and so i removed it, as per the notes of the RfC closing which said that whatever the mixed results of the RfC, it was clear that there was opposition to it being in the lede. As it was, it stood there as an innuendo in the lede that suggested to the reader that Putin ordered the killing or otherwise was quite involved in the killing, or that it was a tribute to Putin, or something of that nature, which has been stated by many editors here to be undesirable and not what we want in Wikipedia. So i reverted that here and please let that be the last time that this material enters the lede. A glance at the article's edit history shows a long-term edit war going on, plain to see. Please let that stop now. I came to this article in a roundabout way, and i personally haven't much more time to give to it, but i simply hope that people can drop their edges and talk with genuine good faith about this material. I suggest simply stating in the body that the coincidence of the killing to Putin's birthday has been the source of much conjecture that he might be involved or that it was done on that day as a signal of some sort -- whatever the summary of sources might say. In other words, Wikivoice should not simply say that the killing occurred on Putin's birthday, but rather should describe how some sources use this fact. We need to stick to NPOV and show the reality of the world, not one perspective on the world. SageRad (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I see it's been done. I wonder about using a quote, like this:

Many sources which reported on her death mentioned the fact that she was killed on Vladimir Putin's birthday, as did The Economist:

It may be a chilling coincidence that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered on Vladimir Putin's birthday, but her friends and supporters are in little doubt that her dogged, gloomy reporting of the sinister turn Russia has taken under what she called his “bloody” leadership was what led to her body being dumped in the lift of her Moscow apartment block.

I see also how it's been done at Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya:

The assassination happen on Vladimir Putin's birthday, and two days after Ramzan Kadyrov's 30th birthday celebrations, raising suspicions that one or both were served up by the contract hit as an unasked-for present.

I guess the main question is, how do most sources present this fact? SageRad (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought you were done with this. Anyway, with respect to the first quote, there's no reason to include "as did The Economist" since that's just one of the plethora of sources. Volunteer Marek  20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

If you're saying that we could quote The Economist here, I'm fine with that. Volunteer Marek  20:22, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Anna Politkovskaya. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110726093522/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_politkovskaya to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081205/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_politkovskaya
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719063836/http://mykniga.de/8388964_ to http://mykniga.de/8388964_

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anna Politkovskaya. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528114840/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=2132 to http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=2132
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ned.org/press/releases.html#aug3107
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://exhibition.ipvnews.org/page_01.php

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) 17:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Anna Politkovskaya. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150405135412/http://www.annapolitkovskayafund.com/contact.html to http://www.annapolitkovskayafund.com/contact.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150310081349/http://russiaprofile.org/bg_people/resources_whoiswho_alphabet_p_anna_politkovskaya.html to http://russiaprofile.org/bg_people/resources_whoiswho_alphabet_p_anna_politkovskaya.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513121138/http://2001.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2001/14n/n14n-s00.shtml to http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http%3A%2F%2F2001.novayagazeta.ru%2Fnomer%2F2001%2F14n%2Fn14n-s00.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513121130/http://2001.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2001/15n/n15n-s02.shtml to http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http%3A%2F%2F2001.novayagazeta.ru%2Fnomer%2F2001%2F15n%2Fn15n-s02.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110513121146/http://2001.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2001/16n/n16n-s09.shtml to http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http%3A%2F%2F2001.novayagazeta.ru%2Fnomer%2F2001%2F16n%2Fn16n-s09.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091125201058/http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2007/66/00.html to http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2007/66/00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150228234414/http://en.novayagazeta.ru/politics/7975.html to http://en.novayagazeta.ru/politics/7975.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090906133824/http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/18/00.html to http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/18/00.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iwmf.org/article.aspx?id=551&c=cijwinner
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423075448/http://www.civilcourageprize.org/honorees.htm to http://www.civilcourageprize.org/honorees.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://media.edbookfest.co.uk/bookfestival/index.php?q=node%2F139
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002051048/http://voinenet.ru/index.php?aid=17039 to http://voinenet.ru/index.php?aid=17039
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071109163751/http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/984/prmID/1064 to http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/984/prmID/1064

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) 14:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anna Politkovskaya. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716055830/http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/89/00.html to http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/89/00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716055853/http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/85/00.html to http://en.novayagazeta.ru/data/2009/85/00.html

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) 05:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anna Politkovskaya. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120225041103/http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/thecorporation/ to http://www.encounterbooks.com/books/thecorporation/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090105205306/http://www.rawinwar.org/content/blogcategory/17/193/ to http://www.rawinwar.org/content/blogcategory/17/193/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118115803/http://www.rawinwar.org/content/category/7/17/197/ to http://www.rawinwar.org/content/category/7/17/197/

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) 11:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anna Politkovskaya. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080426072841/http://www.ned.org/press/releases.html to http://www.ned.org/press/releases.html

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) 09:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)