Talk:Killing of Darya Dugina

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Darya Dugina which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Murder -> Killing

Per WP:MURDERS, I've moved the page to "Killing of Darya Dugina", as for now there is no murder conviction and most English sources use "killing". Should be changed back if there is a murder conviction down the line. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Perpetrators

Should we really follow here the narrative of FSB, that this woman is responsible for the assassination? There is even proof for the ID "being lost at the crime scene" presented by them beeing a hoax, and the whole story sounds extremely fishy. I mean, they watched her for weeks, let her do the job, then escape? They also claim, that Darya was the only target, not Alexander intended to be killed, which seems extremely unlikely, based on the notability of the two. I think, it's even dubious to name the person by name in the article. 2001:4BB8:1D0:BD33:DBD:1632:4C24:4070 (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

2001:4BB8:1D0:BD33:DBD:1632:4C24:4070, there is no following narrative, infobox just informs of the claims. Also, that "proof" is worthless. Don't want to get into notaforum territory, but A) why would FSB edit an image instead of just fabricating a real actual document, which would be much easier, and B) there are clearly lots of false positives in that analysis. IDs have repeated patterns, of course a clone finding tool will think it is cloning, and why would they use a cloning tool on empty random parts of the image? It is just senseless. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless: calling out the person by name is a violation of privacy protection, at least until she is doubtlessly proven to be the real perpetrator, which very unlikely will ever happen. 2001:4BB8:1D0:BD33:DBD:1632:4C24:4070 (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

2001:4BB8:1D0:BD33:DBD:1632:4C24:4070, that might be a policy in some countries, like England or France I believe? But here we go by sources and sources are clearly and openly giving her name. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

We also have a policy for that, it's called WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME. Whether this should lead to an omission of the name here is a different question, although I can see the point 2001... makes since the FSB is not a reliable source and there are no reliable sources corroborating these claims, just repeating them. Regards SoWhy 15:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

SoWhy, thanks for the links. I think though that, with WP:BLPCRIME, Natalia Vovk has become a public figure. Of course she must be presumed innocent though. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:42, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@AdrianHObradors: I would generally agree with that but BLPNAME instructs us to be careful when naming an individual, especially where there are no reliable sources. And there are no reliable sources as far as I can tell that corroborate any part of the FSB's tale, much less the name. All the sources in the article just repeat the FSB claims while also noting that no corroborating evidence exists. Also, the BBC for example does not mention the name. I think in this case, we need to err on the side of caution. especially, since the omission of the name will not be problematic for the article itself. That said, I'll open a request at WP:BLPN for more experienced editors to weigh in. Regards SoWhy 18:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

SoWhy, thanks, yeah, good idea. It doesn't affect only this page so it is good to know if we should also change the other ones. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't include state propaganda in Wikipedia especially propaganda that violates WP:BLPCRIME. And no, the individual FSB named has not become a public figure by virtue of being named. Slywriter (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for the discussion, which mostly seems to support my point of view. Based on the fact, that somebody already edited most of the parts, where her name appeared, I now took the liberty to conclude it in the one paragraph, where it was missed. I hope, that's OK.--2001:4BB8:1D0:F63A:7854:5691:DC11:55B1 (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

2001:4BB8:1D0:F63A:7854:5691:DC11:55B1, yes, thank you. This was raised at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Killing of Darya Dugina#Infobox: Perpetrators by @SoWhy. Any following discussion should better be discussed there. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

FSB

Why are we covering the FSB fantasy tale at all? It is fiction and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Reliable Sources repeating the fiction does not give it credibility as they are not conducting any independent reporting to verify the claims. Slywriter (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I liked the comment the New York Times made on Tuesday morning in its newsletter: It was not immediately possible to verify either the allegations or the denials. Russia has shut down independent reporting and has made it a crime to dispute the Kremlin’s account of the war with Ukraine. Russian claims about atrocities, provocations and battlefield setbacks have repeatedly proved false. The F.S.B. has long been dogged by suspicions that it blames others for crimes it committed itself or ones it was trying to cover up. If Wikipedia is going to publish the FSB lies, then commentary on those lies should be published with them. I laughed at the FSB claim that the perpetrator was driving a British car - a Mini Cooper - a bit like the ones in the film The Italian Job. Official Russia is afraid of the British - when they murdered Lavrentiy Beria they claimed he was a British spy.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

But you are happy to leave Ponomarev's claims, which also have not been verified? Mellk (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The section on Ponomarev's claims contains skeptical and critical commentary on the claims, which is just what is needed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

The critical commentary on FSB claims can also be added. Slywriter was implying that this should not be covered at all. Mellk (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

For example, I have seen mention about how FSB was able to 'solve' the crime in under two days, while other high-profile killings remain unsolved. Mellk (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

SoWhy's edit summary when reverting Slywriter was: correct but a lot of reliable sources have reported on these claims. That the claims are likely false does not make them less notable^[1] This was a good point, but if the FSB claims are included, they should be included with commentary on the claims.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

As it stands, I would say the commentary is insufficient as it's portrayed as a he said/she said common of warring parties. But, when no one believes the story presented, aren't we in WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE territory by presenting it as a credible possibility? Slywriter (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

There is one (1) government of Russia. It is not false balance to report that the Russian government has a suspect. The correct balance to this government's claims is running the Ukranian and Estonian governments' response since they are being implicated. It's presented as a he said/she said common of warring parties, because there is a war (or special operation) going on.

Commentary is its own section, because so much of the commentary about the killing has little to do with the killing itself but with the perception of what it means for Russian politics and/or the war. Evackost (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC) Please disregard, I'm probably done with Wikipedia. Evackost (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

So what is this prevailing view of who was behind the killing that RS have established? Mellk (talk) 21:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

And as the killing took place in the territory of Russia, it would be strange to not mention what the authorities claim. Mellk (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Mellk, 100% agree with Mellk. It is a killing of a Russian citizen on Russian soil, how is it even an argument not wanting to include what the Russian government says? Do feel free to add any well sourced criticism to their arguments though. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter. Yes, of course this is fiction or rather disinformation by the FSB. But it is a reliably published disinformation. It just needs to be clearly defined on the page as a probable disinformation. That's the problem because it is not clearly defined on the page this way. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

NRA section

The section on NRA claim of responsibility in my opinion seems too large and therefore undue, so perhaps it is better to trim this? While there is a criticism/scepticism subsection, in general from what I have seen, news reports tend to either not mention NRA/Ponomarev or only briefly mention it (a small portion of the article). Yes there are a few dedicated articles on it by RS but this is only a small portion of the coverage from what I can see. Mellk (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

U.S. Believes Ukrainians Were Behind an Assassination in Russia - New York Times

Does this need to be added to the artcle? I added this:

On October 5, 2022, an unnamed American intellegence official acknowledged that the parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the attack that killed Dugina.

As I believe Ray McGovern stated recently on YouTube, these are planned leaks. None of these leaks to the US puppet New York Times are always sanctioned by American intellegence agencies. Note how CNN does not mention the SBU. Security Service of Ukraine The Russian government states that the SBU was responsible. There was a woman with 3 license plates that came up through Ukraine then planted the bomb then passed through (previous) Fascist Estonia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_in_World_War_II

US believes elements within Ukraine’s government authorized assassination near Moscow, sources say

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/05/politics/us-intelligence-ukraine-dugina-assassination/index.html

By Natasha Bertrand and Katie Bo Lillis, CNN Updated 1:51 AM EDT, Thu October 6, 2022 Washington CNN

The US intelligence community believes that the car bombing that killed Darya Dugina, the daughter of prominent Russian political figure Alexander Dugin, was authorized by elements within the Ukrainian government, sources briefed on the intelligence told CNN.

The US was not aware of the plan beforehand, according to the sources, and it is still unclear who exactly the US believes signed off on the assassination. It is also not clear whether the US intelligence community believes that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was aware of the plot or authorized it.

But the intelligence finding, first reported by the New York Times, would seem to corroborate elements of the Russian authorities’ findings that the car bombing was “pre-planned.” Russia had accused Ukrainian nationals of being responsible for the attack, which Ukraine had strongly denied in the aftermath of the explosion.

Asked to comment, a Ukrainian defense intelligence official told CNN Wednesday evening following publication of the latest reports that their agency had no new information on Dugina’s death. Shortly after her death, the same official had told CNN that Ukraine had nothing to do with it.

The National Security Council, CIA and State Department declined to comment.

NEW YORK TIMES excerpts

U.S. Believes Ukrainians Were Behind an Assassination in Russia - New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/05/us/politics/ukraine-russia-dugina-assassination.html October 5, 2022

U.S. Believes Ukrainians Were Behind an Assassination in Russia - American officials said they were not aware of the plan ahead of time for the attack that killed Daria Dugina and that they had admonished Ukraine over it. By Julian E. Barnes, Adam Goldman, Adam Entous and Michael Schwirtz Oct. 5, 2022

Daria Dugina’s memorial service in Moscow in August. U.S. intelligence agencies believe that parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the attack that killed her.

WASHINGTON — United States intelligence agencies believe parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the car bomb attack near Moscow in August that killed Daria Dugina, the daughter of a prominent Russian nationalist, an element of a covert campaign that U.S. officials fear could widen the conflict.

The United States took no part in the attack, either by providing intelligence or other assistance, officials said. American officials also said they were not aware of the operation ahead of time and would have opposed the killing had they been consulted. Afterward, American officials admonished Ukrainian officials over the assassination, they said.

Some American officials suspect Ms. Dugina’s father, Aleksandr Dugin, a Russian ultranationalist, was the actual target of the operation, and that the operatives who carried it out believed he would be in the vehicle with his daughter.

The American officials who spoke about the intelligence did not disclose which elements of the Ukrainian government were believed to have authorized the mission, who carried out the attack, or whether President Volodymyr Zelensky had signed off on the mission. United States officials briefed on the Ukrainian action and the American response spoke on the condition of anonymity, in order to discuss secret information and matters of sensitive diplomacy.

U.S. officials would not say who in the American government delivered the admonishments or whom in the Ukrainian government they were delivered to. It was not known what Ukraine’s response was.

Russia opened a murder investigation after Ms. Dugina’s assassination, calling the explosion that killed her a terrorist act. Ms. Dugina was killed instantly in the explosion, which occurred in the Odintsovo district, an affluent area in Moscow’s suburbs.

...

Russia’s domestic intelligence service, the F.S.B., blamed Ms. Dugina’s murder on Ukraine’s intelligence services. In an announcement made a day after the attack, the F.S.B. said that Ukrainian operatives had contracted a Ukrainian woman, who entered Russia in July and rented an apartment where Ms. Dugina lived. The woman then fled Russia after the bombing, according to the F.S.B.

--- End of Excerpt 

May1787 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Removing or making the sentence impossible to independently verify any claims made by Russia

Regarding:

It has been impossible to independently verify any of the claims made by the FSB as Russia has criminalized disagreement with the official narrative of the killing and the war in Ukraine in general, and has shut down all non-Kremlin approved reporting.

Because of:

On October 5, 2022, an unnamed American intellegence official acknowledged that the parts of the Ukrainian government authorized the attack that killed Dugina.

This makes this sentence redunant and untrue now. I suggest either (1) removing it, because as usual, the American intellegence agencies have admitted what they said was untrue, or (2) making this statment a footnote. May1787 (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

This is still not an independent verification. Mellk (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)