Talk:Sergei Kovalev

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The episod with con artists[edit]

The description of the episod about "criminals" does not properly describe the content of the cited article (in Russian). The text is misleading and should be either changed or removed. This episod is hardly of any significance. Biophys 17:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It shows to things. At first, it is very easy to deceive Kovalev. Andat second, he can easy call police when he want. The second thing isusual for me, because I have a friends in police, and I never willdefend any criminal, and I never was in prison. But for somebody, whowas proud that he was in prison, it is very strange. - Ghoort 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed this as an obvious distortion of the text written in the original Russian reference and a potentially offensive material. One of the provided Internet references is not readable. Second is actually a reference to yet another Russian site where I could not find anything. Biophys 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There was 2 facts. There is articles. I can easily open them. Please show me URLs which you cannot open.


Phrase "According to representatives of Russian Ortodox Church" must be removed.

1. "Первый же эфир по деликатной проблемеЧечни не обманул ничьих ожиданий.Генерал Владимир Шаманов публично нокаутировал правозащитника СергеяКовалева как предателя российских интересов на Северном Кавказе –настроения поляризовались, победитель выявлен, тема закрыта. " Here iswritten what Kovalev was knocked out in TV-program with spectatorselection by General Shamanov. And he claimed as betrayer of Russia inNorth Caucasus.

2. "Что касается "молчаливого большинства" российского населения, то здесьзатруднительно дать какие-то оценки. Если верить некоторым опросамобщественного мнения среди москвичей, то в конце 1995 и в 1996 гг. онпользовался значительным доверием - большим, чем у большинства ведущихполитиков страны. Это подтверждается и уверенным выигрышем Ковалева навыборах в Думу в декабре 1995 г. Однако нет никаких данных, по которымможно судить о популярности Ковалева в провинции, или даже о том,насколько там известно его имя. "

It is from Human Right Institute, where is Kovalev is director. Herewritten what they has no information about his popularity now. He wasquite popular in 1995-1996, but now nobody knows how his popularoutside Moscow, according that Institute. They also suggests what he isunknown there. They speak very polite but I think it is not about verypopular politician. :)

3. "У многих простых людей представление о правозащитниках связано с известным общественным деятелем СергеемКовалевым, который снискал себе достаточно спорную популярность в годывойны в Чечне, когда он упорно и последовательно разносил в пух и прахполитику российского правительства в Чечне и столь же яростно защищалсепаратистов. В награду за свое усердие он былнагражден в 1995 указом Д.Дудаева орденом «Рыцарь чести Ичкерии». В России же его деятельность получила совсем другую оценку. "

That article was written by second soviet cosmonaut A. Leonov (he isnot Church's speech person). Here is written what Kovalev is popular inDudaev's Chechnaya, but in Russia he is unpopular. The root of thatunpopularity in his actions for Dudaev's defense.

I can show many such articles. I do not know who is Kovalev in US andEurope, but in Russia he is betrayer. And if I tell somebody "you arelike Serega Kovalev", I will be beaten. Because his name is insultingand synonym of Judas Iscariot. - Ghoort 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Phrase "although this may be actually a result of propaganda byState-controlled media." must be removed also. SPS (Union of Rights)has the own propaganda, they have possibility to show us what they is.Before the elections they dreamed about 5-6% of votes, but receivedonly 4%. They are unpopular because they have right of speech. They doeverything to became unpopular. Ghoort 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Chechen war[edit]

Phrase "although the human rights violations before and during the Chechen wars are hardly comparable" must be removed. Nobody told what during Chechen war was perfect with human right. Kovalev claimed himself as defender human rights, so he was asked about Dudaev's human rights violation. But Dudaev is great for him. Basaev also is great for him. - Ghoort 19:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Кстати, кончай править критику. Я же не лезу в остальные области статьи об этой гниде. - Ghoort 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Melnikova, Alekseeva and others[edit]

I removed information about them. Melnikova successed what she took money from Berezosky . Alekseeva also took money from USA and Britain. But that article not about them -Ghoort 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of NPOV and other Wikipedia policies[edit]

Dear Ghoort, I can see that your opinions are very strong and logical. Since you think that Soviet occupation of Afganistan was a good thing (see Talk:Human rights in Russia), everything goes from there. Sure, you can justify anything using different propaganda web sites from Russia. But they are not reliable sources. It is important to follow NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. Biophys 21:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree with Biophys. See reliable sources & verifiability. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Also please use edit summaries. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is only information. When Soviets was in Afghanistan there was nosuch big drag traffic. Now it is the greatest heroine producer. What iselse? Be prepared what in world there are many people with differentopinions. Somebody it called "democracy".
If Russian cites unbelievable just go to UN Drug report It reports what Net opium poppy cultivation grows on 64% and opium prices felt down to 67% in 2004. So there is possibility to find information in English cites also. - Ghoort 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Also from the UN site

The last 23 years of conflict and civil war in the country created asituation which has contributed to making Afghanistan the largest opiumproducing country in the world. The country's share in global opiumproduction rose from 31% in 1985 to 41% in 1990 and, with a recordharvest of 4600 tons, to 79% of global illicit opium production in 1999and nearly 70% in 2002. In 2001, however, following a ban on opiumpoppy cultivation introduced by the Taliban in 2000, Afghanistanproduced only 12% of global supply, 185 metric tons. The United NationsOffice on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) 2002 Annual Opium Poppy Surveyestimated 74,000 ha of land under poppy cultivation in the country andproduction estimates in 2002 of around 3,400 metric tons.

Between 70% and 90% of the heroin found in Europe has been processedfrom opium produced in Afghanistan. Almost all of the opiates consumedin neighbouring countries in the Middle East and Africa originate inAfghanistan. In addition, the assessments carried out by UNODC suggesta general increase in drug abuse in recent years in Afghanistan,helping to refute the common perception that drug addiction is a"Western" problem.

Irrelevant. Please see What Talk pages are for and What WP is not, in particular WP is not a soapbox. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I just showed my information sources, Biophys asked about them. 22:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


  • The personal site of Ilya Smirnov with such nice pieces of literature as "Goluboye Kalo" is a crap that can not be used in any article in Wikipedia but the article on Ilya Smirnov (see WP:RS).
But he gives references to his information. Ghoort 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The E-zine Novaya Politika and the site are not reliable sources either. may be used for uncotraversial biography details. Critics to Kovalev should be referred with something like Izvestia/AiF,Nezavisimaya Gazeta, etc. The internet fringe publications are not notable. Alex Bakharev 23:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
That article from is from Expess-grazeta. And what is wrong with Novaya Politica? Ghoort 23:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course, is not a reliable source! It is more like "tabloid". Even worse, this place was designed specifically for "compromat", that is to discredite certain people. So it does. For example, it says that Anna Politkovskaya published lies because she hated her own country [1]. I also looked at the article in "Novaya Politica" you cited. This is an obvious Soviet-style propaganda. Main idea of this article is that Russia is surrounded by mortal enemies, such NATO and USA, who send their agents, so called "human rights defenders" to destroy the country, exactly as was written in all Soviet newspapers during Stalin's and Breznev's times. I do not think this is appropriate information for Wikipedia. Nothing like that could be published in major Western media. Biophys 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a very interesing article that you cited from Russian Ortodox Church [2]. It says that Kovalev and other human rights defenders are like tuberculosis bacteria that multiply very quickly in Russia and can kill the entire organism (so, one probably needs a strong medicine?). This looks pretty much as old Stalin's time newspapers that compared the "enemies of the people" with snakes. The paper is signed by someone in the rank of general (from FSB or GRU?) and claims to be a PhD in history. I can only add that the leader of this Church is Patriarch Alexius II, who is also known as KGB agent DROZDOV, as was revealed by Mitrokhin, Gleb Yakunin and others.Biophys 03:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


"Since the days of Kovelev's vocal opposition to the First Chechen Waronwards Kovalev has become a target of strong criticism from the pro-government and nationalistic critics. These criticisms are especially abundant in fringe Internet publications."

It is only emotions. That article is not about Kovalev's critics. It is Kovalev himself. So we must not discuss person's of critics. If that emotions are will be in that article I must add phrase what about 90% of Russians claimed Kovalev as nit. Also he was not spoke against the war, he spoke against the Russian. According Kovalev all Chechen's action like hostage taking was legally acceptable. Ghoort 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We need only one sentence instead of the "Controversy" section[edit]

The "Controversy" section is not about Kovalev. It is about opinions about Kovalev. Personally, as a reader of Wikipedia, I am not interesed in such opinions. I want to know who this person was and what he did. This is a place to collect not opinions but facts. The entire section "Contrversy" can be replaced by a single sentense like the one proposed by Alex Bakharev: Since the days of Kovalev's vocal opposition to the First Chechen War Kovalev has become a target of strong criticism from the pro-government and nationalistic critics. This is true, and there is nothing else to tell about it. Biophys 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Why was removed phrase about his extreme unpopularity? Also without any explanations. Ghoort 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Because it is not a fact but an opinion not backed by a citation Alex Bakharev 03:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

STOP REMOVING!!!!!!!!!![edit]

It is easy to added a part an information for you and remove theirs explanations. If you want to remove Yushenkov's death information, remove the whole. The part of truth is a big lie Ghoort 00:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If the information you provided was related to work of Kovalev Comission, that would be appropriate. If you want to write a new Wikipedia article about Yuri Yushenkov, this is also fine. In fact, I think that a paper about Yuri Yushenkov would be a great idea.Biophys 01:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Why did you remove the information about Kovalev Comisson? There is no questions, this was an important part of his work. This is also about many good Russian people who were killed, and there is no justice. The so called "criticizm" is much less relevant, because this is not about Kovalev's deeds or people who are dead, but about opinions. That part is indeed unimportant and can be deleted.Biophys 01:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

One related point: Although it is suspected that Yuri Shchekochikhin was poisoned, the cause of his death was never properly established. We certainly cannot say thallium was used to kill him, can we? Propertius

Church site[edit]

Samara diocese is a official part of Russian Orthodox Church. [3] Please be careful before any changes. Ghoort 00:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I also do not think that Russian Orthodox Church is a reliable source. Why would you consider religious organizations be experts on the topics about science, Evolution, or politicians? They might be experts on the questions of faith. Biophys 01:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


Guys, spend some time reading WP:RS, WP:ATT and WP:V.

The reliable sources are academic research peer-reviewed publications in academic journals, publications by major mainstream newspaper (that have fact-checking policies) and books published by major recognized publishers. Self-published books, internet publications, blogs, personal sites are usually allowed only to be a source of their authors. The reason for this is outlined in the WP:OR policy: We are not publishers of original research we are to present well-established facts and notable opinions.

E.g. publications on the website of the Samara Eparchy are not a reliable source of facts (since I bet they do not have established fact-checking policy and correspondent department) nor the E-zines, etc. They also are harldy notable by their impact on the public opinion in Russia and abroad.

We also has the WP:NPOV policy. Every opinion should be represented according to its weight. The strongly negative opinion of SK is the opinion by a section of Russian society that is not usually shared outside the Russian borders. Thus, the opinion should be represented but only as a minority opinion (better represented by Maxim Sokolov not as represented by an unknown Internet writer).

We also have the WP:BLP - no negative information on living people can be represented without very strong backing by reliable sources. WP:3RR is not applicable to the violations of WP:BLP.

Finally we have WP:3RR - people reverting an edit more than 3 times in 24 hour period are to be blocked. Please be warned. Alex Bakharev 03:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. So, it probably would be O'K if Alex Bakharev as a user most familiar with Wikipedia policies decide which sources are reliable and edited the disputed portion of this article accordingly? Biophys 17:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:BLP rules say the controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. This means that if someone claims that livining person "X", which is described in this paper, takes bribes, acts from hatred, helps to terrorists, acts as a foreign agent, but this is not supported by reliable sources, such information must be removed immediately. However, if the material is not "controversial" or not offensive for the living person - this is a completely different story. Among 6 references in the "Controversy" section, only two may (or may not!) be credible: Institute of Sociology (but this is a State-controlled organization) and Web site of Kovalyov's Institute (but I could not find names of people who actually run this organization and if they can be trusted). The paper in HRW site was written by an anonymous author (there is no name), and this is essentially retelling the story from another source, and the original is unavailable. I have described above the character of other sources. So, there is no other way but to follow Wikipedia policies. If anyone can find well justified "Controversy" materials, this would be fine. Biophys 01:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Support. If an opinion is notable it can be supported by reliable sources, if it is not notable then it has no place within the article. The links in the deleted section looked like spam not supporting anything but just increasing the page rank of their targets. Alex Bakharev 01:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I removed the POV tag. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Prize nomination[edit]

  • In 1995 and 1996, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is an honor, but it is not official or even prestigious. Any national legislator or about a third of the university professors in the world can make a nomination, and there have been as many as 140 some years. Nominators are requested to keep their nominations secret, so it's only those wishing publicity who make announcements, and more often it is impossible to verify. I see no reason to keep it. No offense to the subject, this is a general Nobel Peace Prize "nominees" issue. -Will Beback · · 09:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed & removed. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)