Talk:Yevgenia Albats

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search as a reliable source[edit]

It doesn't seem to be a mass media, but a personal site created for study of India culture. Whether third-party unconfirmed undirect sources presnet NPOV position? The article definitely needs POV corrections.Vlad fedorov 05:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This is also written in her book and book by Mitrokhin. Read these books.Biophys 05:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the fiction. It's just a fiction.Vlad fedorov 05:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I provided an additional internet reference, which is consistent with the book, simply for reader's convenience. Remember, this is not biography of Gandhi. So, LP rules apply only with respect to Albats. All sources satisfy Wikipedia criteria. Biophys 05:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Arutynyan scandal[edit]

Vlad, could you please provide here any citations (in Russian) from the interview in Echo of Moscow where Albats "publicly censored and in a brusque and rude way critisized journalist Anna Arutunian"? [2] If you can not, this should be modified. Biophys Is it this?

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Вы ни дня не занимались репортерской журналистикой, ни дня не занимались журналистскими расследованиями - я прочитала все, что вы написали – все. Во всех – не так много, к сожалению, на это нужно было меньше часа времени. Кстати, вы написали одну заметку этим летом в газете «Ве Нейшн» - есть такая известная левая газета в США - вы бы посмотрели, там главный редактор, Катрина Ван ден Хиден написала статью об Анне Политковской совсем недавно. Так вот я хотела вас спросить – убитого журналиста вы отхлестали по щекам. Пожалуй, никто себе не позволил так, ссылаясь на вторичные источники, написать после смерти Ани. Скажите, все-таки, что вами двигало?

А.АРУТЮНЯН: Я не могу сказать, что я отхлестала по щекам, я совершенно не намерена была этого делать, и мне не показалось, что материал вышел таким уж критичным, что можно назвать…

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Вы написали, что Аня не занималась журналистикой, вы написали, что ее задача была обвинять, а не искать правду – это цитата, я могу вам показать вашу статью, вот она, вся здесь, это прямой перевод. Вы видите, что это ваша статья, и это прямой перевод. И я хорошо читаю по английски – легко, свободно. Вы написали, что она не искала правду – цитирую вас – она не пыталась найти правду, она пыталась только обвинять официальных лиц.

А.АРУТЮНЯН: Нет, не только.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Что вами двигало, когда вы писали?

А.АРУТЮНЯН: Нет, я не хотела сказать, что она не искала правду.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Вы сказали именно это. Скажите, вам стыдно сейчас?

А.АРУТЮНЯН: Нет, мне не стыдно.

Ю.РОСТ: Жень, прости, пожалуйста. Я думаю, что тут все ясно, думаю, что силы неравны. И самое главное, обида…

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: Видишь, Аня защитить себя не может.

In her blog, Arutunyan said: "I had decided to reflect a pro-government position because a critical one had already gotten coverage in the Western media."Biophys 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could write an article entitled "Arutunyan scandal" or "Defamation of Politkoskaya after her death", but this topic is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Biophys 05:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to prove anything. I have translated some sentences form Russian Wikipedia and just put in the article reliable sources, such as:

It's a Wikipedia and not an original research playground. Moreover, we don't know if cited by you excerpts from the aired program are full (non-censored) or incomplete (censored). Most people believe they are censored. Could you site reliable source which confirms that your excerpts are not censured or cut?Vlad fedorov 05:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

O'K, I will be back as time allows. Biophys 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Interesting: "Альбац ... упрекнула ее в том, что в статье были использованы комментарии Глеба Павловского и автора этих строк". What does it mean?Biophys 06:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you have a look at Arutunian Livejournal entry in which she discourses that Albats demanded her to leave the profession of journalist? She also threatens Arutunian by her connections in the US and says she would be looking after her therefrom. Then Albats shouted 'Get out of here'. Very civil behaviour of world-wide popular journalist, isn't it? See how many comments of users on that entry. Vlad fedorov 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Arutunian had an interest there. As such, she cannot be considered a source of reliable claims about the event. Her blog entry proves nothing. Colchicum 12:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
What about Oleg Kashin, and Kalashnikova? Cholchicum it apperas that you don't know a journalists who have respective article on them in English Wikipedia, I mean Oleg Kashin, see you message below. Vlad fedorov 04:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The same applies to your statements. Could you cite reliable sources which confirm that Biophys' excerpts are censored or cut? Colchicum 12:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

As they lack transcript of what happened later -threats and uncivil behaviour with Arutunyan according to Kashin and Kalashnikova, then they might well be censored and cut. And I don't need to prove anything here, because it's an original research. Everything that I have written was taken from Kalashnikova and Kashin articles. And I have taken the most modest and neutral citations of them.Vlad fedorov 04:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


You wrote: "Yevgenia Albats, who was relatively unknown by the general public journalist". It is exactly the same what Putin said with regard to Politkovskaya death. Biophys 06:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So you hint that I may be Putin? How it comes that every anti-russian, opposition journalist in Russia enjoys world-wide popularity on a scale unknown before to the general public? Could tell me more about that trick? Just to the point, I hadn't written that - that was written by Pavel Kashin - read the source, indeed. I can't write anything myself. Vlad fedorov 06:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Book by Albats[edit]

Biophys I have entered you ISBN number of Albats book in Google catalog and haven't found it. Please see the following link

The answer of Google catalog:

Your search - isbn 0374527385 - did not match any documents.

Suggestions: Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords.

That means, basically, that you have forged your source. Either you should supply existing source or you give link to,, book catalogs. I know this trick with citing unexisting books as reliable sources in Wikipedia. You have 24 hours before I delete all your edits sourced to the unidentified book.Vlad fedorov 06:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ISBN corrected. There are several editions. Biophys 06:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ouh, really? Could you have a look at a new search on your new ISBN?

The answer:

Your search - isbn 0374527385 - did not match any documents.

Suggestions: Make sure all words are spelled correctly. Try different keywords. Try more general keywords. Try fewer keywords.

Maybe you should try another ISBN? There are many combinations indeed!!! Vlad fedorov 06:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


Who the hell is Mr. Kashin and why is he quoted as a reliable source? Colchicum 12:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so nice as to read the references? Many thanks.Vlad fedorov 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The references by no means prove that Kashin is a reliable source. 26-year old professional seaman with some limited experience as a columnist. It is unclear to me if he has anything to do with the Higher School of Economics. He and the people he refers to don't seem insiders of it. Colchicum 14:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. It's a 'seamen' who has been working as a journalist for Komsomolskaya Pravda in Kaliningrad, Kommersant, Russian Magazine, Big City, Limonka, Izvestia, Your Day, Globalrus, Re:action, Expert and Vzglyad. Pretty good for seaman. Albats was fired from Izvestia a year after she was hired by the way... Vlad fedorov 07:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Besides, I have found no sources that would support that Yelena Kalashnikova has ever existed. It looks like an alias of somebody (maybe Kashin himself). She is hardly a reliable source. Like Alyona Lybchenko (tm). Colchicum 15:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean, you haven't found sources which praise Albats in Russian Blogosphere? Well, that's a real problem. Agreed.Vlad fedorov 04:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Could you please at least try to read what others have written? It is not easy, but you should try. I have discussed Kalashinikova, not Albats. Very different letters, arent't they? Colchicum 14:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Am I expected to read your original research unsupported by any valid reliable sources? I think, I don't. If you gonna write another conspiracy theory please do it outside of Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 07:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
You may be right because this is a biography of a living person. These sources are clearly a defamation. Moreover, fraud ("fraudulently obtained her Higher School of Economics professorship") is an "exceptional claim" that must be supported by multiple reliable sources according to Wikipedia BLP rules. So, any poorly justified and defamatory claims must be removed immediately form a BLP article according to Wikipedia rules. Biophys 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It is User Igliz who reworded initial wording. See the article history. I have done rephrasing which should suit your specific demands of BLP. Hope you would enjoy it.Vlad fedorov 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
However discussion of Arutunyan behavior in this article is probably appropriate, because this is not a biography of Arutynan. Biophys 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps it is even appropriate to describe the controversial reaction to this event in the article, but sources should be much more reliable than Yelena Kalashnikova, a person without any biography who has produced defamatory statements, and Oleg Kashin, who is not much better. Colchicum 18:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a reaction of Albats. It's a scandal in which she was involved. Very good biography for typical radio DJ.Vlad fedorov 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion how to do this better, please tell. I think it is fair enough right now. Her writings and research are more important and interesting than anything else. Biophys 19:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is not even notable enough for a separate section (and the article in Russian Wikpedia looks wildly unbalanced), but if some people go on insisting... Colchicum 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I definetly would like to insist, since the journal Expert is a far more good source than user Colchicum.Vlad fedorov 04:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I wouldn't object, especially as your activity looks extremely time-consuming and doesn't affect the overall impression from the articles much. For more than a month here you have managed to touch only a dozen of articles or so, and only slightly. Also please note that Yelena Kalashnikova as a person with no biography and hence no reputation can hardly be considered reliable source. Good luck! Colchicum 13:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your personal irrelevant opinion on Kalashnikova. Unfortunately we can't wait for Herodotus and Homerus to publish their learned opinions on what's going on. As you don't know who is famous journalist Oleg Kashin having its article in English Wikipedia, how could you know that Kalashnikova is unknown journalist? You judge based on your 'expert' knowledge? Elena Kalashnikova appears to be the main political observer for, Contributor of the Russian Journal Perhaps you should study google before defaming others here? Vlad fedorov 04:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Just if you haven't noticed this, it is me who has created the article about "famous" seaman Oleg Kashin. As to a person named Kalashinkova, she could have written thousands of articles, but insofar as nobody has evidence that she is a real person rather than an alias of somebody referenced by nobody, she is still a fantastically unreliable source, because persons with no biography hold no responsibility. Could you please try to find her birthdate or what university she graduated from? Go on. You will never manage to distort the overall picture applying your methods. Colchicum 14:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Just one question, does anyone need to have his biography published on the internet for being cited in Wiipedia? Your guesses are not reliable source. And your original research you may publish anywhere but Wikipedia. Website publishing such articles is responsible for the articles. If you feel defamed, go and sue them, если кишка не тонка.Vlad fedorov 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Violation of BLP rules[edit]

Wikipedia rules say two things with regard to BLP policies.

1. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. 2. Neutral sources must be used. Any "exceptional" and especially potentially defamatory claims must be supported by multiple reliable source. All of that especially applies to libelous "claims" made with regard to a living person. One can not simply say "alleged" and then include a poorly sourced libelous accusation of LP described in the biography.

There are the following statements in this article that do not satisfy such criteria:

(a) Allegations of crude and extremely uncivil behavior: "Arutunian claimed that Yevgenia Albats had approached Arutunian after the show and had demanded her "to leave the profession", threatening that she had reported Arutunian's article to her boss in the US, The Nation's chief editor, and promised to "look after all [Arutunian's] publications from now on".[11][10][3]"

This statement (a) is a claim of one person who has no good scientific or journalist credentials and who is personally involved as a side in the controversy (of course we do not know if she actually fabricated the claim - but that is exactly the problem with unreliable sources).

(b) Unsubstantiated accusations of fraud: "According to Kashin, Albats obtained her Higher School of Economics professorship due to appartchik talent of rector Yaroslav Kuzminov and not for her real education contributions". That was said about Harvard graduate and author of several books!

This statement (b) is an "exceptional claim" which is not substantiated by anything at all and claimed in only one source.

(c) False claims that Albats supports fascism and nationalism. Vlad inserted the following text: "This article written by Yevgenia Albats was met with fierce criticism by the Jewish community[13][14] and democratic parties[15][16][17][18] for the support of fascism and nationalism". This is simply not true. Her article was about freedom of assembly; and the cited sources ([13] to [18]) do not blame her personally for the support of fascism and nationalism. Biophys 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

All cited sources belong to "yellow press" category. However, even the yellow press do not make such outrageous claims as those inserted by Vlad in this Wikipedia article. The worst passage I found in these "sources" is the following: "Евгения Альбац – одинокая проповедница «двойных стандартов» по принципу «лишь бы против власти». Вполне сознательно занималась обеспечением поддержки ультра-националистов со стороны либералов, путем публикаций о нарушении их прав на свободу собраний. Так, в своей публикации на страницах ЕЖ.Ру Альбац одна из первых вбросила тезис о необходимости разрешить радикалам проведение Марша 4 ноября." It does NOT say she supports fascism and nationalism (unless one wants to use citation out of context). It only says she is "against Russian government" and "therefore" supports the right of nationalists for a demonstration. Biophys 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So, all of that should be removed immediately.

Please do not break this message to parts. Biophys 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules say two things with regard to BLP policies.

1. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous.

Agreed, could you cite anything from reliablesources which contradicts to my sources? Vlad fedorov 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Neutral sources must be used.

There are no neutral sources on any aspect of political life in Russia. Unfortunately.Vlad fedorov 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Any "exceptional" and especially potentially defamatory claims must be supported by multiple reliable source. All of that especially applies to libelous "claims" made with regard to a living person. One can not simply say "alleged" and then include a poorly sourced libelous accusation of LP described in the biography.

There are the following statements in this article that do not satisfy such criteria:

(a) Allegations of crude and extremely uncivil behavior: "Arutunian claimed that Yevgenia Albats had approached Arutunian after the show and had demanded her "to leave the profession", threatening that she had reported Arutunian's article to her boss in the US, The Nation's chief editor, and promised to "look after all [Arutunian's] publications from now on".[11][10][3]".

This is absolutely normal thing. Albats never sued Arutunyan. So do not concern yourself. Moreover, all the interent then is defaming Albats. Vlad fedorov 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(b) Unsubstantiated accusations of fraud: "According to Kashin, Albats obtained her Higher School of Economics professorship due to appartchik talent of rector Yaroslav Kuzminov and not for her real education contributions"

This is not fraud. Learn the legal definition of fraud. Therefore all your comments on this are useless.Vlad fedorov 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Statement (a) is a claim of one person who has no good scientific or journalist credentials and who is personally involved as a side in the controversy (of course we do not know if she actually fabricated the claim - but that is exactly the problem with unreliable sources). Statement (b) is "exceptional claim" which is not substantiated by anything and supported by only one source. So, all of that should be removed immediately.

We also should keep some balance. She organized a lot of different talk shows (every week). So we can only tell about a couple of most important or representative of them, and write just a paragraph about each. Biophys 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not break this message to parts. Biophys 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(c) False claims that Albats supports fascism and nationalism. Vlad inserted the following text: "This article written by Yevgenia Albats was met with fierce criticism by the Jewish community[13][14] and democractic parties[15][16][17][18] for the support of fascism and nationalism". This is simply not true. Her article was about freedom of assembly; and the cited sources do not blame her personally for the support of fascism and nationalism. Biophys 17:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I never wrote that she supported nationalism and fascism. She has supported Russian March.Vlad fedorov 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
All cited sources belong to "yellow press" category.
Business newspaper Vzlgiad is a yellow press? You need proper education.Vlad fedorov 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

However, even the yellow press do not make such outrageous claims as those inserted by Vlad in this Wikipedia article. The worst passage I found in these "sources" is the following: "Евгения Альбац – одинокая проповедница «двойных стандартов» по принципу «лишь бы против власти». Вполне сознательно занималась обеспечением поддержки ультра-националистов со стороны либералов, путем публикаций о нарушении их прав на свободу собраний. Так, в своей публикации на страницах ЕЖ.Ру Альбац одна из первых вбросила тезис о необходимости разрешить радикалам проведение Марша 4 ноября." It does NOT say she supports fascism and nationalism (unless one wants to use citation out of context). It only says she is "against Russian government" and "therefore" supports the right of nationalists for a demonstration. Biophys 17:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

She was criticized by Jewish organizations for the support of Russian March (pogroms). I have perfectly worded my entries in the article accroding to their respective sources. I never presented allegations as facts, like you about Shamil Basaev, Boris Stomakhin. I understand your aspirations to delete everything you don't like in Wikipedia. But it is reliable source and doesn't violate BLP as such, unlike yours sources about Internet Troll Squads and Putin Phalluses. I also remind you that if you would persist in edit warring the article would be protected from your edits. Vlad fedorov 06:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

False Flags by Biophys

(a) Dossier Vlad fedorov 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(b) Boorishness as a World View by Yelena Kalashnikova (in Russian) Full Albats by Oleg Kashin, business newspaper Vzgliad, October 26, 2006 (in Russian)Vlad fedorov 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(c) There is no fraud, but cronism. The word 'fraud' was introduced by user Ilgiz. Should we report him, Biophys? Full Albats by Oleg Kashin, business newspaper Vzgliad, October 26, 2006 (in Russian)Vlad fedorov 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Everything is supported. Please, do not write here false and empty accusations and do not violate good faith rules.Vlad fedorov 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to respond the following to the accusation of Biophys:
  • First, users Biophys and Colchicum never contacted me on a Talk page and tried to resolve the dispute. In fact they just demanded me to stop the editing of the articles. They also never tried to resolve the dispute. They also haven't presented evidence of trying to resolve the dispute with me. Complains to the Administrators noticeboards and false, unsupported accusations of my violations of Wikipedia policies are not a method of resolving the dispute.
  • Second, they violate 'good faith' obligatory assumption in cliaming that I stalk them. I am a newcomer to the Wikipedia. I was brought to the Wikipedia, because the article on Boris Stomakhin created by Biophys was completely outrageous since it turned everything uspide down. Convicted criminal Stomakhin was presented as a hero, besides his calls to exterminate all Russians, to destroy Russian with atomic explosion, to commit terrorist attacks on Russian civilians.
  • Third, accusations presented here were already taken up at vurtually every Administrators, incident, 3RR, BLP noticeboards and administrators talk pages. So they just mainly repeat their accusations. I have never received any warnings from administrators, because otherwise they would have gladly published these warnings already here. I was just arbitrarily blocked by non-Russian, English speaking admin William Connolley. This admin, however, later helped me to clarify the points of dispute which I had with Biophys over Boris Stomakhin article, but unfortunately he left the discussion on the talk page of Boris Stomakhin article, when the critical decision on the validity of Biophys accusations was needed.
  • Fourth, these accusations pursue the goal to harass me and to stop me from contributing another POV into the articles dedicated to Russia.
  • Fifth, I also would like to bring all these issues to the arbitration, because the allegations of Biophys and Colchicum that I violate Wikipedia policy by citing reliable sources defame me and are directed not on the sources, but on my person. I would like to have finally a decision of an arbitrator/mediator/administrator that my sources are valid and reliable, the are not contradictory and do not violate anything. The problem is that Biophys claims that every my contribution violates Wikipedia policies. This is a strategy taken by him in order to discredit every introduced material presenting other point of view.

The underlying problem, in my opinion, is the personal dislike of me and revenge of user Biophys against me for the following:

  • [Moved VF's elaboration on the underlying problem here]. ilgiz 01:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Further work[edit]

Vlad, what are you doing in this and other articles is harassment and personal attack on me and all my articles and edits. I understand: you have good intentions. You want to protect the Putn's administration and FSB from any critical information. The problem is: you are provoking me to create new and new articles which I was not going to create. You possibly noticed that I have created article Moscow Serbsky Institute because we argued about Boris Stomakhin, and this article about Albats because you harassed me with article about Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. If you do not leave me and my articles and edits alone, I might create the following new articles:

1. Criticism of Russian government. That could include such interesting sub-topics as Nuclear proliferation by Russian Federation; Neo-soviet colonialism with regard to former Soviet republics, Penetration of Western markets by FSB, Restoration of dictatorship in Russia, and so on.

2. FSB operations in the Internet. That would include SORM, FSB hackers, and Prosecution of Russian bloggers - see FSB brigades in the Internet [3] but it would also include the "fallic" Rakhmankov case.

3. Gang from Lubyanka - Litvinenko book

4. Blowing up Russia: Terror from within - Litvinenko book

5. Jeffrey R. Nyquist.

Do you want that? Biophys 14:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you threatening me??? Vlad fedorov 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
How can I threaten you by creating Wikipedia articles? We all create articles here, and this is perfectly normal. I only inform you about my plans because you might be interested. I do ask you to stay away from my edits, because that would be the best way to resolve our contradictions. It is exactly what has been recommended by one of administrators.Biophys 20:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

1956 as a birth year is almost certainly incorrect. It is never cited anywhere besides Russian Wikipedia and its mirrors, while 15.09.1958 is in many sources.

I think the information about the family she was born to is relevant. The onliner Mark Albats was a GRU spy on the other hand misrepresnts the source. IMHO it is wrong to represent military intelligence during the Great Patriotic War as something shameful. I have slavishly translated Vlad's source although I am not sure that I understand what Mark did for the GRU.

I have expanded the biography section a little including the contraversial case of restoring the employment by a court decision. I was trying to be factual (neither EA wrote a crappy article but get away due to the frivolius litigation, nor heroic EA defended the jurnalist's integrity against the goverment lackeys...

I think the story with Arutyunyan desrves more than just two sentences. There was a lot of noise in the blogosphere and significant old-media attnetion. On the other hand to write the story in the NPOV style we need:

  • explain who is Arutyunyan
  • explain what is English edition of Moscow News
  • what Arutynyan claims was the goal of the article
  • What EA thought
  • tell the story about the show
  • explain the position of the critics and supporters of the show
  • tell the Aftermath story

It looks like a topic of a new Controversy over Arutyunyan article, but I am to lazy to write it Alex Bakharev 15:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Alex, I agree with your edits. Rigth now it looks pretty much as a normal biography, and it is well written. Yes, the Arutyunyan controversy can be described as a separate aricle if needed. A little more can be said about other works of Albats, such as "Shakedown State". But this would not affect the present text at all. Biophys 16:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I oppose to VF's phrases "openly harassed" (on Albats' talk with Arutunyan), "her boss" (on the connection between Albats and The Nation's editor). Because there wasn't a common agreement on these phrases, I'd suggest to add references. Otherwise, the phrases would break the WP:No Original Research rule. VF has added a reference to the allegation of EA's abuse of cronyism, but the source doesn't go into detail about the allegation. By adding references I mean rewording the phrases such as "EA openly harassed her talk guest [reference]" to the indirect mode, such as "Mr.X said that EA has "openly harassed" her talk guest [reference]".
Boorishness and harassing is evident from the situation. "Get out of here" is clearly harassment. If you want to suggest other words which you feel are appropriate - then go on. But your allegations about violation of Original research are ungrounded.Vlad fedorov 10:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Creating a side article should not let the above accusations become single-sided. Do Albats' points remain valid in spite of her alleged bad manners or wrongdoings? If the answer is "yes", I don't think the accusations brought from pro-government media were to the point. The questions Albats raises remain unanswered. The WP:Undue weight of the side counter arguments should be corrected.
What's the problem? Add POV of the other participants. As for Undie Weight rule, we could just search the Google and find out that majority thinks that Albats was not right and was uncivil. A flash mob campaign by the internet users is just one fact, that majority dislikes Albats. Again in spite of contributing to the article, you, Ilgiz, advocate deletio of smth. And I believe that you advocate deletions just because you can't find reliable sources in support of Albats behavior, and at the same time you cannot write your original research POV here. But actually that's your personal problem. If you are in minority, please yield to majority - that's a golden rule of democracy.Vlad fedorov 10:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I see a pattern in Russian government figures and pro-government media when they belittle and slur the opposition. As someone recalled earlier in this talk page, Putin sticked to the same tactics when referring to Politkovskaya and Litvinenko. I see that the dispute about the dispute about the killed opposition figures' heritage overshadows the disputes about the events and the role of the Russian government in them. The WP:Recentism essay recommends to keep in mind the "ten year test" idea. The idea is that the events described in the article should be significant enough to remain important in 10 years. ilgiz 18:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
What you see and what you believe - is your personal POV and problem. I believe no one hinders you from creating your personal page where you could publish just your personal points of view. But here is a community of editors, who may have different POV's so please do not censure articles according to your personal political preferences. I have never been deleting your additions to my personal tastes, so I expect from you the same. If you feel something is mising from the article please add POV on Albats which you think should be reflected here. But your attempts of censure based on your political preferences are at least wrong.Vlad fedorov 10:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, because there is a disagreement on how a radio talk host is supposed to behave and how to separate slander from POV, I am suggesting to change the mode of statements from direct to indirect, quoting the statements. As for the flash mob and references to what "the majority thinks": (a) there isn't an authoritative proof that the "flash mob" happened indeed and that the majority of users "dislikes" Albats and (b) someone has recently reminded that the majority can and does err in their judgment.
I insist on reducing the amount of critical paragraphs not because these paragraphs contradict my political preferences, but rather because of the logical flaw in the criticism's patterns referred to as Undue weight (note this link is not a WP guideline, but a separate article on rhetoric). To quote the article on undue weight, such patterns "obscure the logical connections between statements". For example, the criticism of Albats' manners at the talk show with Arutyunyan has little to do with the argument itself. I can draw an analogy with a situation when an employee is fired for bad performance, yet the employee complains that his manager is firing him too abruptly.
Please, prove that it is undue weight. Please, provide the sources which approve "And now, get out of here!" citation of Albats, or approve harassment of Ms. Arutunyan on the air of "Echo Moskvy". I could provide tremendous number of reaction links from Livejournal entries, and even from Livejournal of Albats students who generally dislike her, because she forces them to report on other students like in old Soviet times.Vlad fedorov 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The fallacy of the criticism of Albats' work in the current version of the article goes beyond to just shifting the subject. For example, a recent reference to Albats' advocacy for free speech was interpreted as if she was calling to disobey police. There isn't a reference to such statements. The article referred in the paragraph was written by an author who knowingly or not mistook her free speech advocacy for ultra-nationalist support. ilgiz 19:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Please support your ungrounded statements. You just deleting materials from the article without adding anything. And you just advance your personal political opinion here by deleting my materials.Vlad fedorov 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
The sentence on Albats sparking "criticism of her" in the Jewish community because of the above free speech advocacy does not seem to be substantiated at all. ilgiz 19:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I have provided reliable sources.Vlad fedorov 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any source pointing to Albats sparking criticism amongst the Jewish community or "democratic parties"? ilgiz 14:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Voila!!! Her statement in her personal blog here.Vlad fedorov 11:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added more than three sources on this in the respective sentence. Please note that your specific section on the fake Albats article fails to meet notability criteria. There was no any dispute about the authorship of this fake article. There was just disclaimer in blog of Albats that she is not an author of this article. There was no any coverage of that in the media.Vlad fedorov 05:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that you have added some links. Is there a logical connection between the points expressed in the linked articles and the point they are to substantiate? For example, can you provide a quote from one of the references that supports the sentences that (a) Albats has sparked a scandal by advocating the freedom of assembly and (b) that the Jewish community or democratic parties have criticized Albats? ilgiz 06:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Voila!!! Her statement in her personal blog here.Vlad fedorov 11:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Максим Григорьев: Возвращение живых мертвецов – 2

Впрочем, «Яблоко» не одиноко в своей fake-метаморфозе – обсудим еще одну серию «Возвращения живых мертвецов». Поведение известной «воинствующей» журналистки Е. Альбац идеально удовлетворяет fake-принципу.

А)В передаче радио «Свобода» от 23.11.05 на вопрос ведущего: «А по каким признакам вы считали марш 4 ноября… фашистским?» – она отвечает: «Собственно, ключевым участником этого марша была организация, которая против нелегальной иммиграции… На этом шествии 4 ноября большая группа людей поднимала правую руку в фашистском приветствии. Более того, один из организаторов, господин Белов… предложил собравшимся … поднять правую руку, вскинуть правую руку». Разве из этого не следует, что журналистка считает ДПНИ фашистской организацией?

Б)В передаче «Эха Москвы» в ноябре 2005 года на вопрос: «Почему не пригласили в эфир этих фашистов?» – журналистка отвечает: «Мы не пригласили фашистов, потому что на «Эхе Москвы» пропаганда фашизма запрещена».

В) Однако в передаче на «Эхе Москвы» от 5.11.2006 участвует лидер ДПНИ, персонально приглашенный борцом с фашизмом Е. Альбац. Этот же человек ранее публично назван ею фашистом. Совсем недавно Е. Альбац была подвергнута критике в журналистском сообществе за некорректное поведение в эфире с молодой журналисткой А. Арутюнян. По сравнению с ней лидер ДПНИ получает более чем радушный прием.

Уважаемая Евгения Марковна! Вы имеете право на любую точку зрения. Только определитесь. Согласно законам логики одновременно нельзя: А) считать ДПНИ фашистской организацией; Б) считать, что «Эхо Москвы» не ведет пропаганду фашизма, в частности, не приглашает ДПНИ; В) предоставлять ДПНИ трибуну на «Эхе Москвы». Впрочем, у fake-структур своя fake-логика, делающая соответствие обычной логике необязательным.Vlad fedorov 08:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on my RfC accordingly. Moreover, I repost it right here Statements of fraud were introduced by user Ilgiz hmself here is the diff. So his accusations of me for his own wrongdoing are intentional personal attack in order to push forcibly his POV. Statemnts of uncivil behavior cited from three different reliable source which are reflected in the article, e.g. article by Oleg Kashin, article by Elena Kalashnikova et al.Vlad fedorov 08:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The quotes from another article and Albats' own blog don't answer my question. Let me repeat myself. (a) I could not find where "Russian orthodox TV", Vzglyad etc. refer to "democratic parties" criticizing Albats for her statements. (b) The articles published by the "Jewish international newspaper" and the "Orthodox information agency" do not seem to describe any criticism of Albats by the "Jewish communities". (c) I don't understand why the views of Kashin and Kalashnikova should prevail in the section on her radio talks and why they are expressed as part of the editorial. ilgiz 15:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Answered below in Ilgiz reverts section. By the way, I has changed the wording of respective to reflect that "position taken by Albats" was criticized, so your question is redundant now. Best regards. Vlad fedorov 10:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


I corrected the transliteration of the name of Albats' father [4], but Vlad fedorov reverted my edits with the following summary: "rv - deletions of information which Ilgiz and Colchicum personally dislike. Deletion of sourced material is a violation of Wikipedia policies and vandalism." [5] What the hell is going on? Colchicum 13:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Continuing violations of WP:BLP by Vlad Fedorov[edit]

I made some minor changes. But the remaining version is a clear violation of WP:BLP rules that require NPOV (I provided an explanation above). Biophys 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Can anyone explain what does it mean: "according to Kashin, Albats obtained her Higher School of Economics professorship due to apparatchik talent of rector Yaroslav Kuzminov and not for her real education contributions.[21]"? Was Yaroslav Kuzminov a person responsible for appointment of new faculty in the Higher School of Economics or someone else? Kashin did not tell that. Biophys 23:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not present content dispute like violations of BLP. I guess administrator Alex Bakharev already pointed this out. What you do is uncivil behaviour, because you claim that I violate Wikipedia policy, although I do everything according to the policy. If you personally dislike these sources you may publish sources having their POV on this, however do not try to delete valid and sourced material from the article and behave yourself civil. I am not vandal and I am not violating Wikipedia policies. All interested in more details over false and empty accusations by Biophys could look here for more details Vlad fedorov 05:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Identity theft[edit]

According to Albats's blog entry on February 28, 2007, someone has published an article signed by her name. It appears Alex Goldfarb's identity has been faked in a similar way. I want VF and others to be aware of such dishonest moves so that the biography article remains concise. ilgiz 07:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I don't publish information from blogs like Biophys. And I am pretty much aware of that situation with blogs. I read and have been aware of that long before it was leaked to the general public.Vlad fedorov 08:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ilgiz, you introduction in the article of material taken from blog is of questional quality. This material fails to meet the criteria of notability. Vlad fedorov 05:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For all know-it-all's here[edit]

Read Vlad fedorov 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments[edit]

Vlad claimed that I deleted his comments. Wrong. Everyone can check the log and see that it was him who deleted my comments, not vice versa. (cur) (last) 05:56, 16 March 2007 Vlad fedorov (Talk | contribs) (rv - restoring Biophys deletion of my answers.) Biophys 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Edward Kennedy as a KGB collaborator[edit]

I would like to point out that the folks at the Ted kennedy talk page have decided not to include this information, calling it tabloid journalism. If no one here can link this info to more respectable sources than the ones quoted there, I will remove this information, since it is defamatory. WP:BLP is involved here, since anyone can find this page by googling on "Edward kennedy" KGB wikipedia. --Pan Gerwazy 12:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First, you can not label Izvestia as "unreliable source" or tabloid. It was one of most prominent Soviet/Russian newspapers in 1992. Second, one might object using this source in biography of Kennedy based on WP:BLP rules. However, this citation is completely appropriate in this paper, since this is not biography of Kennedy. If that were a defamatory statement with regard to Albats, then yes, much stricter rules would be applicable to any sources. Biophys 15:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Defamatory material should be removed form any article. I would uphold the RfC decision.Vlad fedorov 15:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I can only repeat. First, this is not tabloid journalism because the accusations were published in the London Times, Washington Times, Human Events, CNS News and a book written by Prof Kengor and published by Regan Books. [6], according to the comments in Kennedy article talk page. Second, this Rfc might be applicable to Kennedy article (due to BLP rules), but not to Albats article. Finally, there is a possibility to submit RfC about violation of BLP rules in this Albats biography article.Biophys 15:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The book you cited is definitely tabloid. But could you cite me articles you mentioned in Washington Times, The London Times, Human Events, CNS News. Of them only Washington Times deserves some attnetion, although it is a small newspaper.Vlad fedorov 15:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
It is enough to have Izvestia where Albats worked. This is not article about Kennedy. Biophys 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You cannot reintroduce this by the backdoor. In any case, "what links here" in the Edward Kennedy article will lead to this page. Izvestia is not enough, because it is in Russian. Personally I would be very careful with news articles from any side just afeter a "Wende" because chances are that the accusation was made in a general climate approaching a witch hunt - but that is not at stake here: in a case like this (where you have person A claiming that pesron B approached C on behalf of D with E as go-between) the precise wording is very important. And we do not know whether Izvestia was already careful enough in 1992. As for the defamation part: Kennedy got elected again in 1994, in 2000 and in 2006. Do you really think that he would have been if a signficant part of the American press believed this story? --Pan Gerwazy 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, only the London Times is acceptable. The Washinton Times is the paper owned by the Unification church, thus is hardly NPOV versus Edward Kennedy, who is on the other side of the political spectrum. Does the London Times say Edward Kennedy collaborated with the KGB?
The only thing that is proven from the KGB letter is that someone in the KGB claimed that Teddy Kennedy approached the KGB (through David Karr, someone who cannot defend himself anymore) to intervene on behalf of California firm Agritech, headed by former Senator J. Tunney. I hope you see the difference with what is written here. There is a distinct possibility that what the KGB man or woman claimed is not true, just self-gratification, or an attempt to justify money paid to an informer or go-between (which may or may not have been Karr). A second possibility is that all this did happen, but Kennedy had no idea the pesron he contacted in Russia was KGB. And, very important of course, collaboration is not the same thing as approaching someone to soften him up on a business deal. I wonder how many Western politicians have been "collaborating" with Chinese communists during the last five years. In western countries the word "collaboration" has a negative flavour - it should be avoided, like the word "terrorist".
Note that our version does not even look like what Albats wrote, because Tunney is not mentioned (which is a significant omission, because Karr was also a business man with contacts in the Soviet Union - he had the rights to Misha in 1980) so we basically have Ted Kennedy intervening on behalf of the go-between, something illogical which of course suggests "collaboration". And you, Biophys, should have known better - because you edited the David Karr article. Have a look at the first reference in that article: "Yevgenia Albats, Senator Edward Kennedy Requested KGB Assistance With a Profitable Contract for his Businessman-Friend, Izvestia 24 June 1992, 5" That businessman friend was Tunney, not Karr.--Pan Gerwazy 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
You may be right by describing this as "approaching someone" (KGB boss Yuri Andropov) "to soften him up on a business deal". I tried to correct the wording to reflect your comment. O'K, let's avoid "collaboration".Biophys 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Elaborative POV push by Biophys[edit]

Biophys elaboratively posts texts about Albats radio talk shows on his lovely KGB subject. Please, either you list all recent topics of her Radio show, or you don't mention it at all. You must abide WP:WEIGHT policy. Do not use this article for your propaganda against Russia. Besides, KGB radio talk show doesn't meet standarts of notability. You have to explain why you publish so much about this particular talk show and why you trying to cover the information that Alabts' father was a GRU spy. Vlad fedorov 07:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I am writing about KGB here, because this is main research subject of Albats. Second, we have biography of Albats father in "Biography" chapter right now, instead of Albats biography. That is what I corrected. If we can include something else about her education, personal life, etc., then info about her father would look appropriate. Biophys 22:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You still didn't explain why you delete the information that Albats father was from bloody GRU which promotes terrorism around the world according to you? Why do you lie that you had kept the information about her father - see this version by you Biophys version. Vlad fedorov 03:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Research chapter[edit]

I deleted the Edward Kennedy info on the basis of the RFC at [7]. I had a look at the rest of the chapter, and find some of the language poor and confusing. For instance: in English, there is a big difference between the phrases "s Jewish question", "Jewish question" (without article) and "the Jewish question". I would not be surprised if it was the more specific use "THE jewish question" that was meant here. For some reason her writing that book also gets mentioned twice.--Pan Gerwazy 14:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more: "She described the KGB as a leading political force, rather than a security organization, whose leaders, including Lavrenty Beria, Yuri Andropov, and Vladimir Kryuchkov, have always struggled for the power with the Communist Party and manipulated the communist leaders." Grammatically, the English present perfect denotes an action that is still continuing now. The use of the present perfect (have struggled) therefore implies that this struggle is still going on. But Beria and Andropov are dead, Kryuchkov has one foot in the grave and there is no reason to manipulate communists anymore. I understand what the author is trying to suggest - something like people such as Beria and Andropov are still in charge and trying to manipulate crypto-communists such as Putin and Ivanov - but it still remains that the sentence is grammatically incorrect in English. The other two uses of the present perfect in this chapter are ungrammatical as well.--Pan Gerwazy 14:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I corrected this. But you are very welcome to fix such problems yourself.Biophys 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Last changes by Vlad[edit]

So, Vlad simply delets a lot of well sourced text. This is clear violation of Wikipedia policies. Biophys 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No I have explained everything in detail. Your problem is that you attribute information published by other people - Ion Mihai Pacepa, Mitrokhin and etc. to Albats. For example statistics about number of KGB employees for population was taken by you from another author and you have inserted it into the text violating "No original research rule". Other passages in the text are also original research, for example passage beginning with "Such views were shared by...". When you have written "She described KGB as..." you have linked this text not to Alabts but to the works of other authors, which is misattribution and original research. Vlad fedorov 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
First, this is not OR, because everything is taken from good sources. Second, it is important to mention if the ideas of a researcher (such as Nikolai Koltsov, Yevgenia Albats or any other) were (a) original, and (b) supported by other people/collegues. Only then one can tell if the researcher/author was rigth or wrong and if he/she was notable. Therefore, information I included is absolutely necessary. In this case, (a) ideas of Albats were not so original (maybe even John Barron was not the first), although she revealed many interesting details, and (b) her ideas are shared by best experts in the field, such as Pacepa, Mitrokhin, and others.Biophys 05:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all comparison of views of A with views of B is made by you, so it is original research. Second, you still haven't written what the views of Albats were indeed, instead you have attributed the views of other persons to her. If the views of Alabts were original, then how could you compare them at all woth other views. We don't have views of Albats in the article, these are the views of Pacepa and Mitrokhin.Vlad fedorov 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, this is not research at all (original or not). This is merely statement of the fact that all these people share similar views (based on reliable sources). Look Nikolai Koltsov article. It says: "In 1927 Kolstov proposed that inherited traits would be inherited via "giant hereditary molecule" which would be made up of "two mirror strands that would replicate in a semi-conservative fashion using each strand as a template"[1]. These ideas were confirmed to have been accurate in 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick described the structure of DNA." Saying that kind of things is absolutely necessary for creating good articles. This is perfectly consistent with Wikipedia policies. Biophys 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No. You could compare only if there is a relible source comparing Alabts and Koltsov. You violate Wikipedia policy by doing original research.Vlad fedorov 17:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ilgiz reverts[edit]

Ilgiz claims that I have referenced democratic parties to Vzglyad and Russian Orthodox TV which is amusing since democratic parties are not linked to Russian Orthodox TV at all. Ilgiz doesn't even bother himself with reading the sources!!! Business newspaper Vzglyad is describing its views in article Maksim Grigorev. "Return of evil dead 2". November 29, 2006, Business Newspaper Vzglyad.(On Russian) -- in that article views and statements of democraticly oriented persons were published. I consider Vzglyad to be democratic newspaper.Vlad fedorov 03:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the wording included a phrase "democratic parties" and "Jewish communities". I could not find a reference to these in the articles. If I really wanted to prove the wording you suggested, criticism of Albats _from_ the democratic parties and Jewish communities would be the most convincing. Had Vzglyad or any other organization _claimed_ there was a criticism from such parties/communities, the wording might survive after attributing the statements. But the referred articles do not even dare to _claim_ there was any criticism of Albats from democratic parties or Jewish communities. So I can't see how the paragraph is even supported by the references.
You are now saying that Vzglyad, Russian Orthodox TV, Russian Institute et al. themselves are "democratic parties" in question. I am not able to find any affiliation between the former publishing organizations and the latter parties.
So what I did was I kept your references but named the criticizing groups directly without labeling their partisan alignment. This way there might be less disputes over the partisan labeling. Thanks for keeping up with my stubbornness. ilgiz 01:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise version[edit]

OK. I have made compromise version and have corrected significantly disputed section on the Nationalist March. But, please do not eliminated supported and referenced text concerning Albats case. If you want dispute this in mediation, let us proceed, I give my consent.

Your claims about defamation, POV and undue weight are easily eliminated by providing the opinions of others. Please contribute other POV's if you have one. But do not censure the article which is based on reliable sources. Vlad fedorov 08:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The compromise version consisted of the revert to the editorial-like points of Russian Institute, Kashin et al with the exception of the "Advocating freedom of assembly" section. Then someone removed the summary of the critics' articles and added an editorial phrase presuming that Albats supported the nationalist Right March. There were not authentic (coming from Albats) references supporting this statement. ilgiz 04:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Original research in Ilgiz version[edit]

I would like to draw attention that that Ilgiz consistently reinserts the following text into the article:

"Journalist John Barron[9], retired KGB Major General Oleg Kalugin[1] and the highest-ranking known Soviet bloc defector, Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa[2] shared these points of view."

There are no any sources that say exactly that phrase. Ilgix and Biophys, please, either cire reliable source in support of your Original research, or delete. Vlad fedorov

The same concerns the following sentence also inserted by you.

KGB defector Vasili Mitrokhin and dissident priest Gleb Yakunin who had access to KGB archives reported the same.[13][8]

Vlad fedorov 08:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the provided references confirm Albats' investigations. See a quote from Kalugin's article I provided in reply to your question in the next section.ilgiz 04:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This your statement is original research. Vlad fedorov 18:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The quote from the discussed article asserts that the mentioned persons adhere to the same opinion. It does not attempt to synthesize a conclusion from the attributed statements. ilgiz 03:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, Ilgiz, this is a well-known logical error. In order to state that Barron, Kalugin and Pacepa "shared these points of view" you need to make the original research. You need to compare their works with that of Albats. Only after this logical (mental, physical) operation you could make such statements. Agree? Alternatively, you should provide source for such statements. You could ask that question on WP:OR discussion talk page. I, myself, was caught at this situation at Freedom House article. See its discussion page at Pay attention to the last messages. Vlad fedorov 10:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The "original research" term in this Wikipedia is not that broad. It does not imply intellectual efforts. It describes unpublished arguments. ilgiz 12:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel and original research by comparing[edit]

Ilgiz reverts and Biophys inserts the following:

"whereas "the Soviet Union had one KGB officer for every 428 citizens."[2]"

I would like to note that this article is dedicated to one person - Yevgenia Albats, and not to Ion Mihai Pacepa. Furthemore, this article is not concernd with KGB, FSB and other stuff. Please don't put irrelevant text here. Make section in FSB article dedicated to the allegations of Pacepa.

I understand that Ilgiz and Biophys want to add to credibility of Alabts research, but please cite source saying directly that her research is credible and don't make this original research yourselves. Vlad fedorov 08:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree the reference to a round table with Pacepa does not mention Albats. I am going to fix the reference as I found the same numbers through Google Books on page 23 of her "State within a State" book published by I.B.Tauris Publishers, ISBN 1-85043-995-8. She refers to the number of KGB employees disclosed by Vadim Bakatin in October 1991 and the number of KGB officers he relayed to Albats later in an interview.
Re: "this article is not concernd with KGB, FSB and other stuff". I believe that since Albats' investigated the role of FSB as a political force in Russia, this article follows her works rather than a hidden anti-FSB agenda.
Re: "please cite source". The sources were provided. I found the following by the reference beside Kalugin's name:

This is no longer a ministry, a service. It’s the power, the authority.


I don't think there are Wikipedia rules preventing from citing reliable sources in a living person's biography. There is one limitation in the BLP policy, where it says that potentially libelous details should be removed. ilgiz 04:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You need to meditate over the meaning libelous. According to your interpretation, we couldn't criticise even Adolf Hitler. Vlad fedorov 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I am still trying to find the exact definition of the term. The BLP policy refers to the US judicial ruling requiring to prove the malicious intent of the accused of libel. So yes, the law gives a greater degree of freedom in discussions about a public figure. However, this Wikipedia's policy also requires that all opinions are attributed. Therefore I believe that the sentence on Albats having "another position" on Russian march was not attributed to its source.
The expressions "publicly attacked", "abruptly switched the original topic" etc. are objected by at least 2 editors. This makes the expressions debated points of view that should be attributed to their sources, if I understand the policies correctly. I don't think I'd go overboard by insisting on the indirect speech in addition to the references. The alleged rude behavior is not something that puts public at risk or discredits her work. I don't see where Arutunyan's human rights were abused. This talk page is supposed to only regard the editing process, not advocacy.
I haven't read the article on Hitler yet, and it should not abide by the BLP rules as Hitler was no more long time ago. But the usual Wikipedia policies should apply there too. The policies would not let editorial accusations of Hitler run free. What do you think? ilgiz 04:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[Re: BLP policy] Ilgiz, you make me wonder! Have you studied the US law? Yes, there is more bigger standart for violating privacy of "public figures" in the US law - Falwell vs. Hustler case. And defintely Falwell's case was enourmously bigger invasion of private life than my unpretentious edits on events having place in reality. As about the attribution, I have sourced previous Albats position to her air on Echo Moscow radiostation held a year before. So, I feel it's pretty much correctly attributed. Just read the transcript of radio air.
[Re; attributing POVs] Ilgiz, I am not interested particularly in these words, if you have rational suggestion, then, please, roll on. We need also to depict that Albats was shouting at Arutunyan. "Attacked", at least, could be associated with such behavior.
[Re: The Hitler argument] Well, these same policies forbid to delete anything without previous discussion. I agree that we should follow Wikipedia policies. It's understood. But could you just stop revert war and discuss. Please, go on with your suggestions and we would discuss them. I hope you are not going to write me such thing as that? We are civilised men, both you and me, and I believe we could have a place in the article for every POV. Vlad fedorov 10:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know about US libel cases much, but I think the Wikipedia rules are simple. Objectionable arguments should be attributed to their sources rather than conveyed in an editorial mode. I believe I gave the due (i.e. minimal) weight to the allegations of "boorishness" and the opinions of Russian Orthodox TV, Russian Institute, Young Guard of United Russia and the like. This page's discussions continue through months and I see that the article is evolving. Thanks for your attention to my efforts, but I'd like to keep the allegations attributed and less elaborated.ilgiz 13:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of information about Albats father[edit]

I would like to beg Ilgiz and Biophys to stop their censuring and deletion of the information about Alabts father service in state security services. This information is very highly related to the credibility of Alabts research on KGB, FSB. I understand your desire to push your POV, but please push your POV by citing reliable sources like me and not by sterilizing the article from the information that you personally don't like.Vlad fedorov 08:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how Albats'es father biography is related to Albats'es own biography. Perhaps, an article on Mark Yefremovich Albats would be educating, provided there will be enough sources such as his daughter's account (machine translation). The dossier pointed by the paragraph you added had itself a non-specific source named "Labyrinth" but linked to the main page of I don't think this wikipedia allows anonymous sources, especially in the biographies.
As for your comment, do I understand correctly that a daughter of a person who worked in the occupied territory could not be trusted? If that is what you mean, can you explain your conclusion? Thanks. ilgiz 03:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
IMHO the family background is very important for the biography articles. Mark Albatz is IMHO not notable enough for his own article but deserves a few words in the biography of his daughter (like e.g. Mikhail Brin in the biography of Sergey Brin). I do not find military service in the Soviet Army during the World War II (especially such dangerous service as the Military Intelligence behind the enemies frontline) to be something negative or shameful. Better sources are welcome but the present one are IMHO good enough. Alex Bakharev 04:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking about the family Yevgeniya seems to had a twin sister named Anna. Any ideas what happens with her? Should we note daughter Olga (born 1988) of YA and Golovanov? Should we mention that Anna Politkovskaya and YA attended the same Journalistic Class of MSU and seemed to be very close (even shared the same desk)? Alex Bakharev 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This might bring sentiments to the article, but I believe there are boundaries to the person's privacy, especially in the English wikipedia. Besides, Albats cannot request bodyguards for her and her family. I cannot forget Albats has become a target of anonymous threats ever since she returned to Russia. One of her "sophisticated" tormentors muttered threats about her daughter. I will add a link to the story later.ilgiz 11:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Alex that information about relatives and notable friends can be included in biography, including friendship with Politkovskaya (if supported by sources). However, I believe that her further have never been GRU officer. You should know that GRU belongs to General Staff of Soviet Army and this is top of Soviet military intelligence. It is very difficult to get there (see books by Suvorov and anything else). The source provide by Ilgiz say the following: "Для моего папы, Марка Ефремовича Альбац, война началась 5 сентября 1941 года. В этот день его парашютировали на территорию оккупированной Украины под именем Григория Басилая. Он был сотрудником Главного разведывательного управления Красной Армии, прошел краткий курс 2 недели разведывательной школы, на самом деле, он был студентом, пошел на фронт, и его прямо в Москве забрали и привезли в разведывательную школу где-то под Москвой." A civilian after "two-week training" can not be enrolled there. Yes, he worked in military reconnaissance but never could be GRU officer.Biophys 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
AFAIK modern GRU of General Staff was formed by merging of the Главное Разведывательное Управление Народного Комиссариата Красной Армии (ГРУ НКО) и Разведупра Генерального Штаба (РУ ГШ). List [9] can be interpreted that way and by many others. Suvorov writes that the Aquarium changed the names but he would name it by the modern GRU GS. Obviously functions of the modern GRU officers mostly acting under diplomatic cover or analysts at the General Staff are very different from the military intelligence during the WWII. Similarly e.g. Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya been an officer of GPU NKVD is not the modern chekist. I thought it was clear without saying, if it is not clear may be we should put a notice or something Alex Bakharev 05:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for explanation! Then it might be more appropriate to say that he worked in "military intelligence of Red Army".Biophys 16:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Ilgiz that her life is in great danger. In fact, she can die from "hart attack" or be attacked at the street at any moment after publishing her books. But this does not depend on Wikipedia articles. Biophys 03:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC) P.S. As far as I know, she wanted to send her daughter to US.Biophys 16:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

References in this talk[edit]

  1. ^ [1] The Triumph of the KGB by retired KGB Major General Oleg D. Kalugin
  2. ^ a b Symposium: When an Evil Empire Returns, interview with Ion Mihai Pacepa, R. James Woolsey, Jr., Yuri Yarim-Agaev and Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, June 23, 2006.

ilgiz 05:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

New Times[edit]

Gazeta.Ru reports that soon Yevgeniya Albats will head NewTimes newspaper (now she is the head of the department of politics in that newspaper). [10] ellol 14:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This is refuted by the owner.[11]ilgiz 16:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Privacy of names[edit]

I do not understand why we are removing information about her family. Everything is referenced and reasonably neutral. No negative information of the family members is provided. Information about parents and spouse[s] of the subject is expected in biographical articles. Yaroslav Golovanov is pretty notable person by himself anyway. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Information on relatives may add new details about personality of the subject but it invades privacy. I heard that the 20th century genealogy customarily hides details on relatives unless the subject appears as a public figure. So I added a remark to my change with a reference to a Wikipedia policy on biographies of living people,

respect privacy: "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons."

I see that the spouse appears notable, but I do not see how other relatives fit the scheme. --ilgiz (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)