Talk:Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya

1

I see that the authors of the article detected a culprit and, not waiting for the court's decision, put the blame on him in the second passage of the article. Presenting journalistic speculations as the ultimate truth is simply not acceptable. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no original research here and the article does not name any culprit. It is reporting what has been said and attributes the various quotes to the people concerned. That is perfectly within the bounds of Wikipedia policy and in accordance with journalistic standards. -- Hux 14:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko

I deleted the Litvinenko poisoning section, as it provided no information whatsoever about how Litvinenko's death is relevant to Politkovskaya's assassination.

Reverted. Not only did the deleted text explain the link to Politkovskaya's murder, the BBC citation backs it up, as do any number of online news sources. It's very relevant to this article. -- Hux 06:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenkos Claims are all very absurd and silly.--Aktionsfront für Korrektur (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

merge

It's mostly the same as in the main page. --HanzoHattori 18:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is because someone just copypasted this article back to the main article after this article was created. It was originally intended that the main page would contain only the first several paragraphs about the assassination but not the subsections (government reactions etc). The main article should be more about her biography and not so much about the assassination. See Olof Palme and Olof Palme assassination - that's how these articles should be handled. ---Majestic- 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree with -Majestic-. Same thing with articles about Alexander Litvinenko.Biophys 00:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So, I copied last paragraph from Anna Politkovskaya article (part Assassination) to this article. 1-st, 2-nd and 4-th paragraph in part "Assassination" of Anna Politkovskaya article should probably remain there. Biophys 00:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Majestic. In cases where the person is known for something other than just being assassinated, there should be two articles - the biography and the assassination article. The assassination should be briefly mentioned in the bio article and then linked to its own page, as we've done here, otherwise the bio page gets way too long. -- Hux 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by DarthJesus

DarthJesus clearly has a problem with the appearance of comments from the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria (CRI) in this article. Initially he deleted them entirely, citing that the CRI is not a recognized government and that therefore the comments should not appear in the "Government Reaction" section. After several edits and reversions between himself and other editors, I changed the title of that section to "Political Reaction" and put the comments back in. As far as I was concerned, this should have solved the problem. Now, however, DarthJesus is continually moving the CRI comments to the bottom of that list, without any edit note to explain why, and in such a way that it breaks the page's formatting and looks horrible. This situation is becoming ridiculous.

Given how central Chechnya was to Politkovskaya's work, the CRI's comments are clearly relevant to this article. DarthJesus seems to have accepted this since he has stopped attempting to delete the comments outright. He also seems to have accepted that it is acceptable to have those comments on a list titled, "Political Reaction". However, he clearly has a problem with those comments appearing at the top of that list. As my edit notes explain, this list is ordered alphabetically so as to avoid creating a POV by implying that one source is more important than another. The CRI happens to be first in that list due to that alphabetical order so that is the place where it should go.

DarthJesus: please do not keep reverting this edit. If you have an issue with it then let's discuss it here and attempt to come up with a compromise that is agreeable to everyone. Constantly moving the CRI comments to the bottom of the list without any edit comment is not reasonable -- Hux 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Connection between Litvinenko and Politkovskaya

Hux, where is the connection between Litvinenko and Politkovskaya? I read it and failed to see the connection. Could you please explain it, or were you just bullshitting, in which case I will delete it.

Thanks, USer XYZ

As it says in the article, the connection is that Litvinenko was investigating Politkovskaya's murder when he was killed. There is a citation there to a BBC news article to back it up. Additionally, we dealt with this a while ago further up this talk page.

I've added another link to that cite after the first paragraph in the Litvinenko section, in order to make the connection more clear.

PS Try to remain civil. -- Hux 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging/Demerging of Politkovskaya sections

Sorry if I'm late getting into this discusion.

The Politokovskaya entry's already way overlength – a case of more is less, I fear.

It wouldn't hurt to separate out the journo and murder from the murder victim and political repercussions.

Whether it's policy or not, it would make it more readable. And that couldn't hurt.

A See also... link would direct those who want to add to the entry to the right entry/subentry

Renaissanceperson 03:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

factorings

When you factor out a section, it pays to demark what should be in the "assassination" article and what should be in the "main" biography. I have done my best to separate these two things, but there is probably now some duplication in this article. I am not going to sort that out.--76.221.184.185 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Killer identified

"Russian investigators have identified the killer of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, an aide to the prosecutor-general has said. The suspect was not named, but the official, Vyacheslav Smirnov, said "all measures are being taken to find and detain him. "[1] Krawndawg (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, the page looks much more organized now. Krawndawg (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Novaya gazeta article

english version

It's kind of misleading to just use the title in this article when deeper in the article it is much more complicated than "Secret services did it".

This sentence implies that they aren't sure themselves and that they reject theories about secret services doing it: "The question here is not about total plot by special services (let this be left for American action movies) or about omnipresent Berezovsky (let it be left for state TV journalists and those who needs the topic for saving one’s career). The problem is how to understand: who serves whom and when?" Krawndawg (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced what was there with a full quote from the article since they imply two very different things. That second paragraph about it being connected to the official report has to go too, since it's just original research/speculation. If that story is consistent with the official report, people will see that for themselves. Krawndawg (talk) 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you replaced the summary by selective citation out of context. Please explain what is wrong in summary and wait for reply. If you think something is missing, please add what is missing rather than delete.Biophys (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I already explained the problem. The article is much more complicated than the summary title. There's a reason they wrote a huge article on it instead of publishing the 10 word title and leaving it. It can't be left like that. And you restored original research based on connections you drew yourself: "The report was consistent with the official version that Nukayev indeed organized assassinations of Politkovskaya and Paul Khlebnikov. " Krawndawg (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed this phrase.Biophys (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

claims that Putin did it

Politically motivated claims by dissenters/traitors/defectors are hardly worth their own section, let alone such a large one. Should it be mentioned? Sure, but certainly not a 4000 word essay in its own section so high up on the page. And the next time you tell me to "get consensus" and revert my changes, take a look at your own edits first and think real hard about whether starting an edit war is really such a good idea. Krawndawg (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course this is a notable claim because it was made by notable people like Alexander Litvinenko and others, and it was done with regard to a notable person, Putin. This claim was never disproved. Hence it deserves a separate section.Biophys (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a fringe theory made by people who are politically motivated. The theory is not supported by anyone neutral or without obvious bias, and is a blind accusation with no convincing evidence. It deserves to be mentioned, briefly, but not have it's own huge section. And if you want to just blindly revert all of my changes with no explanation and pretend you own this article I promise you I'm not going to consider any compromises. You can either rework it into a single paragraph or leave it out. Regardless, please refrain from inserting large controversial edits without complete consensus. Krawndawg (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

These claims were referenced to multiple reliable sources including books by historian and notable writers. If you want to dispute these claims as "fringe theory", please provide a much larger set of equally reliable secondary sources which specifically dispute the claim about Putin's involvement. Then we can make a "criticism" section or something like that.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

historians and notable writers? Only one, and he is a well known dissenter with questionable motives and a possible/probable political agenda. Krawndawg (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you're going to revert my changes with no legit reason, I'm not going to be very cooperative with you in return. Krawndawg (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I provided multiple reliable sources. Please provide your sources that specifically dispute this claim. It is entirely possible to write much more about threats to her life, alleged involvement of Putin, etc.Biophys (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what a logical fallacy is? I've explained this to you before and so have others. People don't write about things that they don't think happened. Just because someone wrote a book about something doesn't mean it's a legit view and has any truth to it, nor does it mean that someone has to write a book about why that view is wrong in order to disprove it. Find me someone notable and neutral (ie. normal mainstream reports) who support the claim and I'll stop arguing with you. Krawndawg (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, all notable, sourced, and relevant views must be included per WP:NPOV. Since you have challenged the sources, I provided more materials and more references on this subject. Please do not remove this again. If you disagree, please include alternative sourced views instead of deleting everything you do not like.Biophys (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I specifically said that the views should be included but not given undue weight. You still have not explained why you continue to revert my original edits. Krawndawg (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree about "undue weight". In fact, the alleged involvement of Putin is the single most important controversy of this article. If you want to challenge this as "fringe theory", I can bring five times more sources about his alleged involvement.Biophys (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it's the single most important controversy? Because your head is so filled with these conspiracy theory books you've been reading? When I look up this topic on BBC, why is there little/no mention of this conspiracy then? Why are the only people making the claim dissenters traitors and self-exiles? The same people who you'd expect to accuse Putin of blowing up orphanages and eating kittens for dinner. Your POV might be that this is an important issue, but facts speak otherwise. Krawndawg (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are all the articles on her from the BBC that I could find. Not a single one mentions this conspiracy theory. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] -I'm sure there are more, and I'm sure none of them will mention it. Why? Because it's a baseless fringe theory. Krawndawg (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course we can not use any sources that do not mention a claim. We can only use sources that do mention it.Biophys (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're completely missing my point (surprise surprise?). The BBC doesn't mention this conspiracy theory because it's a baseless accusation with no evidence or credibility behind it, no one takes it seriously. Therefore, you can mention it briefly in a sentence or two, but don't give it undue weight. Krawndawg (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

you sure are keen on the term "conspiracy theory" - PietervHuis (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I use that term because that's what best describes this particular theory. "A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations." Just like the rest of Litvinenko's conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krawndawg (talk • contribs) 20:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not even a theory, just accusations. The term conspiracy theory has a negative touch to it, and you sure love using it to denigrate reports and peoples arguments. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

maybe it would best to change that sections title to "claims that the government was behind the murder" or something. That doesn't mention the name Putin, and has a higher probability rate, especially since the Kadyrovtsy are suspect too. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Pieter, thank you for coming here. Could you please do the following? Compare two last versions of this article (before and after my self-revert), and try to make a compromise version. A good compromise version is the one that combines information from both alternative versions. I would hardly edit anything here today because Krawndawg reported me for 3RR violation (which I did not do).Biophys (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I made a compromise version of that sort myself.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please tell if you think this compromise version is O'K. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

So, if you approve this compromise version (the last one), please restore it and correct as appropriate.Biophys (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Biophys likes his to cling to this idea that "you can't disprove their claims" or "find sources which disprove this". That is logical fallacy, if someone writes that there exists a flying spaghetti monster people are not going to write articles saying that there doesn't exist a flying spaghetti monster.

• The fact is, no matter how much Biophys likes to believe in his detached-from-reality view based on the claims of dissidents/traitors/defectors, NO political leader around the world has accused Putin or the government of killing Politkovskaya (nor of orchestrating the apartment bombings). Certainly no political leaders would not even engage with Putin let alone be friendly him if they believed he was a murderer/mass murderer.--Miyokan (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The opinions of "political leaders" of the "democratic West" are not very much relevant. As you probably know, some of them supported Hitler at the certain period of history; they supported Lenin and Stalin; they deported almost a million of Russians to Stalin's Gulag after WWII. What is relevant are views of historians, political scientists, and independent media.Biophys (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Of course US administration knows very well that FSB organized these bombings, and one of Washington staffers told to Sergei Yushenkov about that "inofficially". However, they used to play political games with all kind of dictators-murderers. There is nothing special about that. Is Putin any worse than "great ally" Stalin? No, he does not.Biophys (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, you asking Pieter to make a compromise version is like Bush asking Cheney his opinion on the Iraq war. Go look at the 9/11 responsibility article. Do you see anything called accusations that Bush did it? No? But people have written books on just that, what gives? Doesn't that mean it's factual? Well, you can find those arguments in an article called 9/11 conspiracy theories. Hey, there's that word again.

Pietervhuis, if they're not theories then that's even less reason to mention them. People making blind accusations with no reason or logic (ie. lacking a theory) is of absolutely no importance. Worth no more than a single sentence in this article, if that. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. Krawndawg (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not care if these claims are called "conspiracy theory" or not. My point was to include these sourced views in the article. That is all.Biophys (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Kranwdawg, every accusation considering who murdered her is a theory, if it comes from the russian federation, the uk, journalists or writers, because her murder isn't solved, and probably never will. This article is about her assassination, and all the possible scenarios of who was behind it discussed by writers and other media outlets. Maybe the possibility of government involvement isn't discussed in Russia - where you live I think - but it is in the west. It's not just insulting but also a violation to delete all sourced content as "conspiracy theory garbage" as you named it. If you believe these scenarios are given undue weight, you shouldn't delete them, but add other possible scenarios sourced by writers and journalists.

I already said it's probably best to make a section called "possible government involvement", because most who believe a government organ, or a crazy general, was responsible for the contract killing, don't even mention Putin. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You said it wasn't a theory it was just an accusation. Now you're saying it is a theory? Make up your mind. if it's a theory, it's a conspiracy theory. If it's not a theory, it's not worth mentioning at all. If you had actually payed attention to my other posts you wouldn't have made such a silly reply. And no, I don't live in Russia, I live in the west and I am well aware of the coverage this story has gotten. No one, I repeat, no one takes the "Putin did it" accusations seriously here. The only time it's ever mentioned is under the guise of "some crazy people have suggested...". It's certainly never supported or speculated about. Krawndawg (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant that they weren't conspiracy theories by defenition. The government accusations are widely discussed, maybe you should watch some more documentaries. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More sources about Putin involvement

[7], [8]. Biophys (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Way forward

We have only two significant disagreements with Krawdang right now: (1) the section about alleged involvement of Putin; and (2) last article in Novaya Gazeta. I suggest to delete these both segments for now and agree about the rest. Would you agree?Biophys (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the segment about the alleged involvement of Putin belongs not to this article but to article Criticism of Vladimir Putin. So, how about creating the "Criricism" article and putting it there?Biophys (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I restored your info but made a section about the possible government involvement, it's best to add the possibilites there that the Kadyrovtsy were behind it and such. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Pietervhuis, if your intent is to begin another edit war, you are well on your way to achieving that goal. Otherwise, you are not helping by increasing the bias 10 fold without even gaining consensus. Use a sandbox. "detention in Chechnya" what does that have to do with her assassination? Give me a break.

And what is wrong with the Novaya gazeta article? Why are you so against posting a quote from it when you're the one who added it in the first place? Krawndawg (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What quote? Also you're the one whose starting an edit war. You've been deleting sourced content, and charging someone who undid it with 3RR, and now you're deleting sourced content again. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not make contested changes without consensus. Do you understand? You're fueling a fire here and I think you know that. I'm beginning to think you're a puppet account of Biophys, you guys seem to agree on everything and just happen to back each other up in every dispute. Krawndawg (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of conspiracy theories... - PietervHuis (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because it's not like people get blocked daily for doing that. Stop starting another edit war when it's clear there is no consensus. You not only restored the old version that biophys himself reverted, but you added even more bias and irrelevant information. Krawndawg (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Biophys and I have our disagreements, on top of that he's a Russian from the US and I live in Europe. Even more bias such as? If you're so keen on reaching a concensus then you should stop deleting entire pargraphs over and over again and simply mention your problems here - PietervHuis (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting paragraphs that have nothing to do with her assassination at all. Mock execution in chechnya? How is that related? Put that in her main article. And I really don't care where you say you're from, that doesn't prove a thing. Krawndawg (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

How is not related? It's not entirely normal to be mock executed is it? She was mock executed by government officials before her she was really executed. It's extremely relevant. It's been the third time now you've deleted entire paragraphs in 1 day - and many times before - if you do it again you can get blocked - PietervHuis (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought my proposal about removing two disputed segments was reasonable. But Krawndawg did not agree on that. Now we have even more disagreements. This is an article about assassination. The murderers and whoever odrered the murder were not found. Hence the section "Threats to her life" is very relevant.Biophys (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I kept that section. And what do you have against keeping the novaya gazeta article quote? It seems relevant to me. Krawndawg (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems that we have more or less consensus with Pietervhuis right now, and you fight against consensus.Biophys (talk) 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus between two biased, agenda pushing editors is not enough, sorry. I've compromised and left the claims litvinenko, berezovsky etc.. Krawndawg (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The only one biased and whose pushing an agenda is you, you remove information just because you don't like it. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You just completely undid all of my edits. Again. And you're asking me to cooperate? Is that a joke? Krawndawg (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, and you haven't been doing that lately? - PietervHuis (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't reverted any changes at all without an explanation. Krawndawg (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Almost all your arguments have come down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and you're extremely aggressive. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well this article is pretty much a joke now. Have fun with your agenda pushing, I don't have time for this any longer. Krawndawg (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is not really neutral. I will try to improve this.Biophys (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I eliminated the disputed section without loosing any important content.Biophys (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Krandawg tags can't stay forever, stop holding them or give your arguments on why you think this article isn't neutral. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Tags can stay forever actually. My absence of editing due to being frustrated by POV pushers who're revert happy has nothing to do with the neutrality of the article, and nothing has changed since. I am not going to engage in any more discussion with you because you show a clear disregard for the neutrality of this article and the respect for fellow editors. Not worth my time. Krawndawg (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The only one who seems to have a disrespect for fellow editors is you, since you disregard WP:AGF over and over again. I don't think I can you help you with being "frustrated", but you certainly can't uphold a tag while announcing that you won't work on improving the given article. Biophys made a lot of changes and contributed a lot to make this article more neutral and you haven't replied and/or worked on this article since. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

pic

I removed the infobox, maybe it's better to find an appropriate picture like anna in her death-bed or a memorial. Also wasn't there video footage of the murderer in the garage? - PietervHuis (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No, there was no this video footage. It would be great if you could find more pictures on the subject. See this image:

File:Anna politkovskaia paris.jpg

Posters with photo of journalist Anna Politkovskaya assassinated in Moscow in 2006. So far, her killers have not been found.

Biophys (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

killer

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2007/77/00.html This image of the security camera is what I meant earlier. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Case developments

It was reported that journalists will not be allowed to be present in the court room, allegedly on the request from jurors. In reply, 19 of 20 jurors signed a letter requesting the proceedings to be open and journalists be present, telling that they never asked the proceedings to be closed [9]. Some other details by Muratov [10] Biophys (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor Links FSB to Politkovskaya Death

A defendant and a key witness in the Anna Politkovskaya murder trial worked on behalf of the Federal Security Service, one of the slain reporter's editors testified in court Friday.

Sergei Sokolov, deputy editor of Novaya Gazeta, where Politkovskaya wrote critical reports about federal abuses in Chechnya, said the FSB was tailing the journalist before she was killed in October 2006.

"It has become known to me that Dzhabrail Makhmudov was an agent," he told the packed courtroom.

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1010/42/372957.htm Grey Fox (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two brothers, Dzhabrail Makhmudov and Rustam Makhmudov, both connected to FSB Colonel Ryaguzov (he was apparently their handler). Your older source tells mostly about Dzhabrail Makhmudov. It is alleged right now, that the person who pulled the trigger was Rustam Makmudov (Russian source that I cited). This all seems misleading because the same person (Sokolov) tells very similar things about every brother (connection to Ryaguzov). However, in fact he tells different things: Rustam was wanted since 1998, and so on. I could not find anywhere exactt published text of recent talk by Sokolov in the court.Biophys (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to question by Muscovite99: "Самое удивительное, что было на этой неделе – это показания Сергея Соколова, зама главного редактора "Новой газеты", который встал и сказал, что предполагаемый убийца Политковской Рустам Махмудов был объявлен в розыск еще в 1998 году, после этого ему изготовили фальшивый паспорт, и с этим фальшивым паспортом и со своим, видимо, куратором Павлом Рягузовым, подполковником ФСБ, он летал в Ростов на опознание какого-то там чеченца – чеченца задержали, надо было его опознать. Что тут началось! После того, как Соколов это сказал, Рягузов начал из своей клетки кричать: "Да вы понимаете, что вы говорите!". Потом встала адвокатша Рягузова, сказала, что если это было так, то это разглашение гостайны, и если Соколов услышал гостайну, то он первым делом должен был написать заявление на того, кто услышал гостайну. " [11].Biophys (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Indira Gandhi assassination which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 06:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Anna politkovskaia paris.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Anna politkovskaia paris.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Anna politkovskaia paris.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Working for her Uncle Sam?

"We are hurtling back into a Soviet abyss, into an information vacuum that spells death from our own ignorance. All we have left is the internet, where information is still freely available. For the rest, if you want to go on working as a journalist, it's total servility to Putin. Otherwise, it can be death, the bullet, poison, or trial—whatever our special services, Putin's guard dogs, see fit."

Back to the 1950s? Attempting to paint Putin as the most controlling and evil person in the world-seems right out of My Little Book of Color Revolts. Honestly, should such (sub)cold war nonsense have a place on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.107.5 (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

Shouldn`t the date of her death be in the first sentence like virtually every other biographical article in Wikipedia? I don`t edit articles because my edits are usually reverted but this is obvious. 24.196.172.209 (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Quotation from book by Volodarsky

A question has been raised on BLPNB if the quotation from the book by Volodarsky should be included [12]. This particular quotation tells "they" about FSB people. Yes, I think it should be included somewhere (not necessarily in intro) because this is something generally assumed by most sources about this case. In particular, Dmitry Pavliutchenkov, the person convicted for the crime, named FSB officer Pavel Ryaguzov as someone who run the operation. According to Novaya Gazeta (see here):

Pavlyuchenkov named: the Makhmudov brothers; Sergei Khadzhikurbanov, his former friend and ex-captain of RUBOP (Regional Directorate for Organized Crime Control (RDOCC)); and Pavel Ryaguzov, lieutenant colonel of FSB, who ran, according to Novaya's sources, one of the brothers, as well as their uncle — none other than Lom-Ali Gaitukayev again.

There are also many other sources telling about involvement of Pavel Ryaguzov. This claim is simply nothing special to my knowledge. In addition the same source tells: "Novaya Gazeta learned that in the summer of 2006, UFSB (Federal Security Service Administration (FSSA)) for Moscow and Moscow Region received a field operation request from the FSSA for Kabardino-Balkaria to do a full manhunt for Anna Politkovskaya". My very best wishes (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Checked a few more sources. Dmitry Pavliutchenkov was also a witness in the case of murder of Paul Klebnikov, had a very special (good) treatment in a hospital where he made most of his time [13], and he is going to be released [14]. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the claim should be rephrased, extended, and better sourced, but not like this. My very best wishes (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080206205726/http://www.interlocals.net:80/?q=node/450 to http://www.interlocals.net/?q=node/450

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061029220955/http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19098 to http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=19098
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930180758/http://www.svobodanews.ru/Transcript/2006/12/04/20061204200017950.html to http://www.svobodanews.ru/Transcript/2006/12/04/20061204200017950.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-10-10T144514Z_01_L10551150_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RUSSIA-JOURNALIST.xml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3894&article_id=2371554
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2372631
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090629101820/http://www.russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-04-07/Berezovsky_financed_terrorists_by_paying_ransoms___Chechen_prez.html to http://www.russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-04-07/Berezovsky_financed_terrorists_by_paying_ransoms___Chechen_prez.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528114840/http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=2132 to http://assembly.coe.int/ASP/Press/StopPressView.asp?ID=2132

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071031085346/http://www.echo.msk.ru:80/interview/44072/ to http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http://www.echo.msk.ru/interview/44072/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070426093038/http://eng.terror99.ru:80/publications/118.htm to http://www.eng.terror99.ru/publications/118.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.interlocals.net/?q=node%2F450
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.echo.msk.ru%2Finterview%2F44072%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930191934/http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3894&article_id=2371554 to http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3894&article_id=2371554
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0%2C1518%2C441835%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2006%2F10%2F11%2Fwputin11.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506084815/http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2006/10/10/2138_type82914type84779_112411.shtml to http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2006/10/10/2138_type82914type84779_112411.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eng.terror99.ru/publications/118.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409010448/http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/24/00.html to http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/24/00.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://russiatoday.ru/news/news/26366

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy/language

In the section titled "Suspected killer identified," Dmitry Dovgy (since jailed in 2009 for accepting bribes from an oligarch related to Politkovskaya's killing, which may be relevant) is cited as an official of the "Investigating Committee of the Persecution Office of Russia." Obviously, there is no "Persecution Office of Russia." The committee referred to was a special investigative committee of the office of the Prosecutor-General of Russia. Additionally, the citation for this claim links to the Russia Wiki article for this topic, which, while surely reliable, is not an appropriate source. Request alteration to remove bizarre statement of "Persecution Office" and addition of more reliable link. WhampoaSamovar (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Politkovskaya01.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

released?

I think I heard on the news some time ago that they had been 'paroled' from prison very early? True? False? Not my SME area so leaving it to the involved editors to update article if need be. If they are out it is no surprise - and I'm sure they've been compensated for their 'sacrifice.' 50.111.55.190 (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)