Talk:Anna Politkovskaya/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Deleted: "Her killing has served to further expose the nature and extent of corruption in Russia. " - any reference? Seems like a personal point of view

Personally I don't see a problem with it in terms of POV: the assassination of a high profile journalist who regularly criticised the government does "expose the nature and extent of corruption in Russia", especially when it's one of several assassinations in a country that has become well known for corruption in recent years. I think this is inherent rather than a matter of personal opinion so I vote to leave it in, but let's see what others think. -- Hux 15:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Its the sort of statment which is meaningfl when historians say it, but not so much when you say it here & now. How are news agencies treating it? Do they even mention the birthday bit? If so, yes, I'd say go with it. JeffBurdges 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about accusations of Anna Politkovskaya in dishonest reporting by the Russian state-controlled media. The text was an obvious distortion of the content of references [15] and [16]. I believe it is important to focus on facts rather than claims or accusations from either side. If she really lied about anything, please present the facts and justify them, although I do not think it is a mission of Wikipedia to decide on such matters. There was nothing about dishonest reporting or “unwilingness to check facts” in references [15] and [16]. --Biophys 03:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The number of demonstrators in Helsinki was actually about 3000 people. The current amount in the article right now, 1000 demonstrators, is based on the early estimations of Finnish public broadcasting company YLE and police. All media in Finnland uses nowadays the amount of 3000.

YLE left early, because they wanted to send some immediate reports about the demonstration to the Finnish main news. People went coming, and the total amount was 3000.

You can load the song from www.voima.fi. There you can also find the press release in Finnish, in English and in Russia. The makers are a group of young Finnish artists (not only musicians but also playwriters, poets and directors).

The single is going to be released next Friday.

I think there should be a main article for the assassination. I made a link for it. For example, all government reactions should be put there. For example, see

20:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea, as this main article is already 41 kilobytes long. The assassination section here should be shortened. JIP | Talk 07:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.html?docId=716117

It's in Russian, so here's translation:

Murderers of Politkovskaya May Be Hiding in Siberia

// Local police officers are under suspicion//

Former officers of Nizhnevartovsk's police could be involved in the murder of Novaya Gazeta's columnist Anna Politkovskaya. The journalist helped to put one of them in prison while two other officers were placed on the international wanted list and six more are still under suspicion.

The investigation team of the murder of Anna Politkovskaya went to Nizhnevartovsk, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Area in Siberia last week. They received information that two former police officers Major Alexander Prilepin and Lieutenant Colonel Valery Minin were seen in the city. The men are wanted internationally for crimes they committed in Chechnya.

The investigators, however, did not find the men in the city but they interrogated Prilepin and Minin's relatives and former colleagues.

Between 2002 and 2005, Anna Politkovskaya wrote several stories in Novaya Gazeta about the murder of Zelimkhan Murdalov, 30, from Grozny in January 2001. The journalist learnt that the Chechen was detained for no clear reason by police officers who went from Siberia to Chechnya. The men killed Murdalov, hid his body to cover up tracks. Politkovskaya was the first to name possible perpetrators of the crime – Senior Lieutenant Sergei Lapin from Nizhnevartovsk and his commanders, Major Prilepin and Colonel Lieutenant Minin. She wrote later that these officers and some other employees of the Interior Ministry were involved in the killing of Zelimkhan Murdalov and dozen of other Chechen civilians.

Sergey Lapin was sentenced to 11 years in prison last March. His accomplices are still on the wanted list.

"I cannot say that articles by Anna Politkovskaya influenced the trial and the subsequent verdict," Stanislav Markelov, lawyer of the relatives of the slain Chechen, says. "Still, the officers believed that she was the motor of the case, and they put the blame for all their problems on her."

Journalists from Novaya Gazeta recall that Anna Politkovskaya received letters, emails and phone calls with threats during preliminary investigation and even after the trial of Sergey Lapin.

Politkovskaya was shot dead on October 7, and officers from Nizhnevartovsk also came under suspicion. Lapin is not among them – he is currently serving his term in a prison in Nizhny Tagil. Moscow investigators, however, keep an eye on his relatives. They have already interrogated Lapin's father and sister.

It is no accident that the investigators questioned the officer's sister. The latest theory of Politkovskaya's murder has it that at least three people were involved in the killing, including a man and a young woman who were following the journalist. They appeared in footage of close circuit cameras at the Ramstore shop. The perpetrator of the crime is believed to be a tall ethnic Slavonic man who had sporty or army bearing, as witnesses say. Investigators have already drawn the portrait of the suspect. It has not been published, though, due to security reasons. The Prosecutor General's Office hopes that the man will be recognized by military men or police officers from Chechnya without publicity and will be caught soon.

--HanzoHattori 11:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The third paragraph under Assassination begins, "Prosecutor General Yury Chaika will personally oversee the investigation, his office announced on Sunday." Can someone clarify when this was? Was it the day after her death or sometime later? Thanks. 12.96.58.22 20:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC) {Kevin/Lastin posting without cookies}

A mysterious illness moves along the roads and makes frequent stops in schools by Anna Politkovskaya, Novaya Gazeta, 2006.

I did not found two other articles ("Lessons of ethiology" and "Schools are closed, hospitals are over flown" for 2006) in Novaya Gazeta. Biophys 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anna was at the Edinburgh Book Festival 14 August 2005, her talk is available to hear on the Book Festival web page: http://www.edbookfest.co.uk/readings/index.html--Eveningsong 02:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you show here the text from two references you cited, which would say that Politkovskaya was criticized "for her unwilingness to check facts before reporting them"? Biophys 15:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC) ^[1]. ^[2]

Do you mean this passage by Politkovskaya: "I will not go into the other joys of the path I have chosen, the poisoning, the arrests, the threats in letters and over the Internet, the telephoned death threats, the weekly summons to the prosecutor general's office to sign statements about practically every article I write (the first question being, "How and where did you obtain this information?"). Of course I don't like the constant derisive articles about me that appear in other newspapers and on Internet sites presenting me as the madwoman of Moscow. I find it disgusting to live this way. I would like a bit more understanding."? But this is not the accusations in "unwilingness to check facts before reporting them" (a serious offence for a journalist). What you are doing is misrepresentation of references, exactly as in article about Boris Stomakhin. If I did anything like that in my scientific papers, I would be blamed for scientific misconduct, which is a serious thing. Biophys 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

From your answer below, I can conclude that two references you cited before do not include anything about "her unwilingness to check facts before reporting them". But you reverted my changes several times and called me a vandal. Biophys 19:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"compromat.ru" is unreliable source for Wikipedia. As follows from the name of the source, it serves specifically for "compromat", that is "to discredit certain people". You can discredit anyone using such "sources", as you already did with Boris Stomakhin. I had a similar discussion about "compromat.ru" when your collegaues tried to discredit Sergei Kovalev. It has been decided that this source is indeed unreliable. Biophys 19:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC) For example, you suggest below that Politkovskaya took an oath as US citizen, based on the "source" kompromat.ru. But she did not take the oath; she was only born in US. Biophys 20:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromat.ru is just a place where all the data is compiled. No one person has ever sued Compromat.ru for what you call as discreditation. I may call as discreditation any claim of NGO about trial of racist and fascist Boris Stomakhin. You may keep your personal opinion, but if you cite POV in Politkovskaya article, you should give a place fro all POV accordingly, so as not to distort the real image of POlitkovskaya. You even don't know simple facts about Politkovskaya, such as she was a US citizen. You may read a statement of Department of State of the United States of America on her death in order to learn this simple fact that she has dual citizenship.Vlad fedorov 06:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I will translate it and will include in the article "Critics accused her of being partisan in her damning reports on the cruelty of Russian federal forces, but Politkovskaya did not hold back on criticism of the Chechen rebels' brutal tactics either. Her speciality, however, was exposing the horror, corruption and chaos wrought on civilian victims of the first war in Chechnya from 1994 to 1996 and the one that followed from 1999 onwards".http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1890481,00.html

I will not go into the other joys of the path I have chosen, the poisoning, the arrests, the threats in letters and over the Internet, the telephoned death threats, the weekly summons to the prosecutor general's office to sign statements about practically every article I write (the first question being, "How and where did you obtain this information?"). Of course I don't like the constant derisive articles about me that appear in other newspapers and on Internet sites presenting me as the madwoman of Moscow. I find it disgusting to live this way. I would like a bit more understanding.

And here is additionally http://compromat.ru/main/prismi/politkovskayaoderzh.htm К сожалению, статьи Политковской изобиловали непроверенными и непроверяемыми данными. Это мой опыт, как человека, пытавшегося несколько раз пойти по следам ее публикаций. Это нормальная журналистская практика: кто-то упоминает о каком-то событии или явлении в своей статье, кто-то из коллег подхватывает эту линию и развивает ее дальше. Вот со статьями Политковской часто выяснялось, что на самом деле она этого не видела, а ей только рассказали об этом — и тому подобное… Все, кто работал в Чечне, слышали об этих самых ямах, в которых якобы федералы держали задержанных чеченцев. у меня у самой было несколько очень подробных интервью с молодыми мужчинами, которые рассказывали, что их в таких ямах держали. Я этим ребятам верила и верю. Но сама я таких ям никогда не видела, и никто из «нейтральных» людей — то есть журналистов, правозащитников — их не видел (во всяком случае, по состоянию на три-четыре года назад — может, с тех пор кто и видел). То есть все о них сообщали со слов жертв. А Политковская написала, что видела. Потом оказалось — неправда. И так довольно часто: друзья-правозащитники жаловались, что не могут подтвердить данные, опубликованные Политковской». Другие коллеги-журналисты, даже близкие к Политковской и считавшие её деятельность полезной, говорили и говорят — стеснительно или прямо — то же самое. С фактами у Политковской всегда был швах. Постоянно получалось так, что журналистка регулярно путала ситуации «я видела своими глазами» и «мне говорил один чеченец с честными глазами». И совершенно спокойно писала «я сама видела» — когда речь шла о «рассказали».

Существование самих рассказчиков, впрочем, тоже вызывало сомнения. Например, Анна Степановна публиковала статью с «исповедями российских солдат, воюющих в Чечне». Исповеди она, по её же словам, принимала из солдатского сортира: то есть она сидела в этом сооружении, а с внешней стороны к этому сооружению подходили какие-то люди, называющие себя солдатами срочной службы, и через щели в досках «говорили правду». Думаю, всем понятно, чего стоят такие информаторы — даже если они на самом деле существовали. Впрочем, воевавшие в Чечне люди писали по этому поводу на Интернет-форумах: «все сортирные откровения — бред».

Пиком профессиональной востребованности Политковской стал «Норд-Ост». Террористы, захватившие заложников, изъявили желание видеть Политковскую среди людей, с которыми они могли бы вести переговоры. Честь сомнительная, но Политковская так не считала: возможность выступить в роли транслятора требований бандитов вдохновляла её. Это было бы сильнее любой благотворительности – стать ангелом-хранителем несчастных заложников и рупором «свободной Ичкерии».

Справедливо ли это? Увы, да. Политковская всю жизнь тусовалась среди людей определённого типа и сама была их частью. Она делала пиар на трупах – отдавая себе отчёт в том, что делает, и считая это нормальным. Теперь для того же самого дела понадобился её труп. Что ж, те же люди, которые платили ей деньги, проплатили два выстрела, контрольный в голову.

Here is more interesting information about financing of Politkovskaya http://compromat.ru/main/novayagazeta/a.htm

Как передает "Интерфакс" (цитируем без изъятий), региональный оперативный штаб по проведению антитеррористической операции распространил в среду заявление, в котором утверждается, что "Новая газета" и ее корреспондент Анна Политковская стремятся использовать поездки журналистки в Чечню "для разрешения своих финансовых проблем и разногласий с некоторыми фондами".

И.Шабалкин говорит, что в 2000 году Фонд Сороса (Институт "Открытое общество") подписал с руководством "Новой газеты" соглашение о проекте "Горячие точки" на сумму $55 тыс.

Газета в декабре 2000 года в соответствии с этим проектом получила первый транш примерно в $14 тыс., за который необходимо было представить промежуточный отчет в июле 2001 года и окончательный отчет к концу 2001 года.

По его данным, это не было сделано. И.Шабалкин отметил, что Фонд Сороса письменно поставил "Новую газету" в известность о намерении прекратить финансирование и предложить это другим организациям и фондам в связи с невыполнением газетой своих обязательств.

И.Шабалкин считает, что попытки А.Политковской вызвать вокруг своего имени в Чечне скандалы связаны именно с желанием заставить фонд списать указанную сумму.

И.Шабалкин напомнил, что 9 февраля А.Политковская прибыла в Чечню, не имея аккредитации, нарушив инструкцию о порядке пребывания работников СМИ в зоне проведения антитеррористической операции. Она направилась в Шатойский район без охраны, а предложения местной военной комендатуры переночевать на ее территории, а утром в сопровождении охраны выехать за пределы района попыталась преподнести как ее задержание.

Here is about taking of Award by Politkoskaya and not paying taxes

http://compromat.ru/main/prismi/politkovskaya.htm

История получения одной из премий весьма красноречиво описана устами персонажей скандальной книги Андрея Мальгина «Советник президента»:

«-- ...Она приехала в Берлин, чтобы получить премию Вальтера Гамнюса. За гражданское мужество якобы. Вы к тому времени из Германии уже умотали в Москву. А я еще там поболталась немного, и вот стала свидетелем такого скандала. Короче, приезжает Поллитровская, ей с помпой вручают 30 тысяч евро...

-- Нехило, - искренне позавидовала Валентина.

-- Чем менее известна премия – тем она больше по размеру. Это закон, запомни. Но ты слушай – дальше самое интересное. Между Германией и Россией соглашение

об отсутствии двойного налогообложения. И аккуратисты-немцы у нее спрашивают: где желаете платить налоги. «А где меньше?» - естественно интересуется Поллитровская. Ей отвечают: «Сколько у вас, в России, не знаем, но у нас 40 процентов!» Ну то есть полная обдираловка. И посоветовали вообще-то платить в России. «Ну, в России так в России», - согласилась хитрожопая Поллитровская. Разумеется, в России она никому сообщать о полученных деньгах не собиралась.

«Очень хорошо, сказали немцы, так и запишем. А теперь не соизволите ли вы сообщить свой ИНН?» - «А зачем вам ИНН?» - «А это чтобы поставить в известность ваши налоговые органы», - спокойно так ей отвечает какой-токлерк из гамнюсовского комитета. Что тут началось! Как она орала! Что потом несла на пресс-конференции!

-- Ну что она могла нести?

-- Валь, я сама не слышала, знаю в пересказе. Но типа орала, что получила премию от общественного немецкого фонда за то, что в поте лица борется с тоталитаризмом в России, а немецкие бюрократы фактически львиную долю премии прямым ходом отправляют российскому тоталитарному государству, и там на эти деньги, собранные честнейшими немцами, русское правительство будет строить тюрьмы для диссидентов..И все в таком духе...Помнишь, как она в самолете блеванула, и из этого целое дело выросло – что ее спецслужбы специально отравили, чтоб она до Кавказа не долетела.»

«Валентина стала считать в уме: 1.000 (пулитцеровская) + 30.00 евро (какой-то Гамнюс) + 20.000 долларов (ОБСЕ) + 5.000 долларов (премия сахарова). Итого: 26 долларов и 30.000 евро!

За что?!

Разумеется, Валентина сразу же набрала номер Анны Бербер....

- Так вот, дорогая моя Валентина, через минуту я тебе зачту полный список всех ее премий... 12.000 фунтов стерлингов.... Премия в 50 тысяч евро... премия «свободы прессы» размером 7.600 евро...»

- Ладно, Ань, хватит. Я просто в шоке.

- Да брось ты. Девушка сделала себе имя. И теперь стрижет купоны. Есть только одно неудобство во всем этом: она теперь вынужднеа без конца изображать, как ее преследуют. Без этого ей теперь никуда. И уж, разумеется, ни на шаг не отступать от своей позиции. А позицию ты знаешь.

- Ну да. Типа долой агрессоров из Чечни.»

Hostage from Nord-Ost talking about Politkovskaya http://compromat.ru/main/prismi/politkovskayanordost.htm

Here is oath given by the citizen of the USA - Politkovskaya http://compromat.ru/main/prismi/politkovskayagrazhd.htm

"Я буду нести истинную веру и верность Соединенным Штатам Америки" Оригинал этого материала © Help Immigration, 13.03.2006

[...] Первый текст присяги (клятвы) был составлен еще в 18 веке, и в связи сэтим в нем сохранены архаичные слова типа «иностранный принц», «властелин», которые уже давно не употребляются в американскеой разговорной речи: «Я настоящим клятвенно заявляю, что я всецело и полностью отказываюсь от верности любому иностранному принцу, властелину, государству или суверенитету, чьим гражданином или подданым до этого был; я буду поддерживать и защищать Конституцию и законы Соединенных Штатов Америки против всех врагов - внешних или внутренних; я буду нести истинную веру и верность Соединенным Штатам Америки, я буду служить в армии Соединенных Штатов Америки, когда закон потребует этого; я буду нести нестроевую службу в вооруженных силах Соединенных Штатов Америки, когда закон потребует этого, я буду выполнять работу государственного значения под гражданским руководством, когда закон потребует этого, я принимаю эти обязательства свободно без каких - либо умственных оговорок и не с целью уклонения; да поможет мне Б - г». Vlad fedorov 18:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I put a reference to Arutyunyan from The Moscow News as a source that AP was criticized over fact checking. Still most of the above data picked by Vlad are an obvious crap. A notorious internet personality, Konstantin Krylov calling AP's reputation dubious is a typical case of the Pot calling Kettle Goebbels. $14K is hardly enough to send any journalist for a week-long trip to Chechnya, you are not expected to make miracles for this money, pages from a yellow-press about a fictious heroine named Pollitrovskaya are hardly a reliable source about the real life figure, etc., etc. Still do not see any point in denying she was strongly criticised Alex Bakharev 08:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is O'K to say that she was criticised. But to be fair, we then have to present her reply to such criticism in the most objective manner, that is using her citation from the corresponding article. Current version does not properly reflect her reply. In addition, the article by Arutunyan was published after the murder, not during "last years of her life". So, a different reference might be required. But if to remove "last years" as I did, your reference can be just fine, except that Arutunyan was strongly criticized for this article (interview with Albats). Biophys 20:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I copy and paste this text from the source, page 3 (an article written by Anna Politkovskaya): "I will not go into the other joys of the path I have chosen, the poisoning, the arrests, the threats in letters and over the Internet, the telephoned death threats, the weekly summons to the prosecutor general's office to sign statements about practically every article I write (the first question being, "How and where did you obtain this information?"). Of course I don't like the constant derisive articles about me that appear in other newspapers and on Internet sites presenting me as the madwoman of Moscow. I find it disgusting to live this way. I would like a bit more understanding." I never distort citation of the sources. Biophys 16:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The assassination section here should be shortened – again – because there is a sub-article,

.

IMO, the main article should contain only the first several paragraphs about the assassination but not the subsections (government reactions etc). See

-Majestic-

13:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Much of the information in the "Assassination" section here is a direct copy of information that already exists in the other article. All this article needs is a link to that article and a few short paragraphs describing the assassination. -- Hux 07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraphs referring to Arutunyan's article are not always decorated with quotation marks. This might be regarded as copyright violation. I've reported the copyright violation to

.

How could I add quotations marks if article is protected?Vlad fedorov 08:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost every statement of the Arutunyan's article can be argued.

And you are going to publish your original research on this? Right? Well done. Go ahead.Vlad fedorov 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if giving that many quotations from the critical article has a due weight in the Wikipedia biography of Politkovskaya.

If you are not sure, don't try (Russian proverb).Vlad fedorov 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

With regards to the earlier dispute on this talk page about the reliability of the "compromat" vs. reliability of non-governmental organizations, should the targets of both be considered? The "compromat" information discredits (or criticizes, depending on your camp) a murdered pro-human rights journalist and activist (whom critics suspect in anti-government subversion), while the Russian non-governmental organizations along with Western figures and organizations are criticizing the Russian government bodies and the president, suspecting them in letting such murders occur (subverting the Russian government, according to the other camp). Mind that Politkovskaya did not have official power to persecute the brutality of Russian government bodies while the objects of her criticism did. Therefore, letting the pro-government non-academic sources in this biography should be weighed according to the scale of the criticized targets.

Arutunyan is not Compromat sources, as well as general Troshev.Vlad fedorov 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It must be noted that authors such as Arutunyan often repeat accusations one can hear from the Russian government figures. This might be a disservice to Arutunyan because the murder itself seems to be part of someone else's argument. ilgiz 18:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia obliged to service Politkovskaya?Vlad fedorov 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The after-murder accusations brought by Arutunyan against Politkovskaya take one third of the "Career" section. In my opinion, this is inappropriate. Arutunyan claims Politkovskaya "admitted that she had never actually seen the pits herself", while both pro-government and human right news services cited Politkovskaya's answering negatively only to the question whether she saw people in the pits.[1][2][3]

Words of Arutunyan were confirmed by General Troshev who commanded the army in Chechnya - see below with references.Vlad fedorov 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to what Arutunyan wrote about the Khodorkovsky article, Politkovskaya published not the "allegations" but rather her worries about the strange letter she received. Politkovskaya added that she understood the letter could be a piece of disinformation. [4] ilgiz 11:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Another source about Politkovskaya lying in her articles: General Troshev

Трошев Г.Н. Моя война. Чеченский дневник окопного генерала

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/troshev/04.html

На такие нерадостные мысли меня навела нашумевшая история с корреспондентом "Новой газеты" А. Политковской, которая в августе 2000 года сопровождала гуманитарный груз для дома престарелых в Грозном. Военные, как и положено, сформировали колонну, выделили усиленную охрану (любое продвижение людей по городу небезопасно). Но журналистка, похоже, об этом не думала. По пути то и дело требовала непредусмотренных остановок для решения каких-то своих проблем. В очередной раз остановив колонну, приказала военным ждать и растворилась в одном из городских кварталов. Почти час солдаты и офицеры торчали на улице в качестве отличной мишени для боевиков. Командир весь извелся: всего одной гранаты в борт БТР или снайперской пули из окна хватило бы для трагедии. Именно это и высказал он вернувшейся журналистке, которая тут же выплеснула на военных ушат оскорблений. Позже в газете появилась ее статья, где она повторила обвинения военным во всех тяжких грехах: мол, и трусы они, и бездельники.

Через полгода новая скандальная история с той же журналисткой. Теперь Политковская обнаружила какие-то ямы, где якобы "федералы" держат пленных из числа мирных жителей. Понаехали комиссии, проверили все до последней телеги, но ничего не обнаружили. Приведенные в публикации факты не подтвердились. Политковская настолько, видимо, ненавидит армию, что в День защитников Отечества в телепрограмме "Глас народа" дошла до прямых оскорблений в адрес солдат и офицеров, воюющих в Чечне. Как же отреагировали на это, мягко скажем, недостойное поведение журналистки в Министерстве обороны? А никак. Не захотели связываться. Могу ошибиться, но не припомню случая (кроме разве что иска П. Грачева к "Московскому комсомольцу"), чтобы военные подавали в суд за откровенную клевету или оскорбления со стороны некоторых СМИ.

Vlad fedorov 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vlad Federov: Two things - first, Wikipedia talk pages are not the same as Internet-based forums. Please could you post your comments as a single block rather than inserting them line by line into other people's postings? The latter makes the conversation difficult to read and also disrupts the original poster's comments, which is not reasonable. Second, please try to remain civil - your comment, "If you are not sure, don't try (Russian proverb)", is needlessly combative. (And FYI, since English is not your first language, "I'm not sure..." in that context means, "I don't think...", so your proverbial advice doesn't apply anyway.) Thanks. -- Hux 05:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

User Hux, do you know the meaning of that Russian proverb? Second, "I am not sure" = "I don't know". Could you have a look at least to the Oxford Dictionary?

• adjective 1 completely confident that one is right. 
2 (sure of/to do) certain to receive, get, or do. 
3 undoubtedly true; completely reliable. 
4 steady and confident. 

If you don't know Wikipedia policies, why do you try to enforce them?Vlad fedorov 05:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of your last comment there - my previous post was not intending to enforce any particular Wikipedia policy. It was simply a request for you to be more civil and to add your comments in a way that does not disrupt other editors' comments. Further, given that I'm a native English speaker and you are not, I was attempting to help you by pointing out that your interpretation of the meaning of, "I'm not sure..." is wrong. Once again, in that context it means, "I don't think...", i.e. it's a polite way of saying, "I think you're wrong". I presumed that, like me, you would want to know when you're using a non-native language incorrectly. Instead you seemed to have simply transferred your belligerence from Ilgiz to me. This is disheartening. -- Hux 06:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ilgiz. Vlad inserted the following segment:

"According to journalist Anna Arutunyan, 'During a reporting trip in 2001, Politkovskaya was detained by military officials in the Chechen village of Hotuni. When she was released, she wrote that she had uncovered pits dug out in the ground where military officials would allegedly keep Chechen hostages for ransom, directly accusing General Baranov, then commander of the Chechen federal troops, of these crimes. The publication was followed by a criminal investigation based on the allegations, but a delegation of official human rights envoys was unable to find any such pits. At a later press conference in Moscow, Politikovskaya admitted that she had never actually seen the pits herself, but that witnesses related seeing them to her. In another account she had said the ransoms was $150, while in another - $500'.^[1]

Another telling example was Politkovskaya's recent allegations that special forces were preparing an "escape" for jailed oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, in the course of which he was to be killed. Her source was a retired KGB officer who had served time in the camps. While the article was published in Novaya Gazeta this spring, these allegations went nowhere.^[1]

Hence, Politkovskaya was primarily viewed as an activist rather than reporter. When terrorists held an auditorium hostage during the Nov. 2002 production of Nord-Ost, she spoke to the hostage takers and made their demands public. In Sept. 2004, terrorist in the Beslan school siege had also demanded her presence.^[1]

Against this backdrop, it would seem that despite a brave and sincere commitment to unraveling corruption and atrocities wherever possible, Politkovskaya's priorities as a journalist focused more on accusing and less on reporting.^[1]"

All these segments criticize Anna Politkovskaya (to say the least). These accusation have only one source: Anna Arutynan who has no good credentials, experience, or journalist reputation. Moreover, Yevgenia Albats hinted that Anna Arutynanyan made this up on the order from the "above" (which seems to be very likely after reading the entire Russian text of the interview at Echo of Moscow - see [5]. Moreover, Anna Arutynan made later a number of defamatory claims about Yevgenia Albats, which have not been confirmed from any independent sources. Therefore, I suggest to remove these segments if and when the article will be unlocked. Biophys 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Another source about Politkovskaya lying in her articles: General Troshev

Трошев Г.Н. Моя война. Чеченский дневник окопного генерала http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/troshev/04.html На такие нерадостные мысли меня навела нашумевшая история с корреспондентом "Новой газеты" А. Политковской, которая в августе 2000 года сопровождала гуманитарный груз для дома престарелых в Грозном. Военные, как и положено, сформировали колонну, выделили усиленную охрану (любое продвижение людей по городу небезопасно). Но журналистка, похоже, об этом не думала. По пути то и дело требовала непредусмотренных остановок для решения каких-то своих проблем. В очередной раз остановив колонну, приказала военным ждать и растворилась в одном из городских кварталов. Почти час солдаты и офицеры торчали на улице в качестве отличной мишени для боевиков. Командир весь извелся: всего одной гранаты в борт БТР или снайперской пули из окна хватило бы для трагедии. Именно это и высказал он вернувшейся журналистке, которая тут же выплеснула на военных ушат оскорблений. Позже в газете появилась ее статья, где она повторила обвинения военным во всех тяжких грехах: мол, и трусы они, и бездельники. Через полгода новая скандальная история с той же журналисткой. Теперь Политковская обнаружила какие-то ямы, где якобы "федералы" держат пленных из числа мирных жителей. Понаехали комиссии, проверили все до последней телеги, но ничего не обнаружили. Приведенные в публикации факты не подтвердились. Политковская настолько, видимо, ненавидит армию, что в День защитников Отечества в телепрограмме "Глас народа" дошла до прямых оскорблений в адрес солдат и офицеров, воюющих в Чечне. Как же отреагировали на это, мягко скажем, недостойное поведение журналистки в Министерстве обороны? А никак. Не захотели связываться. Могу ошибиться, но не припомню случая (кроме разве что иска П. Грачева к "Московскому комсомольцу"), чтобы военные подавали в суд за откровенную клевету или оскорбления со стороны некоторых СМИ.

As for the holding pits, geez, there are numerous photographs of these, even with the soldiers posing. Not really a huge secret. These pits have name, which I don't remember now (something like "zidan"). One of the things Yuri Budanov was accused of was beating up his own subordinate officer and keeping him in a pit. --HanzoHattori 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please, show links to them if this is not a secret. You must show links to pits used by Russians. I know many links to the videos of tourtures performed by Chechens, but have seen no one pointing to Russian videos.Vlad fedorov 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, I agree of course. The problem is that certain editor deletes a lot of things supported by reliable sources. You could trace my or his edits to see. If you could help me out by editing yourself some of the articles in question, such as active measures or anything else, that would be great. I am not so familiar with Russian politics, really.Biophys 02:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are not competent in Russian politics, then why you edit Russian politics articles in Wikipedia?Vlad fedorov 03:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, he said "familiar", not competent. Secondly, if his lack of familiarity with Russian politics means that he shouldn't be editing articles to do with Russian politics then one could easily argue that your demonstrated lack of familiarity with the English language means you shouldn't be editing articles on the English Wikipedia. -- Hux 05:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I only wanted to tell that HanzoHattori knows history much better than me, and that he is a better editor. I am only a biophysicist, not a historian or a political scientist. So, I only repeat what the sources say, but someone deletes these texts. Biophys 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In the further reading section, should there be some mention of her latest book A Russian Diary [6] released on 20 March 2007? Sadako No Deshi 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we should mention this book. Perhaps we should make a separate article Russian Diary if this article will remain locked for editing.Biophys 02:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just found this: "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."m -- Anna Politkovskaya, "Poisoned by Putin," The Guardian, September 9, 2004. Should be included in this article.Biophys 04:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Taken from [7]:

This letter has been received by the IPV News GULAG Project Editorial Office via E-mail on March 23, 2007. Taking into account the importance of the information, we found it necessary to provide its English translation with the maximum details retained.

We, the members of the Baysarov’s group, address this to all the Chechens.

Movladi was a bandit covered by the Military Intelligence of the 58th Army Corps. Since 1995 his activities in town of Dolinskoy included kidnapping people for ransom and stealing petrochemicals. Before the Second Chechen War he grew rich by allying himself with the military of the 58th Army engaged in illegal oil trade in the Russian territory. During the War, he was getting his dirty money from kidnapping and corpse trading, reinvesting the incom back into war. After Khasavyurt Treaty , Chechnya missed its chance to keep the granted freedom only due to the Regional Operations Staff (ROS) in the North Caucasus and its network. In fact, Baysarov came in contact with the Military Intelligence of the 58th Army as early as during the First Chechen War.

From 1996 through 1997 Baysarov conducted illegal oil trade under the covering of the Counter-espionage Center of the 58th Army, in exchange for running their errands. He formed his first gang and provided them with ammunition from the Mozdok military base. M. Baysarov took control over illegal oil trade and kept it that way until the end of the last year. A portion of crude oil went to Stavropol, Krasnodar, and Rostov-on-Don regions.

The other portion [of crude oil mined] was refined right in the place, in Pobedinskoye, by means of the miniature refineries, to produce gasoline for “internal market”. The numbers amount to hundreds of tons of oil produce, and the reason why Baysarov did not become a billionaire is that the illegal, criminal business requires very high expenses, such as bribery of the military “cover” providing through transportation of the oil cisterns out of Chechnya. The Chechen War is commonly called “commercial”, meaning that corrupt local officials, military, politicians, and other involved do have an income out of it. The gist of the Second Chechen Campaign is to make the Chechens fight among themselves. Thus, Gantamirov [a pro-Moscow Chechen warlord who was at one time imprisoned on embezzlement charges – transl. remark], this convicted thief, was sent straight into battle from Butyrskaya Prison. Yamadaev, a bandit, was made a Russian lieutenant-colonel. Baysarov, however, received a lower military rank of major, but he was also offered a special position in Counter-Espionage Department of the 58th Army.

Movladi came to GRU with his own people. In 2002, this gang was officially renamed into “a group”, but the true value of this formation was in actually remaining a gang. A military intelligence definition for it is “a combat group which has a cover identity (legend) of a gang”. I.e. on one hand, you work for GRU, and on the other you have to be known as a legendary bandit. The criminal oil business allowed maintaining the legend and financing of Baysarov’s men. Movladi was stealing oil to have a wealthy lifestyle and sustain an armed gang… The Russians knew that, and provided covering for Baysarov’s [illegal] business. Commercial interests firmly entangled with those of the military, and it wasn’t possible to resolve this intricate matter in a combat field. As the matter of fact, Movladi hardly distinguished himself between a bandit and an intelligence officer. His infamous reputation of a bold commander of the “Hundred of Chechens” along with the connections in FSB-GRU, began to bring him noticeable profits, even in Moscow. Being acquainted with Baisarov, one was guaranteed a successful business; besides, Movladi himself didn’t necessarily have to settle any business related disputes by force.

Since the early days of the Second [Chechen] war, Movlady’s brother, named Sharani, was put on an intelligence mission as the Chief Body Guard of Akhmad-Khadzhi Kadyrov, so the Military Intelligence gained an information source on the activity of the [pro-Kremlin] head of Chechnya. He was permanently under observation of the Military Intelligence the 58th Army. After the assassination of Akhmad Kadyrov (May 9, 2005), Sharani was deposed because [Ramzan] Kadyrov [the son of Akhmad Kadyrov – transl. remark] became suspicious, stirred up by his buddies from the FSB of Russia. When Sharani Baysarov died in car explosion, the rumors spread that Ramzan Kadyrov took vengeance for the killing of his father. Soon enough, tension broke between Ramzan Kadyrov and Movladi Baysarov. One time, Kadyrov invited three subordinates of Baysarov and offered them to travel to Moscow for a certain mission. In Moscow, all three of them had a visit with FSB colonel Igor Dranetz. During a week they lived in some apartment; Igor Dranetz provided them with food but kept them locked up. He also showed them the scheme of the house and the entrance where Anna Politkovskaya was supposed to appear from.

On the day of Politkovskaya murder, early in the morning, they were brought to the place in three cars. Dranetz said through a radio-set: "this one!" One of the three men shot Politkovskaya dead. All three returned home and went to Ramzan Kadyrov to make a report. After talking to them, Ramzan Kadyrov ordered his personal guards to take them back. On the way, near Khosi-Yurt, the guards drove into the forest and shot all three of the assassins. Movladi Baysarov had no idea where his men had been sent; he found out the truth only after they returned from Moscow. After they never came back from Kadyrov’s, the relatives of these three missing guys came to Baysarov complaining. On the second day the burned bodies of the three men were found and identified. Movladi Baysarov went to see Ramsan Kadyrov and they had a fight. Kadyrov denied sending anybody from Baysarov’s “group” anywhere. He denied even contacting with them. Then Baysarov rebuked Kadyrov reminding him about his brother Zelimhan whom he helped to get out of prison when Zelimhan was arrested on drug charge in Pyatigorsk.

“For your father’s sake I took the local FSB head of Naursky region and his deputy hostage and lost several men in a conflict with Kakiyev!” claimed Baysarov. When Kadyrov heard of his brother (who was a drug addict), he punched Baysarov into face. In response, Movladi swore that Kadyrov would never get away with killing his brother Sharani.

After this scandal Movladi Baysarov switched sides. Now he sided with Alu Alkhanov, even though his “blood-enemy”, S.-M. Kakiyev, worked for him. Taking advantage of his authority in Chechnya, Ramsan Kadyrov disbanded Baysarov’s gang and put him on the “wanted criminals” list. Baysarov’s “Hundred men” eventually surrendered to Kadyrov’s authority, yet, only after being ordered so by their commander, who was living in Moscow at that time

Movladi was devilishly shrewd in manipulating his people. By the end of his life, he still had a gang, consisted of those whom he relied on. Some of them had remained with him since the 1998 “call for arms”. The others were “the newly drafted”, mainly opponents of Kadyrov’s regime in Chechnya. While in Moscow, Baysarov made numerous visits to high offices of FSB, GRU, MVD of Russia, but all in vain. Everybody reminded him taking an FSB colonel, named Ushakov, and his deputy hostage. GRU refused to protect its former agent, throwing him out like a used rag. Being aware of that, Kadyrov dispatched his most loyal men to Moscow to eliminate Baysarov. Not only did he seek to kill his enemy, but also to confiscate his personal property. The only Baysarov’s property remained is an apartment in Taganski District of Moscow officially owned by his older brother. Movladi, being an officer and a gangster at the same time, did not have any legal possessions: he would have difficulty legitimizing his assets. Also the names of his trusted men were well known to his enemies.

One of Baysarov’s financial aides was fired by him for being professionally unfit (actually, for the lack of toughness). Baysarov’s enemies immediately took advantage of the fired aide. They found out from him where Barayev’s estates were, and took everything. The Chechen customs forbid confiscation from the dead. Those who killed their enemies would secretly sustain the orphans they made. However, this custom of the Highlander’s nobility was not observed by Kadyrov’s gang. Baysarov knew far too much; he was as dangerous to Kadyrov as he was to FSB and GRU. It is why he was killed. After murdering Baysarov, Kadyrov had rid of the puppet Alkhanov. At present time the remainder of Baysarov’s gang is eliminated. We, the members of Baysarov’s gang forced to leave Chechnya because of Kadyrov’s hostility, are addressing to all deceived and taken advantage of: draw conclusions from the story.

Timur from Kirov Aslambeck from Lenin Sovkhoz Imran Kurkayev (nick-named “Ipan”) from Samashki Adam (nick-named “Dentist”) from Samashki Roman Karnukayev from Somashki

Biophys 20:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Movladi Baisarov article is here, if you want to add something of this above. --HanzoHattori 16:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)