Talk:Anna Politkovskaya/Archive 1

Putin welcomed as the murder of Politkovskaya in Germany
2000 demonstrators shouted angrily "Murder, murder!" at Putin when he arrived in Dresden.

Some were holding a sign: "Murder, you are no longer welcome." Millions of Germans are outraged because of the murder of this brave woman.


 * http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,441835,00.html

Putin
Everybody knows it: Putin is a dictator and a mass murder who is committing terrible crimes. I would be very happy if Putin would be killed, because Putin's Russia (a fascist country), has become the worst threat - besides China and the militant Islam - for the free world today. This is just self-defense, not murder. And those who defend his actions (such as the user abakharev) are no better than those who justify any other crimes against humanity and should severely be punished, if not by the state or the international community, then by any resistance fighter who could do it. - A Voice from Free Europe.


 * You forgot to mention Bush and Blair! Or are they setting the world free? 201.19.130.147 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just ignore the russophobe.Ko Soi IX 14:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

release date
i changed the release year of "A Dirty War: A Russian reporter in Chechnya" from 1999 to 2003, source: the book --Dox 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Assassination
is it possible that someone close to the government was so stupid to kill her, right now that previous attempt failed and were denounced, thus risking international isolation and despise? or is it a foreign attempt to discredit Putin's rule and mount another "orange revolution" against him? -- You can take a part in these discussions all over the runet, there's no point trying to talk about that in wikipedia. --GolerGkA 21:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And as for whether its is possible... yes, but unlikely because Russia is trying to join the WTO. And if you think someone who don't want Russia to join the WTO killed her, you are a conspiracy theorist. Anyways this is not the place to talke about this. Pseudoanonymous 01:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, conspiracy theory or not, you deigned to comment on it yourself. She riled enough people in the country that anti-WTO parties with grudges themselves would just be in with the rest of the wash of complaints against her.
 * Anyways should we change the title from Death to Assassination or not? Even though it is very likely a hit, Wikipedia does not like to engage in speculation. Therefore if we changed the title to Assassination, then we leave out the possiblity of somekind of bizarre suicide or just random street crime/violence, which would be POV. But still...very likely Assassination. Pseudoanonymous 22:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Murder or homicide would be appropriate given she was shot twice (not a suicide), assassination would be a very loaded and POV term to use. --Neil916 (Talk) 05:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Assassination" is only a loaded term if there's any significant doubt as to the manner of death. When a person is shot three times to the body and once to the head, and the gun is left at the scene of the crime, I don't think there's really any doubt that "assassination" is the most accurate term to use. This murder had "contract hit" written all over it. -- Hux 19:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know an 'Assassination' is when someone is killed for political reason. While I have no doubt that she was killed due to her journalistic work, I don't think it has been proven without doubt. It would then probably be safer to change 'Assassination' to 'Murder' as that is the correct legal term. Kytok 07:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Economist
I am the author of the Economist website obituary of Anna cited in the article. If anyone has personal recollections or other material that they wish to share with me, please email me at edwardlucas (at) economist.com as soon as possible as I will be writing a more definitive version for this week's printed edition, deadline Tuesday. thanks Edwardlucas 20:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Portrayal of Chechen Resistance Leaders
The unsourced claim at the end of the Career section that Politkovskaya wrote "flattering" articles about Chechen Rebel/Terrorist leaders, including those responsible for Beslan, seems dubious. Maybe a deliberate attempt to discredit? Although I can't claim to have read these interviews, which I assume are likely to only be available in Russian language, I have read an article on the Observer (Sunday version of the Guardian) website which would directly contradict this. Tom Parfitt writes "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." http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1890481,00.html So I propose to change the article to suit and cite the above as a source.Harveyspeed 20:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Before I changed it, it was even more blatantly POV. Dsol 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * She was actually once threatened by Basayev. --HanzoHattori 11:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Black ribbon
Why must there not be a black ribbon in this article? As soon as a black ribbon turns up, it is promtly removed. Camptown 21:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is being seen by a number of editors, myself included, as both unnecessary and POV. Anna Politkovskaya was made of meat, and meat doesn't deserve a ribbon. --Adamrush 22:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So, what is exactly POV about it? -- tasc wordsdeeds 23:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Read the black ribbon article. It is used as a political statement. We will not clarify which statement is or not. What matters is that we try to write NPOV, referenced articles with as many true facts as possible. The black ribbon does not meet this purpose; it only succeeds to connect us with certain interests and groups. We don't want that and it is against the current Wikipedia policy. Try to stick to the facts. --Dead3y3 Talk page 00:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Marking of NPOV and unsourced points
I marked with citation needed several possible NPOV points (the user who tagged the article didn't even bother to comment here). Next to them I have added a comment about the kind of citation needed. I also transferred the NPOV tag on top of the article. --Dead3y3 Talk page 04:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, you seem to have tagged every other sentence with citation needed, many times in the middle of the sentence, in the middle of a phrase, even. It makes me think you just kind of splashed them on there. On another note, how does the lack of citation add up to POV? that is, why is the tag necessary? Torgo 05:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dead3y3: Adding "citation needed" to nearly every claim is ridiculous. It makes the article look very ugly and is, in most of the cases you marked, not even partcularly necessary. I spent about ten minutes adding several citations to the parts you indicated needed attention. Why could you not have done this instead of splashing cite tags to every second sentence? Contribution is far more valuable than criticism and takes about the same amount of effort. -- Hux 07:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Τhe uglyness of the article isn't an encyclopedic issue. I marked the points which needed attention (which were not every sentence in the article). Didn't this help you to understand what type of citations were needed? And I don't think that what I have done is criticism. I provided a base for the addition of proper citations. I obviously didn't splashed them in there; this is because I spended time to explain with a comment what kind of citation was necessary for each citation needed.
 * Also I had nothing to do with the NPOV matter. I just transfered the NPOV tagging by an other editor on top. I didn't comment on that, and neither did the formentioned editor, although it was his responsibility to explain which parts he found POV and for what reasons. Which unfortunately he didn't. --Dead3y3 Talk page 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You missed the point. Citation tags are generally not desirable and should be avoided if possible. Citation tags every second or third sentence throughout the article should never happen. It ruins the presentation of the article and makes the information useless to the reader. If you have an issue with accuracy then you can either bring it to people's attention here or, like I said, spend a couple of minutes finding an adequate citation. Splashing cite tags all over the article is not a reasonable solution. Please see Citing sources particularly the "Tagging unsourced material" section. -- Hux 05:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is Alexander Mayorov?
In the Reaction section of the article, a quote is provided from a guy named Alexander Mayorov. Google doesn't turn up any people of significance with that name (and Google News turns up zero hits), and the citation provided is in Russian (which I don't speak). Can someone clarify who this person is and why what he has to say merits a paragraph in this article, and at the very least check out that citation to see if it says what the article claims it says? For all I know it could be an article with instructions of how to make Yankee Pot Roast. --Neil916 (Talk) 06:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that the citation in the wiki does link to an article written by Mayorov in which he makes the claims mentioned. -- Hux 07:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a regular author of GlobalRus.ru both first and family name are quite common, so it is difficult to say more, there are quit a number of Alexnder Mayorov's in Internet. If he is only notable by his GlobalRus.Ru (a hardly notable online magazine by itself), then he certainly does not deserve his own article on Wiki abakharev 08:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some things to be covered

 * public threats by army officers (like the open letter in NG from officers of the 45th regiment of the Russian Army that she's "qualified to liquidation", after she exposed their trade in a corpses in the article on "a commercial concentration camp")
 * more on the OMON police officer Sergey (Sergei) Kadet Lapin - why he was on revenge against Anna, and that he was ultimately convinced of war crimes in 2005, namely torturing, and "dissapearing" a Chechen detainee (google for "Zelimkhan Murdalov" - name of a missing person); maybe he needs his own article
 * the overnight detainment and mock execution the by paratroopers (after she discovered the excrement-covered earth pits for a detainees)
 * the flight from the FSB in Chechnya (she escaped alone in the mountains, in night)
 * the public death sentence by Akhmad Kadyrov (not yet Ramzan)
 * her last articles, focusing on Ramzan (who before personally threatened her with death in his residence)

Also this: "Anna Politkovskaya is stoical about threats to her own life. Appearing on this week’s SBS Dateline report, 'Putin’s Media Wars', she said that she is gradually getting her children used to the fact that any moment they might be left without her. ‘They have all my instructions for that scenario’, she said. Also on the program was the editor of Novaya Gazete, Sergei Sokolov, who said that four of the newspaper’s journalists had died in suspicious circumstances in the 11 years since it began operation. Overall, we were told, 148 Russian journalists have died of unnatural causes since 1992." 

Some on the threats from Ramzan:

"While on one of her fact-finding trips to Chechnya, Anna Politkovskaya was brought two times to the house of Ramzan Kadyrov in Tsenteroi, where she was verbally harassed and threatened by Kadyrov. On 10 June 2004 she was supposed to meet the then presidential candidate Alu Alkhanov, but while Alkhanov, who was attending the funeral of his father, was not present, Kadyrov was, and he behaved very aggressive vis-à-vis Politkovskaya, telling her with raised voice “You are defending bandits! You are an enemy!” The next day, on 11 June, Politkovskaya received a phone call from Taus Dzhabrailov, head of the Chechen state council, who invited her to come again to Tsenteroi in order to interview a captured commander of the armed insurgents, who allegedly had given his agreement to the interview. When she arrived in Tsenteroi, it turned out that Kadyrov had arranged for her to meet Ibragim Garsiev, whose story she had covered in a Novaya Gazeta article a year ago. He had worked as a guard in the Malik Saidullaev election campaign, and had shown Politkovskaya traces of beating on his body, telling her how Ramzan Kadyrov personally tortured him, demanding that he should blow up Saidullaev. Moreover, Garsiev wrote to the general procuratura asking to initiate a criminal case against Kadyrov. Now, a year later, in Kadyrov’s house, Garsiev refuted his own allegations and claimed that he never wrote to the procuratura, since he cannot write at all, and that he had only signed a paper given to him by Saidullaev’s brother Rustam. He further stated that the traces of beating were only marks of a car accident that took place under influence of alcohol. The head of the Urus-Martan police, who was present during this meeting, confirmed the fact of the mentioned accident. In Ramzan Kadyrov’s presence Garsiev then dictated and sent to the procuratura a letter rebuffing his first one. Kadyrov and the people surrounding him were again aggressive towards Politkovskaya, yelling that she should have been shot back in Moscow.5"

--HanzoHattori 07:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We also need to include the fact that she constantly lied in her articles and books. For example: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/8220-15.cfm mixer 07:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's one version, and even this letter from a reader says "it is not clear". On the other hand, young women and a teenage girls were frequently doing the suicide attacks alone. This including driving the tuck bombs, like in this example (from a pro-government source): "In another case, the military managed to stop a female bomber and prevent the explosion. 16-year-old Mareta Duduyeva driving a Ural truck attempted to blow up a temporary police station in Grozny." Is this one "clear" enough? "And it seems that it is women who face this certain death more often and more willingly than men." Maybe you should give more "examples". --HanzoHattori 08:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ramzan Kadyrov and his associates are obvious suspects in the matter, but lets not do original research and assume the role of arm chairdetectives. Lets wait for the reports and analysis in the mainstream press abakharev 08:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd wait for any results of the NG investigation. Other than that, no one ever was convinced for a murder of journalist in Russia, even in Paul Khlebnikov's case (the US citizien). --HanzoHattori 09:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is correct. Still lets wait for Novaya Gazeta, or interviews of Notable people or analysis by WP:RS our own speculations qualify for the original research abakharev 10:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As for now, NG has 2 hypothesis: either Kadyrov, or his enemies. Her last published article was on Ramzan too. (And as for a possible suspects in the second option, I would say: Yamadayev brothers.) --HanzoHattori 11:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Self-correction: in the case Larisa Yudina aids to Kalmykia President Ilyumzhinov were convicted. --HanzoHattori 11:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, your Shelock-Holmes-like attempts at naming a murderer may be qualified as original research. Some people believe the murder plays into the hands of anti-Russian elements who provoked the espionage crisis in Georgia (Boris Berezovsky, Badri Patarkatsishvili, etc). Unsourced allegations of criminal abuse by acting politicians already brought Wikipedia in public disrepute on several occasions. Let's stick to the facts. -- Ghirla -трёп-  11:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, the "anti-Russian elements who provoked the espionage crisis in Georgia". Please continue, Mr. Conspiracy-theorist! --HanzoHattori 11:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the espionage crisis was rigged up by the Saakashvili administration. Incivility and personal attacks by HanzoHattori are more disturbing. They may lead to brief blocks. Ghirla  -трёп-  11:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow. Am I part of the worldwide conspiracy of anti-Russian elements yet? --HanzoHattori 11:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm... it seems even this page can be successfully exploited as a tribune from which to criticize Georgia and its leadership even though only a few hours ago Ghirlandajo removed, from the 2006 Georgian-Russian espionage controversy article, a well-referenced passage on the October 8 Moscow rally against the murder of the journalist and the Kremlin's policy towards Georgians as irrelevant.--Kober 12:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Peace Guys, try to focus on the article written according to Wikipedia guidelines, not the general chat about Russian politics, nor some detective work. Also it is quite possible that Anna's relatives, friends or co-workers are reading the article or event the talk page, so please be respectful abakharev 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to point I meant to highlight the episodes which would be mentioned in the article - I think that, for example, being kidnapped by a military and experiencing a mock execution is somewhat more important than "being banned from Chechen hospitals" (really a Russian military hispitals). --HanzoHattori 13:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree abakharev 13:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, her last story. Anna Politkovskaya was working on an article on torture in Chechnya which was almost ready to be published. She had especially collected some graphic photo material (bodies of a Russian and Chechen men who were kidnapped by Kadyrov's men). The police took away Anna's personal computer as "evidence", but NG says that they have parts of the article and the photos and will publish what they got. Also, via AP: "In a recent radio interview, Politkovskaya said that she was a witness in a criminal case against Moscow-backed Chechen Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov, whose security forces have been accused of kidnapping civilians and other abuses." --HanzoHattori 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Added article on Kadet
Sergei Lapin <- here. --HanzoHattori 15:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Russia – As of Monday, the Kremlin had made no comment.
The line looks odd. I wonder Why someone even expect a comment? I have nothing against Politkovskaya as a human being but What is special with this particular assassination? As far as I remember Kremlin has no habbit to make official statements on every murder and I'm sorry but the line looks silly. --Nekto 04:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly not on every murder, but the Kremlin usually makes official statements when prominent people, such as the Swedish politicians Olof Palme and Anna Lindh, were assassinated. --Camptown 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This sentence no grammar

 * He stated that the murderers should get the most severe punishment and tell that while his view on the developments in Chechnya are different from Anna's he never doubt he admires her devotion to the future of Chechen people.

First of all, shouldn't she be referred to as "Politkovskaya" rather than "Anna", unless there is specific reason for using Anna, e.g. Alkhanov knew her personally and would address her in this way, in which case, this needs to be stated or put as a direct quote.

Secondly, he never doubt he admires her devotion - should that be "nevertheless" rather than "never doubt"? Or have parts of this sentence gone missing? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reworked this section. Besides the poor grammar there were a couple of areas where the English translation didn't quite match the original text. -- Hux 10:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, my English grammar today is particularly poor abakharev 12:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Irresponible journalism
One aspect of Politkovskaya's personality and reputation in Russia that should be adressed in the article is that she was a.... ehm, OK, maybe she was not a pathological liar but, to put it it mildly, she would not stop at publishing outright lies if she felt it would advance her cause. (If she'd participated at Wikipedia, quite a lot of of her edits would have been commented out as being totally POV). Here's a couple of links on the subject by Kirill Pankratov: (in Russian),  (in English). Initially I wanted to edit the sentence in the intro section - the one about critics accusing her of this or that, bla-bla-bla - and add the second of the two links above but then I just thought we'd better discuss it on the talk page first. So, what would be the best way to go about it without starting a revert war? --apoivre 10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. For the Sherlock Holmeses among you: word in the Russian journalism community is the last story she worked on was on Government funds allocated for the reconstruction in Chechnya being stolen. Incidentally, that seems to be the topic Sergey Abramov investigated before a couple of assasination attempts put him out of the game (and put Kadyrov Jr in his place). --10:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Provided the source is credible it is certainly reasonable (if not essential) to mention that her reporting has come under fire with regard to accuracy. However, "credible" is the operative word here. It would be very unreasonable to insinuate that she played fast and loose with the facts based on sketchy reports from sources which themselves are questionably honest. I haven't checked out the Russian article you linked but the English one has no citations of any kind, simply saying that the story it discusses "was thoroughly investigated and covered in Russian press (in particular, in several lengthy articles in Izvestia)." On politically charged subjects like this one we need to take great care that we're not simply creating doubt where no reasonable doubt exists. -- Hux 10:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with saying that many of her works were perceived by pro-government press as biased. She was writing to a partisan opposition newspaper not to an encyclopedia after all. I have not found in the provided Pankratov's references any assertions of lying only of bias (and IMHO it in my not-notable opinion this is the case of a pot calling kettle Goebbels). abakharev 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Check the first link where she is quoted as claiming in her Washington Post article that "covering this subject (i.e. the case of two Grozny residents being accused of terror act) is no longer allowed in Russia'' even though she ran a story about it in NG and it was far from the only story on that case in Russian press.


 * 2. Which of the links I provided above is "pro-government press"? Russ.ru? JRL? Is, for instance, this in memoriam blog post by Oleg Divov, a long-time friend and colleague of Politkovskaya, published by pro-government press as well (in Russian)?


 * 3. I didn't quite get your pot-calling-kettle-Goebbels comment. Any ideas on Pankratov you'd care to share with us? --apoivre 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh geez, this again? It was already given by the other guy ("mixer") in the "Some things to be covered section" above, and there you can see my response (unanswered). Looks like her critics has obsession over this letter - and it shows how little can they even accuse her of (after dozens of investigative articles and several books, they can all try with only one single sentence). And this tells volumes.

Now - no, you are mistaking her with Paul Khlebnikov, murdered in Moscow in 2004 - and also Kadyrov Sr's former deputy Yan Segunin, also shot dead in Moscow around this time. Anna was working on article on the kidnapping, torture and murder of two men, a Russian and a Chechen, by Kadyrov Jr, who were later shown on TV as a "fighters killed in combat" in Avtury (she said she had graphic photos of tortured bodies). Also, she was to be a witness in a criminal case against Ramzan. --HanzoHattori 16:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't see mixer's post and you reply when I posted this. The point is not that "critics has obsessions with this letter" or "how little thay can accuse her of"... Have you read the other two links I provided above - from your familiarity with the subject I gather you'll have a working command of Russian? Even her close personal friends like Divov admit she shouldn't have gone into journalism due to her inability/unwillingness to check facts. And note how matter-of-factly he mentions this - it's a well-known fact in Russia and needs no dwelling on when you write for a Russian audinece as he does. Does this merit inclusion into the article? But, please, without all this bullshit about anyone criticising AP being pro-government or anti-something. --apoivre 02:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm rather surprised she didn't take more care of her work. At least in TV, whenever journalists are working on a story which may piss a lot of people off they tend to make sure there are several copies of their work in different places. For example, perhaps one with the editor, one in a secret safety deposit box (that may be a letter to be given to the editor upon death for example). Obviously there is a timelag between when the information is obtained and when it is back-uped somewhere (although with the internet and computers we would assume much less so) but I would have thought all of the important info will be somewhere even if it's difficult for someone to actually be able to understand it all (since we can assume there is a lot of short hand etc) Nil Einne 18:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

the name 'Politkovskaya'; the words 'Mr' and 'Ms'
I don't really know much about this subject (i'm only here 'cause she was in the news just now), but i have two issues with the article.

Firstly: I don't speak Russian at all (or know this person's history), but the name 'Politkovskaya' sounds like a very artificial name to me given this person's occupation. As in, it sounds like it has something to do with politics, which is basically what she reported on. If that's the case, i think a mention should be made in the article as to the intentions she had when choosing that name for herself. I mean, the article doesn't make it clear at all. Is it a pen name, or did she legally change it? Is it a 'real' surname in Russia, or is it a personal statement? Et cetera.

Secondly: I notice that the words 'Mr' and 'Ms' are used in the article. I thought this was frowned upon in Wikipedia as being sexist (since the 'Ms' commonly signifies a woman's marriage status, whereas 'Mr' doesn't). Am i wrong?


 * As far as I know, Politkovskiy (feminine form Politkovskaya) is just her former husband's surname. It was her real name and the name of her daughter, it is not a very rare name in Russia. Her maiden name Mazepa has much stronger historical associations. The English speaking title problem Mrs vs Miss vs Ms has no analoug in Russian, we have probably have to google her most common title in the English speaking press. abakharev 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the title 'Ms' was invented specifically to avoid reference to marital status in women...but in any case, I think it's bad form to use these titles in an encyclopedic article. Bellemichelle 12:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To the person who asked the questions: As abakharev says, "Politkovskaya" was just her surname - she didn't choose it herself! That it sounds somewhat like "politics" is purely coincidental. My own surname translates as "goat herd" but if my job was to herd goats that would just be a coincidence. ;) As for the Ms/Mrs stuff, you have it backwards: "Mrs" signifies that a person is married whereas "Ms" says nothing about marital status. However, Bellemichelle is right that there's no need to use either in a Wikipedia biographical article. We should stick to using her full name, surname or pronouns where appropriate for the flow of the article. -- Hux 12:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of her family. Do you think that her x-husband, Alexander Politkovsky,, and his opinion on the murder  (The murder is certainly connected to her work, she received many death threats and at some stage even hired a bodyguard) is relevant to the article? abakharev 13:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda doing this out of order since i'm replying to everybody but whatev. (1) Regarding the name: I'd assumed it was a chosen name, my mistake. I think then that it'd be appropriate to include something about her marriage in the article, even if it's just one or two sentences, since as far as i can tell it doesn't explain anywhere else why her name changed. (2) Regarding the ex-husband's opinion: Yeah, i imagine that would fit in perfectly fine in the 'reaction' section. (3) Regarding 'Ms': Er, you guys are right, that doesn't denote marital status. I'm an idiot. I knew that. :( Anyway i don't think the existence (or lack) of an analogous problem in Russian really matters. Those titles appear in non-quoted material (as in, original article content), so it's just a matter of some Wikipedia user's wording decision. I'm gonna go ahead and remove the titles in any case. ~ lav-chan @ 16:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ichkerian Government Response
The Minister of Foreign affairs had this to say: http://chechenpress.co.uk/english/news/2006/10/036.shtml while the Ichkerian government isn't recognised, prehaps it would be interesting to add their response too, considering the relation to Chechen politics. I would do it myself, but I might appear biased. if anyone agrees with me and could find a suitable quote out of that page you'd have my thanks. Mikebloke 13:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's definitely relevant to the article given that Chechnya was the main focus of Politkovskaya's writing. I'll see what I can do. I have no connection with either Russia or the successionist Chechen government so hopefully my addition will not be perceived as biased! -- Hux 13:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Organizing Reaction section
I moved the paragraphs about demonstrations / vigil to their own subsection under Reaction, as the main Reaction section has become a bit too crowded. If anyone can think of a way to organize it further, please do so by all means! --Jopo 15:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia and Cyrillic
Hello,

I noticed that the Cyrillic version of Anna's name (as listed on the main article page) doesn't match the accepted Romanized version at all. You can check, rambler, pravda, etc. for her Cyrillic name (for example: http://www.pravda.ru/filing/Ann_Politkovskaja/t)

I was preparing to edit the article to fix this mistake, and then i noticed that on the edit page her name is correctly entered in Cyrillic, however, on the article page it appears incorrectly.

Does Wikipedia have a problem displaying cyrillic characters? What is the problem here? I'm puzzled...

Moreover, this needs to be rectified.

Lesotho 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? The transliteration is done according to WP:RUS abakharev 00:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of Course. If you go to the webpage I referenced above (one of the main Russian news sources), you will see a different Cyrillic name than what appears on the 'article' page. However, as I noted, if you look at the text on the 'edit' feature of the main 'article' page, everything is in order.

As it appears now (I am running the newest version of Firefox and using 'Unicode' character encoding, it would read as: Anna Smepanovna Polumkovskaya, which is clearly wrong.

Perhaps this is an 'encoding' issue with my browser, but I have checked on three independent computers now and it is showing up a bit wonky. Even though, as I have mentioned, the Cyrillic on the 'edit' screen is correct.

Any thoughts? Are my computers just not reading this correctly?

thanks for your time

Lesotho 00:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It was a standard problems. Italic Cyrillic letters (e.g. т) in most fonts looks different from the non-italic (e.g. т). Thus, we recommend not to italize Cyrillic. The problem does not exist for the native and advanced Ru-speakers, nor for non-Ru speakers, but quite serious fro the beginners. Fixed. abakharev 02:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet, so I'm an "advanced Ru-speaker"? I feel a warm glow! But seriously, I was taught cursive cyrillic from my first Russian lesson so the italicized text looked perfectly correct for me. Do a lot of students not learn cursive until much higher levels these days? -- Hux 05:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I studied Russian for about a year and never learned cursive cyrillic. It has always confused me whenever I've seen it, though I suppose there's a theory behind not teaching it. --Cherry blossom tree 09:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. It looks perfect now, Alex. Thanks! Yes, as you guessed, I speak (and read) russian at just a low-intermediate to high-beginner level. I suppose it's not a problem for native speakers...

Lesotho 02:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Death & Putin's birthday
The section on her death mentions Putin's birthday. Is Putin's birthday relevant to her murder? Unless some sort of link is made it is irrelevant trivia and needs to be removed. Ashmoo 03:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In Russian blogosphere there were a lot of speculation that the murder may be a pervert birthday present. As far as I know no reliable source subscribed to that theory. abakharev 04:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is absolute bullshit; since when does Wikipedia use untrustworthy scandal-provoking sources, which were published because someone paid to get them published?


 * May be this is not for Wikipedia, but the birthday is highly relevant. When FSB wants to eliminate a political figure or a journalist, it selects the method of murder carefully.  For example, Artem Borovik died from a powerful blast on the plane (“just an accident”), and Yurii Shekochikhin died from poisoning (“a disease”).  Both criticized Putin and FSB/KGB.  Both were very famous journalists in Russia.  But since they were not openly assassinated, you will not find their names in the lists of journalists killed in Russia.  In the case of Anna, Putin thought that she is not that influential, exactly as he said during his last trip to Germany.  Therefore, Anna was murdered openly, in the contract killing style, and on the Putin’s birthday.  This was done to send a powerful message to all other Russian journalists who might challenge him as Anna did in her book. The message was: “This is ME.  I can kill anyone and at any moment. So, be afraid and do not dare to tell the truth!”  Of course, they are not going to explain this to the foreigners.  Only people who were victims of KGB “active measures” understand too well their methods.--Biophys 16:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you one of the victims of FSB?Please refraim from using 100% propaganda.Or at least provide a reference.Dimts 12:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what I am talking about. I was involved in one of first "free" election campaigns in the former Soviet Union during late "perestroika" as a member of a grass-root organization. My phone was tapped by KGB, and when I talked too much, they simply turned off the phone line.  My boss at work was at their side insisting to stop those political activities.  One of my friends turned out to be a KGB agent and actually promoted KGB candidates, but I found this out only much later.  No wonder that the election to the city council and the parliament was won by an army of undercover KGB agents who pretended to be very nice and liberal citizens.  But after the election (not right away but when someone from the “above” made an order), all the elected to the posts KGB members simultaneously changed the behavior and started doing completely opposite things.  The KGB/FSB in Russia is not a security organization.  It acts and works as a political party of the kind described by Orwell.  Right now, FSB actual and "former" members and "friends" represent an overwhelming majority in Russian Duma (the parliament), there is a KGB president (“there is no such thing as a former KGB man”, he said), almost all members of government, gubernators, etc.  And as you probably know, KGB/FSB has formal membership, military discipline, support of Russian population, and an army of undercover agents (“stukachi”).  Thus, this is a truly "totalitarian" organization that simply replaced the Communist Party (it actually struggled for the power with Communist Party from the moment when Stalin was poisoned by Beria).  But unlike the Communist Party, it works in secrecy; it does not tell “I am the boss”.  This secrecy helps FSB government to fool around “useful foreign idiots” (as Lenin said), from US president to foreign investors.  Those foreign “idiots” invest money to the pockets of FSB elite who own almost all important assets in Russia, such as Gazprom.  These are not my original ideas. Please read books about KGB by John Barron (journalist) and especially “The state within a state” by Yevgeniya Albats (she was mentioned in article about David Karr). So, I know how those people  work and even how they think.  I am sure, the death of Anna was a birthday present for the president Putin. Any proofs? We will never have them.  Read Russian apartment bombings and the "Darkness at Dawn" by David Satter. FSB agents were caught red handed while planting the bomb in Rysan. Three members of Russian parliament were killed trying to investigate, and an officially hired investigator Mikhail Trepashkin (Russian "Kenneth Starr") was imprisoned. Right now he is dying in prison.  Anna wrote papers about Mikhail Trepashkin. Biophys 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A few years ago, Mikhail Trepashkin and his former FSB colleague Alexander Litvinenko appeared publicly on Russian TV and revealed that FSB started planning political assassinations. Of course, they were fired and persecuted immediately. Alexander Litvinenko escaped to UK later and wrote a book "Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within".  Soon after coming to the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin said: "A group of FSB colleagues dispatched to work undercover in the government has successfully completed its first mission." (Los Angeles Times, January 12, 2000). Since then, he successfully completed many other missions. Biophys 16:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry,pal,but your latest posts sound paranoid.I do not live in Russia,but I have never heard of political repressions in that country during the post-Soviet period,exept for the "controversial" Khodorkovsky case (in the USA he would have got a longer sentence for NOT PAYING TAXES).Dimts 18:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's stop this discussion. This is not a chat room. I referred to many books, Wikipedia articles, facts, quotes, and my personal experience. Almost every article by Anna tells about terrible repressions in Putin's Russia (and she wrote more than 500 of such articles). That is why she became herself a victim of political repressions. Biophys 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You DID NOT provide any facts!Your opinion is purely based on emotions.Let's not forget that some writers and journalists often write gossip (everybody knows that).So,there is NO proof that the writing of your novelists or journalists is not just overactive imagination!Dimts 17:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Proof? No. Compelling evidence? I'd say yes. For example, the BBC reports today that Alexander Litvinenko (mentioned above by Biophys), an outspoken critic of Putin who was investigating Politkovskaya's murder, has been poisoned in London and has a 50/50 chance to live. Sure, it's possible that the poisoning is unrelated to his investigations, but the reverse is much more likely.


 * The evidence is mounting and at some point even the most critically minded person will have to recognize what's really going on here. -- Hux 08:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

He didn't provide any compelling evidence.He provided only his emotions and references from controversial sources(or maybe even 100% propaganda).Dimts 14:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Dresden demonstration
I added a citation for the Dresden, Germany demonstration but removed the number of demonstrators as the Die Welt article doesn't make a mention of it (then again, German is not my forte). If someone can cite a source with the 2,000 demonstrators mentioned, please do so. —Jopo 06:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, found it myself :) —Jopo 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation
I removed: Both Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chechen prime minister Ramzan Kadyrov are suspected of ordering the killing.Citation Needed, by 172.141.118.139, 21:58, 10 October 2006. Camptown 07:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Who else can be suspected? I can only cite "In seven years covering the second Chechen war, Politkovskaya’s reporting repeatedly drew the wrath of Russian authorities. She was threatened, jailed, forced into exile, and poisoned during her career." . "Who profits from such deaths if not the Kremlin ? Who can get away with killing if not the Kremlin or its agents ?" --68.43.173.3 03:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC) What else would you expect from Mr. Putin who said himself that "Those who are agianst me will be dead in three days" and "There is no such thing as a former KGB man".--68.43.173.3 03:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot that the likes Berezovsky and the goverment of Ichkeria (Umarov,Zakaev) could have been interested in her death.Dimts 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you are telling me that Zakaev and Berezozovsky could kill Anna to harm the President. Indeed, this version can be found in many state-controlled Russian media. They follow hints from Mr. Putin himself who said that murder of Anna "inflicts much greater damage to the government than any of her writing". I think your opinion is an excellent example of brainwashing in the modern “Putin’s Russia”. When Stalin ordered murder of Kirov and then blamed “the enemies of the people”, this at least was logical since Kirov was one of Stalin’s closest friends and associates. In contrast, Anna publicly criticized Putin and Kadurov, so they both are obvious suspects. Death of Anna is indeed a certain blow to Russian authorities. But they can easily afford this. After killing so many people in Chechnja, poisoning the hostages in the theater, burning children alive in Beslan, and exterminating other journalists, Putin’s FSB government can be sure that Western leaders will tolerate anything. So, they decided to open a hunting season on the dissidents. In doing so, they went further than Andropov and Breznev who did not dare to murder openly Sakharov and Solzenitsyn.--68.43.173.3 05:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Firstly,I am not Russian.Secondly,your opinion is driven by stupid extremist and russophobic propaganda.Notorious characters (like Berezovsky or the Ichkerian goverment) often sacrifice their 'defenders' (like Politkovskaja) to put the blame on their opponents.History proves this thesis.

P.S the poisoned hostages and the fate of the children in Beslan are 99% fault of those Ichkerian jerks (Basayev,Mashadov,Umarov).Dimts 12:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me about at least one example when "Berezovsky or the Ichkerian goverment) sacrifice their 'defenders' (like Politkovskaja)" in Moscow. Dear Dimts, please read articles about Beslan and the theater written by Politkovskaya and many others. The children were burned alive because Russian special forces attaked the school with the flame throwers ("Shmel'").  There are many unsuccessful operations to free the hostages in the history.  But usually the hostages were killed by the hostage takers, not by police.  The fact remains that almost all people in Beslan and Dubrovka were killed by Russian special forces Spetsnaz (see book “Spetsnaz” by Victor Suvorov where he describes their brutal tactics and the flame throwers), not by Chechen rebels. Also look Wikipedia articles. Biophys 13:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

But those people would have been alive now if the Chechen rebels weren't taking hostages. Quote:Please tell me about at least one example when "Berezovsky or the Ichkerian goverment) sacrifice their 'defenders' (like Politkovskaja)" in Moscow.Dear Biophys,please read my previous statement again (you misunderstood it).Dimts 16:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, what are you telling is this: if someone has taken people hostages, just order to kill them all, and blame the hostage takers, as Putin did? I think that under such circumstances, the president who gave such order, and the serviceman who executed the criminal order and physically killed the children are even more guilty than the hostage takers. But Putin did more: he established a complete information blockade during the mass murder in Beslan by ordering to poison Anna on the board of the plane, arresting Andrei Babitsky and a group of Georgian journalists, and a lot more. Biophys 17:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion the hostagetakers are saints?You're saying it's not their fault?!The special forces at least tried to save the hostages,but the Chechen terrorists would have just executed those hostages if their conditions were not met.Dimts 12:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, I do not like islamofacists of the kind 9/11 in US or the gang in Beslan. That's for sure. But there are many different opinions who was behind the hostage takers. I do not know if you can read articles by Anna about Dubrovka and Beslan (from Novaya gazeta). Sure, the hostage takers are guilty. But it was so terrible to see these young Chechen women killed without mercy at Dubrovka, just as at the hostages killed by the poison gas. They all were killed together by the same people and the same system... Biophys 23:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean those young armed Chechen woman who were part of the group...which took over the theatre?I agree that pumping gas into a building full of people was not a good idea.But,on the other hands,killing the hostages was not a part of the special force's plan (that was sleeping gas).Dimts 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. These Chechen woman did not deserve to die like that. Let me clarify. A hostage taker who did not kill anyone yet (as most of these women) is guilty in kidnapping and putting other people's life in danger (this is a serious crime that deserves a serious punishment in a court). A serviceman from Spetsnaz who physically killed a hostage by pumping the gas or otherwise is guilty in murder (and the person who gave such order is also guilty). A servicemen who kills an incapacitated suspect (like most of these women) is also guilty im murder. You suppose to know the laws of the country you are living in. Of course, things are very different in Russia, where there is no working justice system (see "Putin's Russia" by Anna). You should also know that each of these women could easily pull the trigger and blow out the building, because most people remained concious for a few minutes after filling the smell of the gas. But they did not do it, because they were not going to, exactly as Anna said (or perhaps they could not do it, because the wires were disconnected by their leader, or their bombs even were fake, as some other people believe). Biophys 18:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I did not answer your question about the "sleeping gas". I think they knew how it works. Or maybe you are right, and they had no opportunity to try this gas previously on a large sample of people. I would recommend you to read the book "Perversion of knowledge" by Birshtein, who describes early years of a secret KGB lab, where each new poison had to be tried on many people of different age and etnicity. Right now they are probably doing such experiments in Chechnya, as described in several publucations by Anna in "Novaya gazeta". The poisons have very long and proud history in Russia. The list of poisoned people is very long and probably includes such prominent figures as writer Maksim Gorky, Stalin, and more recently another jurnalist from "Novaya gazeta" Yuri Shekochikhin, and possibly even Anatolii Sobchak, who suddenly died from "heart attack", a few hours after drinking a glass of mineral water given him by Mr. Putin Biophys 19:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that Putin is the mastermind behind Mahatma Gandi's assasination.Putin's men shot John Kennedy in Dallas.And let's not forget Brutus and Cassius who murdered Caesar...following Putin's order.

You should write science fiction novels,you'd make big money by using your conspiracy theories there.Dimts 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "A" grade for you, mate!!!! Dimts, you a great pal. Thank you for public exposure of Biophys delirium. Please note that Biophys is working hard at such articles like 'Human rights in Russia', 'Federal Security Service of Russian Federation', 'KGB', 'Boris Stomakhin' and the likes.Vlad fedorov 08:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am going to stop this discussion. Did not you know that Rajiv Gandhi and many other Indian officials were bribed by KGB? See and read Mitrokhin Archive. Mitrokhin described in great detail how suitcases with KGB money traveled to Indira Gandhi office in his book The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World. I would strongly recommend everyone to read it. Biophys 00:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ooooo... Citations from blog (http://www.boloji.com/myword/mw042.htm) are accepted by Biophys as genuine facts? What about Wikipedia policies? Vlad fedorov 08:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Malika Umazheva
I believe she needs her Wikipedia article.

In a tribute to the slain Umazheva, award-winning Russian war correspondent Anna Politkovskaya wrote in the December 5 issue of Novaya Gazeta: "Malika was a true heroine, a unique and marvelous one. She became the head of administration of one of the most complex Chechen villages--Alkhan-Kala (a 'Baraev' village, the subject of endless 'cleansing operations,' executions and disfigured corpses) after the former head had been murdered. Reason would have told her: 'Sit quietly. Be careful.' But she did the exact opposite--she became the boldest and most committed village head in that murderous zone of military anarchy which today is Chechnya. By herself, unarmed, she went out to meet the [Russian] tanks that were crawling into the village. Alone, she shouted to the generals who had deceived her and, on the sly, were murdering the residents of the village: 'You scoundrels!' She relentlessly fought for a better fate for Alkhan-Kala. No one else permitted himself to do that in present-day Chechnya. Not a single male." "She, a humble village head who had been elected by a popular assembly," Politkovskaya continued, "earned the wild hatred of the chief of our General Staff, the much-decorated General Kvashnin. He hated her so much that he invented the vilest stories about her, using his access to the television cameras to spread them. And she? She continued along her chosen path and, in response to Kvashnin's lies, she sued him in court, knowing perfectly well that almost everyone is afraid of him.... But Kvashnin does not forgive those who do not fear him."

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=12&issue_id=546&article_id=23341

--HanzoHattori 11:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So start the article! I'll vote keep if/when it comes up for deletion.  All assassinated people are notable, especially journalists.  JeffBurdges 16:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Malika was mentioned in excellent book "The Oath" by K. Baiev     --68.43.173.3 03:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

A day after Politkovskaya was found dead, police seized her computer hard disk and material she had assembled for an investigative article; the story may now never be published.

police seizure... Source?
A day after Politkovskaya was found dead, police seized her computer hard disk and material she had assembled for an investigative article; the story may now never be published. --- Is there a source on this?

"the Putin administration"
I'm not quite sure (since not being an English native speaker), but isn't it that the phrase "the Putin administration" (see first paragraph of the article) has some condemnatory colour?
 * No, it's standard usage and neutral in connotation. :) -- Hux 15:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should focus on her
The assassination page is a bloated, rambling review of everybody else's reaction to the assassination, along with conspiracy theories. Please try to ensure that this article focuses on the subject, while she was alive, and her identifiable legacy.--76.221.184.185 11:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you point out a conspiracy theory in the article for example?
 * You deleted the sentence on the state-owned news agency discarding her investigation in Chechnya as "tales" but left Politkovskaya's response to such counter-action,"'She claimed that the Kremlin tried to block her access to information and discredit her for that reason'." ilgiz 12:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)