Talk:Boris Stomakhin/Archive 2

Stomakhin as a dissident - Opinions of Novodvorskaya and Gannushkina
Biophys, I've read the articles of Novodvorskaya and nowhere in them Stomakhin was described as "peaceful political dissident". http://grani.ru/Politics/Russia/FSB/m.114531.html http://grani.ru/opinion/novodvorskaya/m.114765.html

The same is true for Gannushkina for in your source there is no description of Stomakhin by Gannushkina as "peaceful political dissident" http://www.grani.ru/Society/Law/m.114655.html

As for both of them in their opinions they do not talk at all about free speech -- they talk about definition of hate speech and about whether the articles of Stomakhin could incite real actions.

Your passage on opinion of Novodvorskaya and Ganuushkina is a product of your original research which is forbidden in biographies. You should either rewrite it according to the sources, or delete it. I will delete it, in case you wouldn't rewrite it according to the sources.

I think you should read the sources before putting them in Encyclopedia article. Vlad fedorov 11:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism and Violations of Wikipedia policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Stomakhin I would like to note, that although Boris Stomakhin is not dissedent for he called for violent change of constitutional regime and called to exterminate Russian people as ethnicity, Biophys intentionally and maliciously described in categories Stomakhin as dissident. The definition of dissident is wrong even according to Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident.

I would like to note, that Boris Stomakhin is not political prisoner, as Wikipedia states political prisoner "is someone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, because their ideas or image are deemed by a government to either challenge or threaten the authority of the state. However, it also happens that political prisoners are arrested and tried with a veneer of legality, where false criminal charges, manufactured evidence, and unfair trials are used to disguise the fact that an individual is a political prisoner.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_prisoner.

Boris Stomakhin was convicted not by the initiative of the government, but by the initiative of the abused ordinary people, which could be clearly seen from the official convictions and court sentence. No trial abuse, no false criminal charges, no manufacured evidence ever existed or were proved in fair trial. The Biophys published false information in his article "Human rights in Russia" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia which was created, and contributed by him personally, and systematically tries to find ways to make false information to seem true. With this goal he describes Stomakhin as dissident(peaceful politician trying to change regime in non-violent ways) and political prisoner. The reason for these actions is that in his article "Human rights in Russia" he wrote that Stomakhin is a political prisoner.

Biophys systematically tries to advance his own opinion and through summary making process tries to remove substantial facts about Boris Stomakhin in his article. Although administrator Alex Bacharev resolved one dispute arised between us, he tried to remove the consensus version of Stomakhin's citations which proved his own opinion wrong and which is sourced according to Wikipedia standards.

Biophys also creates articles about institutions where he presents them from only one biased sides in order to support his underlying article "Human rights in Russia".Vlad fedorov 05:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since Stomakind did nothing violent, he is a peaceful dissident and political prisoner according to Wikipedia definitions. What is the difference between him and Andrei Sinyavsky? They wrote very different things, but they both were prosectuted for their writings and defamed by court as criminals. Even Maksim Sokolov regognizes that Stomakind was prosecuted (and rightly so! - according to Sokolov) for his writings. Threfore, they both are dissidents and political prisoners.Biophys 05:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I again cite "Political dissidents use non-violent means of political dissent". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident Calls for extermination of all Russians as ethnic group is not a criteria of dissident. Stomakhin called to commit terrorist attacks on civilians, Stomakhin called to change violently the constitutional regime. Vlad fedorov 05:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He did not do anything violent. If he is a russophob or a facist  but I am a russophil or anti-facist - this is only a difference of opinions, as long as we are only talking with each other.  I should not put him to the prison even if he tels me: "you deserve to be bombed and die". But if he assaults me on the street, then yes, he belongs to prison. Biophys 05:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It was reported in press, that during terrorist hostage taking drama in Nord-West, terrorists "contacted with activists of Revolutionary Contact Association" and they "may be involved in supplying terrorists with amunition and its storing at Moscow" http://ytro.ru/articles/20021028012028108125.shtml Press article Baraev's group was assisted by someone from Moscow. Dissidents and Political Prisoners do not use calls for extermination of a nation, neither call to make an atomic explosion. And you definitely nor Russophil, neither anti-fascist. Vlad fedorov 07:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition
Stomakhin is not a dissident. "A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively opposes an established opinion, policy, or structure". See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident.

There is no established opinion, policy, or structure on the Chechnya in Russian Federation and Mr. Stomakhin himself is the best living evidence of this fact. If I has disagreements with you, am I also a dissident and victim of political your prosecution?

Stomakhin is the political opponent of the ruling party. Do not victimize him and do not make any parallels with "soviet dissidents" such as academic Sakharov.

Second, "the term was introduced to describe intellectual opposition to non-capitalist regimes, conducted without plans or capability for a regime change, coup, or uprising". See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissident.

Mr. Stomakhin never represented the opinion of intellectual opposition and his views were never shared by the democratic parties in Russian Federation. The ruling party in Russian Federation does support capitalism. Mr. Stomkhin called not for peacefull and legal change of the constitutional regime, but for violent and unlawful change of it. He also was gathering funds for financing these activities.

Considering that all the criteria of the term dissident which are covered in the related article of Wikipedia for this term are not met, I changed   his description for "opposition figure". He certainly can't be called "opposition leader" since his RCA counted only 5 members.

Vlad fedorov 20:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not a legal expert either. I only cited the source - the article by Abarinov. If you have other good sources (not blogs or extremist web cites) that claim the opposite - you can cite them. Biophys 20:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If Wikipedia writes that Kavkaz Center is not extremist website, then Stomakhin's site rko.marsho.net is definitely not extremist.Vlad fedorov 13:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons
I made a few minor changes. Now this article seems to be fair enough except one thing: citation in the end. I believe this citation violates Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons for two reasons. Biophys 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

First, this citation was intentionally selected from many writings by Stomakhin and taken out of context to discredit him as an idiot and "extremist". It is more appropriate to describe his ideas briefly, objectively, and in general terms, as recommended by Wikipedia policies. I included new "Political views" section for this purpose. I must admit that the cited portion of the text looks really stupid. Someone says that nuclear weapons must be used against Russian Federation. But who should use those weapons? Author does not say that. Chechen rebels? They do not have such weapons. China? USA? Biophys 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that you can't do original research, I have cited Stomakhin's words and have identified reliable sources of them. I don't have to prove anything. These words are widely cited by Izvestia newspaper. As you have cited Human Rights article about the intention of prosecution to render Stomakhin mentally ill, then I could cite the words of Stomakhin to make readers judge themselves. You shouldn't worry yourself with the explanation of Stomakhin's citations, as you are not a collective reader or Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 19:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Second, it is unclear if Stomakin actually wrote this. The original source is a blog run by several young people who are not responsible for anything. Russian newspaper "Izvestia" does not cite its original source, but this is probably the same blog. I am so careful because one of the sources says that Stomakhin was convicted for an article he actually did not write (although this is not the article cited here). So, some manipulations by the Russian authorities have been already claimed. Biophys 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Marsho.net is not a blog, but hosting for radical organizations websites where Revolutionary Contact Association of Stomakhin is hosted. Please, prove the opposite with the evidence. His website contains the whole archive of "Radikalnaya Politika", the programms of RCA and their official statements that are cited by lenta.ru, utro.ru - all the news portals, all the articles are signed by Stomakhin personally. This website address is given in some numbers of "Radikalnyja Politika" as an address of RCA. I have also cited specific source for these specific citations - newspaper Izvestia. You don't know what is the source of Izvestia journalist, and therefore you couldn't be judging reliability of his source. You have no any sound arguments. "Probably" is not an argument. The source saying that Stomakhin was convicted for an article he actually did not write -- contradicts to the official court sentence. You may cite it, but you can't prohibit me to point to the other sources which are as reliable as yours. Vlad fedorov 19:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Based on that, I remove this portion of the text. If you continue inserting it, I will have to report this as a violation on the living persons biographies notice board to comply with Wikipedia policies. Biophys 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You could also report your own biased use of categories, biased summaries of Stomakhin's views, citations of opinions of only Stomakhin supporters and your own history of contribution to Wikipedia - from which your political orientation is quite clear. Vlad fedorov 19:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, I am going to delete this again. Note that "three strikes rule" do not apply to defamation of living persons. Biophys 21:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Citation of the words said personally by individual in his biography is not defamation. These same citations are contained in Russian version of Wikipedia and sources there are found verifiable. You have intentionally named Stomakhin dissident, you have intentionally posted a passage which vindicates prosecution of trying to render Stomakhin incapable - which is defamation actually and a crime according to the Laws of Russian Federation. Vlad fedorov 05:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * O'K, I am trying to find some reasonable compromise here. I still do not think this article satisfy Wikipedia requirements for biographies of living persons - as it is right now. But I could be wrong. So, I left a message at the notice board and asked some outside people to review this article. If they decide it is O'K (although I do not think so), I have no objections.  Biophys 14:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are not trying to find compromise. You censor constantly what I write trying to delete passages (Stomakhin citations) which show his real opinion as to Russian ethnic group. These passages were already edited by Alex Bachrinov - admnistrator of Wikipedia - and present a review from independent person. Vlad fedorov 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Extremism
I oppose your description of Stomakhin as marginal. The Wikipedia article on extremism says that extremism is used as a synonim to radicalism. The definition of marginalism does not contain radicalism criteria and doesn't fit Stomakhin's views. "The term 'extremist' is used to describe groups and individuals who have become radicalized, in some way, even though the term radical originally meant to go to the root of a (social) problem. The term 'radical' is a somewhat less negatively-connoted label sometimes used by radical individuals or groups to label themselves." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremism

and especially this

Researcher Laird Wilcox identifies 16 traits of a political extremist in a 1987 article:
 * 1) Character assassination
 * 2) Name calling and labeling
 * 3) Irresponsible sweeping generalizations
 * 4) Inadequate proof for assertions
 * 5) Advocacy of double standards
 * 6) View of opponents and critics as essentially evil
 * 7) Manichean (bipolar) world view
 * 8) Advocate some degree of censorship and repression of their opponents and critics
 * 9) Identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are
 * 10) Given to arguments by intimidation
 * 11) Widely use slogans, buzzwords and thought-terminating clichés
 * 12) Doomsday thinking
 * 13) Claim some kind of moral or other superiority over others
 * 14) Tend to believe that it is justified to do bad things in the service of a supposedly "good" cause
 * 15) Tend to place great value on emotional response
 * 16) May claim some kind of supernatural, mystical or divinely-inspired rationale for their beliefs and actions

The Wikipedia article on marginalism defines it as "Marginalism is the use of marginal concepts within economics. Marginal concepts include marginal cost, marginal productivity and marginal utility, the law of diminishing rates of substitution, and the law of diminishing marginal utility. 'Marginal' here implies that economists look at what happens when 'a small change' is made to the subject under study."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalism

It is not political concept, and is unapplicable to Stomakhin.

Samizdat activities
I oppose to definition of Stomakhin activities as journalism. His periodical was never registered in a single state as mass media, he never was employed on contract basis. And most importantly he has no journalist education.

Official court sentence also says he plagiarized news from other mass media for his "Radikalnyja Politika" which couldn't be called journalism.

How to resolve our differences
I think some of our differences can be resolved by simply following Wikipedia guidelines. They say:

"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous."

They also say: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. See self-published sources for exceptions."

"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field."

We do not even know if this RCO web site is a "self-published" (I mean published by Stomakhin) source. So we must agree that we do not cite tis site. Of course, one can cite Maksim Sokolov and say that he cited a statement "allegedly made by Stomakhih". Aleks Bakharev and others, is that correct?Biophys 16:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What? Are you a censor here? Human rights activist Biophys? You have to present evidence that rko.marsho.net is bulletin board, usenet or blog and was self-published. It's clearly identified as REVOLUTIONARY CONTACT ASSOCIATION web-site and not Stomakhin's website. And is published by marsho.net - which is hoster of extremist organizations websites.Vlad fedorov 08:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, this is not a self-published source, you say. I tend to agree with you on that. Thus, the Wikipedia "exceptions" do not apply. But this is obviously a host without any "editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking"! This site is run by several people with extreme political views  ("revolutionaries") who are obviously doing their propaganda. I would not trust anything there. This is certainly not a reliable source. Biophys 00:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Where have you got the infromation that this site is run by several young people (revolutionaries)? Please show the source of your contention. Why you label their material as propaganda? What is the source of your infromation that they do not implement "editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking"? I wait for you sources and not your telepathy. Vlad fedorov 04:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention please. Citation of Stomakin by Maksim Sokolov is probaly falsification!
The text cited by Maksim Sokolov includes the following continuous text (Russian): "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию...". Sokolov does not tell where it came from, but the continuous citation implies that it came from the same article by Boris Stomakhin, that is "Death to Russia". However, two first sentences cited by Maksim Sokolov can not be found in article "Death to Russia" allegedly written by Stomakhin (first reference in the current version of this article). I think we must exclude both sources ("Death to Russia" and Sokolov) as unreliable because they obviously contradict one another. That is why this article was never cited in the court sentence, although it more "incriminating" than other Stomakhin's passages cited there.Biophys 22:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The references at the end of each citation clearly show source from which they were taken. They are contained in the article of Stomakhin (all two citations) and Sokolov's article (the first citation). Citation in Sokolov's article and Stomakhin's article completely corresopond to each other. Moreover, citation in Sokolov's article evidences that the article of Stomakhin 'Death to Russia' published at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm is an authentic text. Therefore, in addition to citation of Maksim Sokolv we could also cite the passages from Stomakhin's article 'Death to Russia' published at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm. The user Biophys maliciously lies when tells that the article by Maksim Sokolov implies continuos citation from the same article. Here is the whole relevant passage from Sokolov's article:


 * Стомахин же избрал ясную манеру - "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию, не давать ни малейшей пощады никому, постараться непременно устроить хотя бы один ядерный взрыв на территории РФ... Эта страшная и зловонная Россия должна быть уничтожена навеки". На этом фоне "Майн кампф" - учебник гуманизма. Если сажать по ст. 282 и 280 ("Публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности"), то начинать посадки, очевидно, следует с абсолютного чемпиона. В противном случае статью следовало бы совсем отменить. http://www.izvestia.ru/sokolov/article3098675/

Biophys, you have falsified already the article Human rights in Russia, and I've caught you falsifying data. Now you are trying to falsify the present article. Changes reverted. I invite anyone who could read in Russian to the followoing address to judge whether Biophys is falsifying the link and the source. http://www.izvestia.ru/sokolov/article3098675/ http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm I would like to pay attention that the user Biophys is systematically falsyfying the information in the articles Boris Stomakhin and Human Rights in Russia - which are the articles written by him personally. He constantly rewrites, changes, delets the reliable information he doesn't like personally and abuses other contributors of Wikipedia. Please read the whole discussion page for the detailed explanation of cases where Biophys maliciosly falsified the information.Vlad fedorov 09:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Anyone who can read Russian can see that I am right . The passage by Maksim Sokolov with the reference to alleged Stomakhin paper include the following words you just cited:" Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят...". None of that can be found in the in alleged Stomakhin paper "Death to Russia"  at the RKO web site. So, we do not know what exactly Sokolov is citing: this citing does not correspond to the text at the RKO web site; and Sokolov did not tell the source in his Izvestia article.  I belive both sources (RKO site and Sokolov citing) are unreliable at best (or even an intentional falsification) and they are used here for defamation of a living person. Therefore, they must be removed immediately. We have enough Stomakin's citations in the official court statement to describe his political views, as I tried to do.  I assume  that court has made a verification of the cited texts, although Abarinov claims that even some of the court texts were not actually written by Stomakhin but copied from another web site. What other people think?Biophys 17:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Biophys. Please note that this specific passage you want to remove was created by administrator Alex Bakharev which could be clearly seen from the page history. The second passage (citation), about which you cry was taken not from Maksim Sokolov's article, but from Stomakhin's article which was shown by proper references. The word 'article' in the opening sentence referred not to Maksim Sokolov's article, but referred to the Stomakhin's article "Death to Russia".I have changed the opening sentence for appropriate wording to show that not the article by Maksim Sokolov, but the article 'Death to Russia' by Boris Stomakhin contained all these citations. Moreover the sources of citations were made a lot earlier which pointed to specific sources from which specific Stomakhin's citations were taken. Every citation could be found in Stomakhin's article "Death to Russia" published at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm. I cite the whole article from the link relevant passages are in bold:

СМЕРТЬ РОССИИ! Аслан Масхадов стал Шахидом, инша Аллах. Отныне он следующий в списке величайших людей нашего времени, борцов и героев, вслед за первым президентом ЧРИ Джохаром Дудаевым, Зелимханом Яндарбиевым, Русланом Гелаевым, Салманом Радуевым...

Их всех убила Россия. Кровавая, подлая, изуверская, проклятая Россия. Та, которая всегда убивала всех героев и храбрецов, боровшихся веками за освобождение своих народов от ее ига. Русские поля и леса набрякли кровью покоренных, порабощенных, изничтоженных и убитых русскими детей, стариков, женщин, мужчин, целых народов и самых известных их воинов и вождей. Горе народу, решившему строить свое счастье на крови и несчастье других...

«О ненависти к русским никто и не говорил». Как и во времена Толстого, ненависть - слишком мелкое, слабое, мягкое чувство, не годящееся, чтобы выразить всю глубину той бездны, которая отделяет кремлевских вурдалаков и их карательно-террористические банды в Чечне от человечества, живущего по законам совести и правды. Убийство Масхадова ничего уже не добавит к этой пропасти отчуждения, к этой античеловеческой сути российской власти и самой России. Мученичество - удел немногих, и для президента Масхадова, верим мы в это или нет, место в раю было зарезервировано уже давным-давно, ибо убитые в битвах с Россией попадают прямиком в рай, какие бы ошибки ни совершали они в земной жизни...

С Россией нет и не может быть никаких переговоров, о которых так много говорил Аслан Масхадов. Россию можно только уничтожить. И ее НАДО уничтожить, - это мера превентивной самообороны рода человеческого от той изуверской дьявольщины, которую несет в себе Россия со времен первых массовых убийств и казней за критику властей, со времен взятия Новгорода и Казани. '''Русских надо убивать, и только убивать - среди них нет тех нормальных, умных, интеллигентных, с которыми можно было бы говорить и на понимание которых можно было бы надеяться. Должна быть введена жесткая коллективная ответственность всех русских, всех лояльных граждан России за действия избираемых ими властей, - за геноцид, за массовые убийства, казни, пытки, торговлю трупами... Никакого деления убийц на мирных и немирных, сознательных и невольных отныне быть не должно. '''Словом, хотя бы снимая шапку перед свежей могилой Аслана Масхадова, пора наконец признать, что в своем упорном стремлении воевать с русскими согласно Женевским конвенциям он был глубоко неправ. Его смерть, увы, только еще раз подтвердила это.

Отныне официально и открыто должно быть провозглашена полная невозможность остаться «в составе России» не только Чечни, но и всего Северного Кавказа. Ингушетия, Дагестан, Карачаево-Черкесия, Кабардино-Балкария, Осетия и Адыгея потеряны для русских оккупантов навсегда. Джихад убийцам и поработителям должен быть объявлен каждым человеком на Земле, у кого они еще не успели вытравить и растлить совесть, чувство долга и любовь к свободе. Чем больше будет убито полевых командиров и руководителей кавказского Сопротивления - тем хуже должна быть участь оккупантов, тем более сурово и беспощадно должны убивать их оставшиеся в живых и занявшие место убитых. Око, за око, зуб за зуб!

'''Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию, не давать ни малейшей пощады никому, постараться непременно устроить хотя бы один ядерный взрыв на территории РФ - вот какова должна быть программа радикального Сопротивления, и русского, и чеченского, и любого! Пусть русские по заслугам пожинают то, что они плодили.'''

Смерть русским оккупантам! Смерть изуверской кровавой империи! Свободу порабощенным ею народам!


 * I can only repeat that two first sentences in citation of Stomakhin's paper "Death of Russia" by Sokolov can not be found in the comlete text of this article in RKO site, which you claim is a reiable source. Judging from such discrepancies, it is possible that Stomakhin never wrote such article (as we know, KGB/FSB has produced many false "documents" in the past) . That is why this article was not cited in the court sentence, although they tried to find most "extreme" and incriminating texts. Moreover, the text of "Death to Russia" is so increadibly stupid! It is rather different from other texts written by Stomakhin.Biophys 00:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't proved that this citation was taken from the same article. It was definetly taken from another article. You have suggested that Sokolov had to be taken this citation from one and the same article which is wrong and unsupported statement that could only a person having knowledge of Russian decide. I have made specific references to places where all Stomakhin citations were taken and these reliable sources actually contain these words of Stomakhin.

The phrase " Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят..." was taken from the article "ТУШИHО, БУДЕHHОВСК, "HОРД-ОСТ", ДАЛЕЕ ВЕЗДЕ..." and here the link to the article http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. Vlad fedorov 05:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

To user Vlad Fedorov
If you will continue deleting my text supported by reliable references without any legimate explanations, I will have to complain and ask other people for help. What you are doing is basically a vandalism.Biophys 02:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should learn to read discussion page with more attention. I wouldn't be writing the same twice again. I repeat. There are no similar cases to Stomakhin case. The words of Stomakhin defender are not supported with links. You falsify associations: convicted for words doesn't mean convicted for political reason and doesn't mean political prisoner or dissident. You have too large citations with the information which is not relevant. You falsify the information in my links - you have changed the link from newspaper Utro - to FSB - which is falsification according to Wikipedia guidelines. Hate speech and calls to violent change of constitutional regime are not the features of dissidents. You are trying to falsify the information by links to absolutely non-relevant artices and categories. This is called vandalism. Vlad fedorov 08:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since you deleted my texts supported by good references again without explanation, I have to report this as vandalism. Biophys 17:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC) I did not change any links to Utro as anyone can see. I tried to use this link and it did not work. Biophys 17:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC). You deleted my text about political prisoners with reference to statement by ARTICLE 19, and you deleted text with statement by Director of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews. You say it is too long. No, it is not. This organization condems the court sentence. But why? May be this sentence was just? Mr. Naftalin explains why, so I included his explanations. This is especially important because Mr. Naftalin is a representative of an ethnic minority, and he says that the law intended to protect minorities is actually used to punish a representative of an ethnic minority.Biophys 17:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The link to newspaper UTRO works for 4 years already and no one except of you had ever complained. Nafalin's statement, however brings no specific charges for specific persons. There are just empty words not supported by any facts. And there are a 100 empty words of useless information that make more than half of the passage dedicated to opinions just to please sole want of Biophys to cite and to exaggerate one POV over other. I think you could summarize his view in one sentence, just like any other opinions are summarized, what I've done and what you call 'vandalism'.

Let us look at specific case of '''you citing Micah H. Naftalin, Director of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, foreign NGO, said: "Bogus charges aimed at stifling dissent, cruel police tactics, ethnic bias, and blatant disregard for criminal procedural statutes are all on open display. We hope that others will join us in condemning this travesty of justice" [6] He explained: "This sentence exposes the underlying hypocrisy of the Russian government's half-hearted struggle against extremist groups and hate speech. This month alone, the FSB refused to investigate the distribution of a neo-Nazi hit list containing the names and addresses of human rights activists whom the authors 'sentenced to death,' a publisher of a newspaper in Ulyanovsk who publicly called for the murder of Jews got a suspended sentence, and three youths who broke the jaw and fractured the skull of the Minister of Culture of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic while screaming racist slogans were sentenced to just six months to a year in prison. You don't have to agree with Mr. Stomakhin's radical, though non-violent, views on Chechnya to see that his sentence was disproportionate and unjust." [10] '''

Except for the first sentence which I left in the article, the following second passage could be summarized in less than one sentence: too harsh sentence for Stomakhin, a POV that was already cited in Novodvorskaya and Gannushkina POV. '''Let me remind your words that 'we should summarize when it is possible'. Please adhere or stick to your own words and orders.'''


 * I strongly disagree. He explains his position (otherwise it is completely unclear!). It is important that all opinions on the subject would be explained and represented. This is a notable opinion, because Mr. Naftalin is a director of a notable organization described in Wikipedia.Biophys 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not about explanations of Naftalin, this article is about Boris Stomakhin. We do not cite explanations of any other person stating his position on Stomakhin's trial. Otherwise, we would have too large section, more than the rest of the article dedicated only to the explanations of other persons views.Vlad fedorov 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The second case, "Putting people in prison for words is unfathomable.", said Boris Timoshenko of the Glasnost Protection Foundation. [8]

Here we have absolutely irrelevant statement, as we all know that people sue each other ordinarily for just words, in cases of libel and slander. '''And there are laws in all civilized countries that provide criminal liablity for slander and libel. Does that mean according to user Biophys, that all civilized countries violate freedom of speech and repress all people for just words?''' Vlad fedorov 01:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is relevant because the statement was made specificlly about Stomakhin. Again, Glasnost Defense Foundation led by Alexei Smirnov is a notable organization. It deserves a Wikipedia article.Biophys 18:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Your statement by Glasntost Defense Foundation is taken from blog. http://www.jrtelegraph.com/2006/12/russia_5_years_.html. From the homepage of this website it is clear that it is a blog. It is made on the WordPress engine, has explicit Headers 'Blogroll', 'Recent Posts', 'Recent Comments'. It has explicit statement that it has been nominated to Jewish and Israeli Blog Award.Vlad fedorov 15:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally knew nothing about that organization until your edit. It is not really notable organization. But the thing is that this citation is not an opinion on Stomakhin's trial or on Stomakhin himself. It is not even correct according to the laws of any country. Vlad fedorov 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am going to re-insert all these highly relevant and supported by references   texts - last time. If you delete anythig of this again, I will have to report this as vandalism and ask for arbitration. Biophys 22:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Please note that I do not delete, but just edit and summarize which is not vandalism actually. Vlad fedorov 04:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you did not edit. You deleted the entire citations, such as one by Naftalin. Biophys 04:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I "strongly disagree" with you. I have proved that the information published by Naftalin is false. Therefore their citations are also probably false. As for citation of Naftalin I have left his opinion on Stomakhin case. His explanation is irrelevant here.Vlad fedorov 05:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You "proved" absolutely nothing. Most important, we should not try to prove anything in Wikipedia (as you are trying to do). We can not judge who is right and who is wrong. Our statements should be only verifiable by sources (see Wikipedia guidelines), and the sources must be reliable (I have cited above what is a reliable source). Of course, if two different sources cite the same article by Stomakhin, and the cited texts are different (as in the case of Sokolov citation and RCO site), then indeed one or both of them are obviously wrong, which is typical for unreliable sources. Biophys 23:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't proved that this citation was taken from the same article. It was definetly taken from another article. You have suggested that Sokolov had to be taken this citation from one and the same article which is wrong and unsupported statement that could only a person having knowledge of Russian decide. I have made specific references to places where all Stomakhin citations were taken and these reliable sources actually contain these words of Stomakhin.

The phrase " Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят..." was taken from the article "ТУШИHО, БУДЕHHОВСК, "HОРД-ОСТ", ДАЛЕЕ ВЕЗДЕ..." and here the link to the article at Revolutionary Contact Association website http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. Vlad fedorov 05:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Stomakhin never organized demonstrations
Please see the official court sentence in which collegues of Stomakhin tell that he never organized himself the demonstrations, but participated in ones organized by other political organizations and parties. Instead, he organized illegal pickets, with participants from his RCA. On the official Revolutionary Contact Association website there are photos of their pickets which show that these are really not demonstrations with 5 to 7 participants wearing hand-made logos and slogans. I deleted the word demonstrations from the article. If someone wants to insert it, please cite the source according to which Stomakhin organized demonstrations and write that it is according to that specific source. Illegal demonstrations are subject to criminal liability. Vlad fedorov 09:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Medical condition of Stomakhin after second escape
It is claimed by Biophys that Stomakhin's spine and legs were broken, but the links provided by Biophys link to the article which states that Stomakhin suffered a broken ankle and back injuries. http://www.cpj.org/attacks06/pages06/imprison_06.html#russia There is no official medical statement of his health condition available. Biophys, please cite according to which source you have found this false infromation about 'broken spin'.Vlad fedorov 09:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated Falsification of Information by user Biophys
By the edit (cur) (last) 23:24, 23 December 2006 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links) inserted the following external link *A different version of this sentence (Russian) This link refers the blog http://stomakhin.livejournal.com/ where not the court sentence as stated in the link, but Prosecution conviction is published. The whole document is entitled ОБВИНИТЕЛЬНОЕ ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ Стомахина Бориса Владимировича which translates as Conviction conclusion of Boris Vladimirovich Stomakhin. There are also pictures of original document which is signed by the official prosecutor Voroshilin. It is clear that this official document is not a court sentence and therefore user Biophys maliciously stated that there are two court sentences which differ. I draw attention to the fact that blogs couldn't be cited according to Wikipedia policies as reliable sources in living person biographies. Vlad fedorov 03:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention.Statement of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews is false.
User Biophys inserted in section Arrest and Trial information that Boris Stomakhin was pushed from fourth flour. This statement was supported by the link to the statement of UCSJ http://www.fsumonitor.com/stories/110906PR.shtml.

'''This statement is false because Stomakhin jumped himself voluntarily from the fourth flour in an attempt to escape the arrest. The fact of voluntary jump by Stomakhin is confirmed by:

1)numerous news articles in news agencies and reports of NGO's http://www.prima-news.ru/news/news/2006/3/29/35420.html http://www.newsru.com/russia/03oct2006/stomaxin.html http://lenta.ru/articles/2006/11/20/court/ http://www.regnum.ru/news/739771.html http://www.grani.ru/Society/Xenophobia/m.114646.html http://www.svobodanews.ru/articlete.aspx?exactdate=20061128140042880 http://www.russianlife.nl/boris_stomakhin.htm http://arrests.cjes.ru/?id=282 2)Stomakhin's lawyer, Alexey Golubev, who in an interview to RIA Novosti, http://rian.ru/defense_safety/investigations/20061005/54549461.html and http://rian.ru/society/20061124/55959089.html, and to BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/russia/newsid_6152000/6152608.stm acknowledged the fact, that Stomakhin jumped himself from the window. Here is the citation: "'Когда Стомахина задерживали, он выпрыгнул с четвертого этажа своей квартиры, в результате чего получил двойной перелом позвоночника и перелом ноги', - сообщил ранее журналистам адвокат подсудимого Алексей Голубев."

Therefore statement by Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union is false, as probably all other statements of this organization including its Director Micah H. Naftalin.

I would like to stress that this false information was deliberately inserted and cited in the article by user Biophys.Vlad fedorov 10:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated violation by user Biophys of Wikipedia guidelines on Reliable sources
Despite explanation for my removal, the user Biophys repeatedly inserts in this article the material taken from blog.

Bt the following edit, (cur) (last) 22:57, 26 December 2006 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→External links) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Stomakhin&oldid=96625062

user Biophys has inserted the following text "*Another text claimed to be a version of this sentence (Russian)" which leads to Livejournal entry.

By the second edit (cur) (last) 23:08, 26 December 2006 Biophys (Talk | contribs) (→Arrest and Trial)  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boris_Stomakhin&oldid=96626967, user Biophys has inserted the following link "".

I would like to bring attention of all users of Wikipedia and its administrators that the user Biophys himself was falsely accusing me of publishing links to what he identified as blogs. He cited to me the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. It says that the information in blog may be cited only when it is written by subject himself. But the citation and material at blog http://stomakhin.livejournal.com were written on November 22nd, 2006 which is clearly shown in the blog. And there is absolutely true information that Boris Stomakhin was at this time in jail under arrest and therefore he couldn't have written this blog entry.

I have published the links to the Revolutionary Contact Association website - http://rko.marsho.net - which really not a blog.Vlad fedorov 05:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning! Statement of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews contains false facts
User Biophys inserted the following passage in the article

Micah H. Naftalin, Director of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews said: "Bogus charges aimed at stifling dissent, cruel police tactics, ethnic bias, and blatant disregard for criminal procedural statutes are all on open display. We hope that others will join us in condemning this travesty of justice".

He explained: "This sentence exposes the underlying hypocrisy of the Russian government's half-hearted struggle against extremist groups and hate speech. This month alone, the FSB refused to investigate the distribution of a neo-Nazi hit list containing the names and addresses of human rights activists whom the authors 'sentenced to death,' a publisher of a newspaper in Ulyanovsk who publicly called for the murder of Jews got a suspended sentence, and three youths who broke the jaw and fractured the skull of the Minister of Culture of the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic while screaming racist slogans were sentenced to just six months to a year in prison. You don't have to agree with Mr. Stomakhin's radical, though non-violent, views on Chechnya to see that his sentence was disproportionate and unjust." No one Jewish NGO in Russian Federation supported his view though.

I agree personally that the statement of Mr. Naftalin concerning the trial of Boris Stomakhin is relevant to the article. But as for his explanations, I would like to stress that they describe not Boris Stomakhin trial, and not the personality of Boris Stomakhin. They may be included in the article dedicated to this organization as it presents their opinion on the political events in Russia or in article dedicated to Politics in Russian Federation.

I completely disagree with user Biophys who deletes the notion of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews as a foreign NGO. The article dedicated to this organization in Wikipedia states that it is based in Washington, DC (and is therefore a foreign NGO) and has office in Russia, apart from offices worldwide. Therefore, the fact of having office in Russia doesn't make it national NGO, for there are tremendous number of organizations like Amnesty International having offices in Russia. But Amnesty International is British NGO, not russian.

Moreover, Union of Councils for Soviet Jews, falsely stated that Boris Stomakhin was probably pushed from the window during the arrest, which I have proved to be false, above. Therefore, their statements couldn't be verified and couldn't be relied upon as truthful.

Therefore, I have deleted the explanations of Mr. Naftalin, because they are irrelevant, not verified, nor reliable.Vlad fedorov 16:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention! Statement of Committee to Protect Journalists and Boris Timoshenko are taken from Blog
User Biophys inserted citation of Boris Timoshenko from Glastonst Defence Foundation published at Jewish Russian Telegraph http://www.jrtelegraph.com/2006/12/russia_5_years_.html. From the homepage of this website it is clear that it is a blog. It is made on the WordPress engine, has explicit Headers 'Blogroll', 'Recent Posts', 'Recent Comments'. It has explicit statement that it has been nominated to Jewish and Israeli Blog Award. User Biophys also had written the following: "Committee to Protect Journalists condemned the court’s ruling and expressed hope that it would be overturned" and also gave a link to the the same post in the same blog - http://www.jrtelegraph.com/2006/12/russia_5_years_.html.

According to the official Wikipedia policy on Biographies of living persons: Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources

Therefore user Biophys intentionally and repeatedly violated the official Wikipedia policy.

I would like to bring the attention of administrators that it is not the first, nor the only violation by user Biophys.Vlad fedorov 07:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Some links
Some interesting links related to Stmakhin story: Biophys 05:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinion of Aleksander Litvineko (Russian)
 * Letter by Sannikova and Bonner
 * For what reason Stomakhin tried to escape during his arrest
 * Boris Stomakhin against nuclear terrorism Biophys 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Letter by Vladimir Bukovsky and others


 * 1 link to Chechen terrorists website. My attention has caught especially this phrase of Stomakhin which Litvinenko shares and supports and which makes them not dissidents:

"Не пацифистские стенания «правозащитников», не уговоры и «переговоры» с палачами и садистами — а только вооруженный удар!" translation "Not pacifist wails of 'human rights activists', not agreements and 'negotiations' with executioners and sadists - but only an armed strike!". If you would cite this phrase, you have to agree that Stomakhin wasn't dissident and politically prosecuted person, he is a criminal who calls for violent change of constitutional regime. And so is Litvinenko who supports Stomakhin claims according to this article. What is more laughable is that Litvinenko citing the above phrase of Stomakhin calls him "political dissident" while calling for violence.

2 links to zaborisa.narod.ru. Narod.ru is the domain for personal pages of users of yandex.ru portal. Here we definitly know that there is no editorial review, unlike at the Revolutionary Contact Association website where Stomakhin - journalist according to your assertions - published his articles and which is not personal page of search engine users.Vlad fedorov 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

3 Link to 'Boris Stomakhin against nuclear terrorism'. Nevertheless, he considers nuclear strike at Russia as not terrorism but 'natural, legal and justified' without any mercy. Vlad fedorov 05:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

4 Bukovsky and 'letter' it's not a letter - it is demand, which is clear from the following phrase: "ПОЭТОМУ МЫ ТРЕБУЕМ:ПРЕКРАТИТЬ БРЕДОВО-ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ ДЕЛО ПРОТИВ СТОМАХИНА!" translation "AND THEREFORE WE DEMAND TO STOP THE DELIRIUM-POLITICAL INVESTIGATION AGAINST STOMAKHIN!". It is defamatory statement which says that the law enforcement officials are mentally ill. And as such it violates Wikipedia policies.Vlad fedorov 07:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

5 It is not a 'Letter by Sannikova and Bonner' it is appeal which is clear from the following '19 ноября обращение подписала Елена Георгиевна Боннэр'.Vlad fedorov 07:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

All articles by Boris Stomakhin disappeared from RKO web site?
I could not find any links to the alleged Stomakhin publications today. That is exactly what can happen with unreliable sources. Right now, this is a completely different site and address. Now they posted only three articles allegedly written by Stomakhin:, , and . Author of last article (maybe indeed Stomakhin - who knows?) says: "Chechens have every right to bomb anything in Russia" (as in the court sentence) but claims that the bombing in Moscow metro were actually organized by FSB. Biophys 05:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please click the following link, for they are working rught now http://rko.marsho.net/ and http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm for they are working properly.Vlad fedorov 05:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can see. Here it is: . Biophys 05:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that there is another website which is a mirror actually http://rko.front.ru/articl/articl.htm. Vlad fedorov 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Last compromise vesrsion
I made a version that could be a compromise. It includes citation of alleged article "Death to Russia". Biophys 03:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not Ok. The version created by user Biophys lacks important facts, it cites third-party blogs (unreliable sources), it contains original research in citations of Stomakhin from court sentence. Biophys also deleted the most serious statements by Stomakhin, leaving his most moderate citations. He also excluded without any grounds the fact that Stomakhin political view is to exterminate all Russians. Excluded many facts such as false facts contained in Statement of Union of Councils of fU Jews. This perversions of the facts and personal edits of Stomakhin's citations by Biophys are intolerable.Vlad fedorov 05:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So, you do not want a compromise. What we have here is not a POV dispute. This is matter of Wikipedia LP policies. I reported this as violation in the living persons biographies noticeboard. Now I must follow this rule: "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous". I am going to follow this rule until a responsible third party (e.g. one of Wikipedia administrators) intervene and say that he or she wants to be responsible for this article content. But until then, I feel morally responsible for defamation of Boris Stomakhin, because I have created this article. Biophys 17:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Biophys just read your own words with attention. It is you who wrote "Last compromise version", not me. It is you who refuses to make compromises. Are you always judging people by yourself? I never rejected compromise based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It means:


 * no original research (inserting personal comments into Stomakhin citations);
 * no unreliable sources(inseting information from third-party blogs);
 * no publishing your unsupported propaganda about Russian government and Russians as an ethnicity;

If you write propaganda, unsupported statements and your conspiracy theories you adore so much, do not await to be welcome in Wikipedia. Let me point you to things people already told you:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Unfounded_accusations
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anna_Politkovskaya#Death_.26_Putin.27s_birthday

Even now instead of making compromise without distorting real facts, you claim my material to be "unsourced or poorly sourced". Whom you consider yourself? Are you an ultimate source of knowledge of everything? Just look at my unanswered questions on the talk page and in the archive. What you dispute? Is it not you who reinserted material from blog - statement by Committee to Protect Journalists? Is it not you who inserted your personal explanations at Stomakhin citations, hereby violating "no original research" rule. If you would delete this article, I would create it again. The fact that you created this article doesn't gives you any privileges in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 18:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not doing original research anywhere. But citation out of context can be easily used to disinform a reader. One should explain why certain claims by Stomakhin were made (e.g. he wrote this in reply to a murder of a women by Budanov), or explain that Stomakhin claimed Moscow metro was actually bombed by FSB, but he believes that rebeles have every right for doing  such terrorist actions "after all that Russia did to them" (clearly, this is his personal opinion that most people including me would not share). That is how such subjects should be described in NPOV Wikipedia articles. Biophys 01:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't that why you delete my whole translation of following Stomakhin citation "Supporting fighting Chechnya, uniting publicly with Basaev, openly joining the side of Movsar Baraev at the days of Nord-Ost -- we have crossed the border, behind which any connections break and vanish with the past, with the environment, with people among which you have been born and have been growing-up and lived, trustingly considering yourself a part of this, until on the foreign 'enemy' website have read and have seen with own eyes terrifying details of deeds made by these people in neighboring, tiny mountain country. So the Rubicon is crossed, the choice is made, and there is nowhere to retreat - now there is no for us any other family, except for oppressed by our 'Empire' peoples, except fighting for liberation from yoke partisans, famous field commanders like Basaev, political parties which put forward demands for monetary compensation of occupation and return of taken away territories" by replacing it with yours edited and taken out of the conext citation "*'We do not have any other family in the World except all oppressed nations of 'our' Empire, except those who fight for liberation from this Empire as Shamil Basayev.'"


 * No problem. You are welcome to include more citations from the court sentence. You can replace my partial citation with more complete citation. We just have to properly describe the "context" of each Stomakhin claim. So, we need to know the name of an original Stomakhin article for each court citation and compare the texts. Then everything should be fine. But I object if you eliminate any references to human rights organizations. Biophys 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not eliminate references for HRO, except for ones taken from the blog - which is violation of Wikipedia policy. I have translated all the citations of Stomakhin from the court sentence and you may fix my translation as you like, but I am against iserting any comments to them, like you did, since it is original research.Vlad fedorov 04:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I strongly disagree. Citation out of context is misrepresentation. In the proper context it is fine. This is not original research.  What I have written was based on the missing segment of the corresponding article by Stomakhin. One must explain what the corresponding article was about.  Otherwise, the meaning of the small cited segment can be comletely distorted.  Biophys 06:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't it you who accuses me of citing Stomakhin from allegedly written article by Stomakhin? Where have you got a context? Please make the link to where you got the context, and we will discover it leads to third-party comments of Stomakhin. It is explicitly written in the article that these are citations of Stomakhin taken from the official court sentence. You cannot add anything to the court sentence, you are not researcher and you by doing so violate Wikipedia policy. I wait for Alex Bakharev...Vlad fedorov 07:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone deleted my arguments from this talk page
Someone have deleted my arguments from this talk page. I would like to repeat one of them. In my opinion, Stomakhin is only a normal "liberal" who likes strong statements - by US standards. He is not even a real "anarchist". I have seen many people in US whose political views were more extreme than views of Stomakhin. All these people are free and promte their views relentlessly. How about Ann Coulter who said about Muslim countries: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war." (but others say something like that about US). Ann Coulter is a famous women, not a prisoner. This is freedom of speech. Biophys 00:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What's your point? This kind of opinion is quite prominently presented in the article. `'mikka 08:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I explained my point above. The texts of citation of alleged Stomakhin paper "Death to Russia" by Sokolov and extremist RKO web site are clearly inconsistent with each other (two first phrases in the continuous citation by Sokolov can not be found in the "complete" text of RKO site). Therefore, I believe both sources are unreliable and this 'citation should be excluded from the text of this article, although the reference to "alleged" Stomakhin witings can remain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biophys (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Lies, lies, lies. If you will compare texts written at rko.marsho.net and zaborisa.narod.ru, zaborisa.marsho.net of course you will find discrepancies. Since the latter two sites were created when Stomakhin was arrested and it's clearly not Stomakhin who wrote (or edited) the articles on them. But articles at rko.marsho.net are his articles. I again reiterate my point - you have no any reliable evidence sitting in US that the these websites are blogs, that they are run by extremists. By the way, you cite Bonner and Litvinenko and Bukovsky from these same sites and you seem pretty well contented with the source.Vlad fedorov 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So, you confirm: these sources are unreliable (but I talked also about article by Sokolov). I made this citation only to show that one could find any garbage in RKO site (but probably not in zaborisa.narod.ru site which is different from RKO) and put it in Wikipedia. I would not mind eliminating all Russian language sources together (including Bonner, Litvinenko and Bukovsky) and use only English language sources, as I proposed in the living person notice bord - to find a compromise.Biophys 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like all readers to read the message of Biophys once more and compare with my previous message in which I prove that zaborisa.narod.ru site is a site which actually different from the official RCA site and was created while Stomakhin was put under arrest. Therefore it couldn't be Stomakhin who wrote articles on zaborisa.narod.ru.Vlad fedorov 12:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not mind including any citations from the court sentence, if the context of these citations is properly explained. But RKO site is not an appropriate source. For example, someone could insert a translation of the following passage into article about Valentina Matvienko (this is a poetry about Vladimir Putintaken taken from the same RKO site but allegedly written not by Stomakhin):

... Но кто ж еще? Есть Валентина, Химфарм закончившая. . ., Но анальгин от аспирина Не научилась отличать. Зато общественной работой До банного седьмого пота Была Валюша занята. Еще был слух из уст в уста: Когда-то (не был сам при этом) Спросили Валю за пивком: “Не знаешь ли, отличье в чем Меж минаретом и минетом?” Валюша молвила в ответ: “А что такое минарет?”

Однако наш герой романа Запал, как видно, на красы Валюши (кличка — Полстакана Иль Валька-Красные трусы). Ее он в град Петров направил И поддержать ее заставил (Тем больше дров, чем дальше в лес) Чубайса вместе с СПС. . . . в рот...” — Сейчас твердит честной народ.

Would THAT be appropriate for Wikipedia? I do not think so. Biophys 21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you give me an example of me citing THAT in Wikipedia? The reason I cited one citation of Stomakhin is that the citation we discuss had become widely cited, e.g. Izvestia and others. And you cannot tell me RKO is not appropriate cite. You cite Bonner, Litvinenko, Bukovsky from site created in support of Stomakhin when he was arrested. So what's your problem, again? Isn't it strange that you attempted to claim that even article in Izvestia was "falsification"? You already been told on Putin's talk page that your allegations that Putin was involved in killing of Kennedy and Ceasar are not appropriate for Wikipedia. You have to live with your bad taste. Do not await that everyone will tolerate you garbage about conspiracy theories. Looking at your contributions I have to suppose that you have some kind of mania on Russia. Being russian and writing only negative things about your sweet home is kinda bad education. Could you wrote just one good thing about human rights in modern Russia? I think no and this is patalogy.Vlad fedorov 04:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Mikka and thanks for redrafting the article.Vlad fedorov 11:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably you have to look at archive page, pal before accusations. Isn't that why you delete my whole translation of following Stomakhin citation "Supporting fighting Chechnya, uniting publicly with Basaev, openly joining the side of Movsar Baraev at the days of Nord-Ost -- we have crossed the border, behind which any connections break and vanish with the past, with the environment, with people among which you have been born and have been growing-up and lived, trustingly considering yourself a part of this, until on the foreign 'enemy' website have read and have seen with own eyes terrifying details of deeds made by these people in neighboring, tiny mountain country. So the Rubicon is crossed, the choice is made, and there is nowhere to retreat - now there is no for us any other family, except for oppressed by our 'Empire' peoples, except fighting for liberation from yoke partisans, famous field commanders like Basaev, political parties which put forward demands for monetary compensation of occupation and return of taken away territories" by replacing it with yours edited and taken out of the conext citation "*'We do not have any other family in the World except all oppressed nations of 'our' Empire, except those who fight for liberation from this Empire as Shamil Basayev.'"Vlad fedorov 04:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please lock the article or ban Biophys from editing it
Hello Mikka. You see that Biophys is persistent in his attempts to distort repeatedly this article. He is considering that in 5 days, weeks, months he will revert the article again to satisfy his opinion and tastes. Please consider locking the article or baning Biophys from editing it. Just look at his (Biophys) contributions - I think everything is clear from them. He inserts only sources which defame everything which is Russian, but that's no problem. The problem is that he couldn't understand and is not willing to understand opinion of other people. He's just harassing articles about Russian politics by making reverts, deleting sourced statements like it was in Politkovskaya article, by inserting conspiracy theories in Putin's article, where you could read answers of non-russian users to Biophys on talk page (it's worth reading definitely). Just look at the article on FSB which, thanks to Biophys,contains more than half of the article dedicated to conspiracy theoris, hearsays, convictions and unsupported statements about (on) FSB and just compare with article on CIA. Have you ever seen in this article (CIA article) consipracy theory that CIA was behind September 11th? Serbsky Institute... Litvinenko... This guy is weird.Vlad fedorov 04:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Jewish origin
I removed this from the header per WP:MOSBIO. I am not trying to deny his heritage or ethnicity or anything else. I didn't even read this article and I know absolutely zero about this dude. OK?--Tom 18:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not OK. You are wecome to move the info elsewhere, but outright deletion is a no, sorry colleague. Also, you are misreading the guideline. Since you "didn't even read this article" you cannot judge whether his ethnicity relevant or not. `'mikka 21:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * At the same time I removed references to his ethnicity, because there is a controversy. E.g., one of polemic points of Novodvorskaya is that he is supposedly not a Jew. WP:RS, please. `'mikka 21:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He is a Jew. 'По данным Стивена Ика, за ходом процесса над Стомахиным, евреем по национальности, пристально следят в Союзе еврейских советов стран СНГ.'. This is an information from BBC article. I suppose that BBC news agency is more reliable than Novodvorskaya? The point of Novodvorskaya was that Stomakhin is a Russian citizen, and therefore he couldn't be an enemy of his own state as such. Just another demagogic garbage of ultra-right fascist politician...Vlad fedorov 09:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe. You have a bad habit not reading external links and going into guesswork. My references is also from radio, Radio Freedom. A news agency is a source of news and interviews (i.e., statements by other people). Unlike your quotation, mine is attributed to a particular person. In your quotation is unknown who said that Shomakhin is a Jew (from the phrase it is unclear whether Стивена Ик said so). Now, comparing Стивена Ик and Novodvorskaya, I'd prefer the lady. Second, repeating, please don't substitute your guesswork about what other people say and read what Novodvorskaya said. `'mikka 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OMG. I know Stomakhin personaly from FIDO-net, if you like. Like many other my collegues. You have interpreted the meaning of the BBC passage yourself and atrributed the words 'евреем по национальности' to Steven Ick. However, I find that another attibution of these words - to the author of the article, and not Steven Ick - to be valid as well. It's a matter of your personal interpretation. I repeat again, the nationality of Stomakhin reference was written by Biophys. I don't care about it. If you would study the history of his article edits, you would find that it was me who deleted first references of Biophys to the nationality of Stomakhin.213.184.226.15 06:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, If you feel that the ethnic origin is important, you can reintroduce it to the article Alex Bakharev 11:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not until reliable source provided. Person's nationality cannot be decided by voting ("some say he is russian, but more people say he is Jew") Either he himself (his relatives, lawyer, etc.) says he is a Jew or other compelling evidence provided. A hearsay by a journalist or a website is not a valid source in this respect. `'mikka 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guys, guys... You start storm in a cup of coffee...

To me his nationality is irrelevant. The theme of Stomakhin nationality was used by Biophys, who tried to present his case as a case of antisemitism 'typical of Russia' according to Biophys.Vlad fedorov


 * To me, this question is important in two aspects. First, a Jewish organization officially tried to protect him as a "Jewish activist": I think they know better if he is Jew or not. Second, this is probably the only case in history (correct me if I am wrong) when a European Jew has been convicted for "hate speech" to protect muslims. Therefore, I think this is notable and should be reflected in the article. Biophys 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. I have corrected you. Isn't it you who presented Stomakhin case as an example of minorities rights abuse in the Wiki article on 'Human rights in Russia'? Isn't it you who wrote that Stomakhin criticized Russian policy in Chechnya? I thought that Chechens are Muslims, and not followers of Judaism. What is more laughable is that Stomakhin defended Chechens and was characterizing Palestinians as terrorists at the same time, while Chechens consider Palestinians as brothers in arms.Vlad fedorov 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ...And Novgorodskaya specifically said that this accusation is laughable because Stomakhin is not Jew. (I don't exclude the possibility that she is wrong) `'mikka 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I said already that Novodvorskaya makes idiotic statements containing false facts. Stomakhin is a Jew, there are quite a lot of sources which confirm this fact. The problem is that Stomakhin claims that he is a cosmopolitan, while calling to exterminate all Russians. That why we should delete Novodvorskaya comments from the article. Because she is unreliable source, and her statements may defame Stomakhin.Vlad fedorov 07:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Vlad with regard to Jewish origin of Stomakhin and think this should be noted. I also agree with Vlad that some Novodvorskaya statements can be interpreted as defamatory. But it does not matter. I also do not like Stomakhin. What she said - she said (if this is relevant). We only must be sure that she indeed said what we are citing (just as in the case of Stomakhin). So, her citation should come from a place with editorial oversight, such as grani.ru.  Then everything is fine. Biophys 16:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read my messages correctly. If you are not sane person, I repeat: 'To me his nationality is irrelevant. The theme of Stomakhin nationality was used by Biophys, who tried to present his case as a case of antisemitism 'typical of Russia' according to Biophys.Vlad fedorov'. Is it clear for Biophys?

Article development
Vlad and Bio, you might not feel sympathy to each other at the moment but actually your argument is useful for the article. Both points of view are represented fairly well and referenced a couple more rounds of iterations and an intervention from a native English speaker and we could peer review it for WP:GA or whatever. Alex Bakharev 11:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, you are also advanced level English user, so please suggest translation of the word 'охренели' on English. We should not prevent English users from learning 'Stomakhin style'. Vlad fedorov 12:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think that English readers didn't see bad-mouthing journalists, you are badly mistaken. The language is not the point here. `'mikka 20:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mikka and Alex, Please note that Stomakhin did not say such stupid thing as "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens", according to the court statement. To the contrary, that was allegedly said in a pamphlet by Russian Orthodox Church, so Stomakhin cited this statement as an example of state-driven propaganda.  You have to check all citations very carefully.  Anyway, citation out of context amounts to misrepresentation. For example, you cite: "Bombing in Moscow subway was justified, natural and legal...". But he tells in this article that the bombing was organized by FSB. However, he also said that "Chechens have every right to bomb anything in Russia after all that Russia and Russians did to them". That would be an appropriate citation. And so on. If you allow me, I could try to correct such things, and you then could verify everything.  Biophys 22:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is never a problem with correcting wrong citations. `'mikka 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, no problems with correcting wrong citations. But the citation itself was actually correct ("Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens"). That was deliberate disinformation. Let's take a look at another possible disinformation in this article. The text cited by Maksim Sokolov includes the following continuous text (Russian): "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... Убивать, убивать, убивать! Залить кровью всю Россию...". Two first sentences cited by Maksim Sokolov can not be found in article "Death to Russia" allegedly written by Stomakhin. This also looks suspicious for the following reasons. First, RKO web site obviously has no any editorial oversight; they can post absolutely anything. Second, the "articles" in RKO site are not dated. This is serious.  Any written production must be dated, even personal letter. Otherwise, it is not admissible. Third, Maksim Sokolov did not say what he had actually cited. He did not tell this is "Death to Russia" or anything else. We compare two dubious texts and can see that, yes, they are different! The citation by Sokolov without any reference to the source is also not admissible. Fourth, journalist Vladimir Abarinov claimed that some texts allegedly written by Stomakhin and used for his conviction actually were not written by him (!). Fifth,  article "Death to Russia" was not cited in the court sentence, although they tried to find the most incriminating "evidence". I am not doing any original research here. This is simply an examination of sources. My position is very simple and clear: Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. (and these are are not simply "controversial" materials; these are mutually contradictory  and controversial materials).  This is not POV issue. If you think the article is POV, one can cite the Stomakhin's court sentence as many times as necessary (but not out of the context). It is also O'K to represent Sokolov opinion (but without his contradictory citation). It is O'K to provide a link to RKO site, because we are not responsible for content of other sites.  This is major problem here.  If this can be resolved, then all other POV and OR issues, which are present in this article, can be resolved easily I hope. Biophys 16:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, really? Thank you for the original research, which is now documented on the talk page. So you convict newspaper Izvestia of publishing libelous statements? May I remind you about freedom of speech? Journalists cannot be forced to name their sources. Newspaper is liable in case statements published by it are libelous. No one single person has ever sued Izvestia newspaper for defaming of Stomakhin. Stomakhin has the right to sue them, but he didn't while he had an opportunity in the court. If you think you are right, then go to the court and beat them. Don't whine in Wikipedia, if you think that you are right. What is more laughable is that all the human rights activists and human rights NGO never tried to sue Izvestia and this fact means more than the original research by Biophys. I understand your desire to name Maksim Sokolov article forgery, falsification, libel because it undermines your self-nurtured image of Stomakhin as 'a peaceful dissident', but your desire is an original research. You could only site from sources here in Wikipedia. Newspaper Izvestia is a well-known source in the world of mass media. Your attempts to find libels in Izvestia by comparing it with not well-known sources (even RCA web-site) is pathetic, really.Vlad fedorov 11:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all irrelevant. I do not challenge Izvestia as a source or even the article by Sokolov, but only a particular citation by Sokolov (he did not even tell where this citation came from, as in any other typical defamation article). We are not judges or investigators, and this is not court. We only suppose to examine the existing sources to see if they met Wikipedia reliable source criteria, and I did exactly that. Obviously, they do not meet such criteria. So, let us simply follow Wikipedia guidelines.Biophys 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Really? So you contradict to yourself. First you claim that this articles is falsification and should be removed from the article, then you claim that Izvestia is a good source. You must see the doctor.Vlad fedorov 08:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Another example: "Russians have slaves and dare to blather something at Chechens". What slaves he is talking about? This is completely unclear. Using citation out of context one can misrepresent anyone as an idiot. I could agree that many prominent idiots are described in Wikipedia. But they are living people and deserved fair treatment.
 * Deleted as having no relevance to any statements of the article. `'mikka 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Stomakin's main idea is that contemporary Russia is a totalitarian state like Nazi Germany, and therefore the military resistance and terrorism (like "partisans" in Belorussia) are appropriate. This is not clear at all from the article. Again, that would require very minor editing. Biophys 22:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The latter is quite clear from opinions of others expressed in the "Commentaries" section. You cannot ctate his "main idea" by yourself. You can only quote others, which is already done more than prominenty; more than half of the text of the article defends him.  `'mikka 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, I strongly agree. Please, no original research here! But let's take a look. This article says that Stomakhin "called to exterminate all Russians". Strong statement, is not it? But no source says exactly that. Even Maksim Sokolov did not say that. This is exactly an original research. There are other places like that. Biophys 16:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem, boy? Are you so intellectual as not to get that the article 'Death to Russia' you talk so much about was written after investigation was held? But I already know that you are not lawyer, so you 'encyclopedic' discourse about legal matters looks awesome. I already told twice, thrice and would tell it as many times as you would like, I took one phrase from the article of Maksim Sokolov, and another from the original article of Stomakhin. All citations are referenced and sourced. If you have evidence of Wikipedia'a policies violation, please, do not hesitate to present it to us as soon as possible. We would be the first people to prosecute violations of policies. But so far, applying you self-made and self-proclaimed criteria of 'controversity', I see that majority your edits in Stomakhin, human rights and russian articles should be deleted.
 * It is obvious that two cited texts of the same article are different. It means that one of them or both are forgery. What else evidence do you need? All my other arguments are also valid. Of course, this is a clear violation of stated Wikipedia policies. That is why I reported it. You claim that "the article 'Death to Russia' you talk so much about was written after investigation was held". But how can we know this? The "article" at the RKO site was not even dated! What kind of "source" is that? Even blogs are usually dated. This "source" is worse than a blog. I emphasize: this is a continuous citation in Maksim Sokolov article (a continuous text between two " signs:  "..."). I said: this is not original research, but only a simple examination of mutually contradictory sources. Biophys 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Your examination is original research. Your arguments are bullshit. No one point of your argumentation is covered in Wikipedia policies. That why you cannot cite any violation and provide citation from Wikipedia rules that clearly outlaws particular thing. may I note that all your violations were clearly cited by me and supported by citation from Wikipedia?Vlad fedorov 08:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not obvious. I am not citing citations from the same texts, however all the citations I cite from the article 'Death to Russia' are found in the original article at. The first phrase beginning with 'Kill, Kill, Kill!' is taken from Sokolov's article. Sokolov's article doesn't suggest continuous citation from the same source. It's a matter of your interpretation which is original research, forbidden here. Second citation, beginning with 'Russians should be killed' is taken from the Stomakhin article. I always show referencing to where I have been taking the citations.Vlad fedorov 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It means that one of them or both are forgery.Biophys 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It means you do original research.Vlad fedorov 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What else evidence do you need?Biophys 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hard evidence that Sokolov's article or Stomakhin's article contains information that is false in regard of Stomakhin. All phrases from Sokolov's article are taken from the numerous articles of Stomakhin found at. It is you who began to compare the real articles of Stomakhin found at with the articles found at  and. It is understood by every sane person that these sites were created by supporters of Stomakhin when Stomakhin was in jail. Therefore it couldn't be Stomakhin who wrote the articles on these later two sites. Moreover, these sites claim that Stomakhin was 'pushed from the window' even now although Stomakhin advocate told in an interview that he had done so himself. So your attempts to compare valid sources with the material published on disinformation websites and  is very pathetic. Vlad fedorov 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All my other arguments are also valid.Biophys 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Read through the whole talk page and an archive. You have consistently provided false information and information taken from blogs. You have disguised you original research like 'summarizing'. Do you find it to be valid?Vlad fedorov 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, this is a clear violation of stated Wikipedia policies.Biophys 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you acknowledge your violation of Wikipedia policies? Youa re so pathetic.Vlad fedorov 08:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Which one? Please give me citation like I did previously.Vlad fedorov 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is why I reported it. Biophys 21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And two Wiki administrators found you to be wrong. So what's your problem, huh?Vlad fedorov 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You claim that "the article 'Death to Russia' you talk so much about was written after investigation was held". How can we know if this "article" is not dated at the RKO cite? What kind of "source" is that? Even blogs are usually dated.Biophys 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We know the date when Maskhadov was eliminated, and considering that the article was written on the death of Maskhadov, which is clear from the article, we could determine the time it was written. Does it suit you, 'researcher'?Vlad fedorov 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it does not. What kind of "source" is that if one must do original research to establish the date of its "publication"? And we still do not know the date of the "publication". Biophys 18:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Who told you that reliable source according to Wikipedia rules should have a date on it? Are you doing original research on Wikipedia policies, boy? That issue was already decided by two admins. What's your problem?Vlad fedorov 08:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, I think the "pro-Stomakhin" (Commentaries) part is too long and includes a lot of distortions (Abarinov does not work in Izvestia as far as I know, and what he actually said was slightly different, etc.). I could easily make it shorter and more consistent with the sources, if you allow. Biophys 20:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will make it myself. Thanks for cleaning your own garbage.
 * Who are you? I did not clean anything yet. The garbage was provided by others. I always support everything by good sources. Biophys 21:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So you claim that the garbage inserted in the article on (cur) (last) 18:31, 18 December 2006 Biophys (Talk | contribs) wasn't made by user Biophys? You wrote that Abarinov claimed that Stomakhin 'is a peaceful political dissident' however these particular phrase is not found in the original source. However, thanks for cleaning your own garbage from 'good sources'...Vlad fedorov 06:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Some other points
1. "Extermination of Russians". Reference 1 does not fit Wikipedia criteria of reliable sources, as discussed above. Reference 2 says: "He called presence of Russian troops in Chechnya ´occupation´ and compared President Vladimir Putin with Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Miloscevic." So, let us keep close to the sources. If there are other reliable sources that say more, this is appropriate to include. Biophys 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So official government documents, according to Biophys no longer fit to the Wikipedia criteria? You may have some problems, mate...Vlad fedorov 07:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The court sentence does not say "extermination of Russians".Biophys 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just sit and read court decision, he 'advocated elimination (extermination) of Russians". The word 'advocated' is the key, just look the dictionary.Vlad fedorov 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No. It does not say that. It said:

Стомахин Б.В. совершил действия, направленные на возбуждение ненависти и вражды, а также на унижение достоинства человека, группы лиц по признакам национальности, происхождения, отношения к религии, а равно принадлежности к какой-либо социальной группе, совершенные публично, с использованием средств массовой информации, а также совершил публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности, совершаемые с использованием средств массовой информации.

Стомахин Б.В. совершил публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности с использованием средств массовой информации, а также по ч. 1 ст. 282 УК РФ, так как Стомахин Б.В. совершил действия направленные на возбуждение ненависти либо вражды, а также на унижение достоинство человека либо группы лиц по признакам пола, расы, а равно принадлежности к какой-либо социальной группе, совершенные публично с использованием средств массовой информации, а именно: являясь главным редактором информ-бюллетеня РКО "Радикальная политика", который Стомахин Б.В. распространял среди круга лиц, как лично, так и с использованием сети ЭВМ, печатал статьи, направленные на возбуждение национальной, расовой либо религиозной вражды, призывал к расправе с русским народом, унижал национальное достоинство русского народа. В статьях имелись призывы к экстремизму, а именно к свержению Президента РФ и конституционного строя страны. There is nothing even close to "extermination of all Russians" hereBiophys 06:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you say that 'призывал к расправе с русским народом' is not advocating to exterminate Russians? Any way, two Wiki admins have found that you are wrong. I don't care about your single opinion.213.184.225.28 11:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

2. No sources claim that Stomakhin is a prisoner of conscience. So, there is no need to disprove this. They say he is a political prisoner, which is a different thing. Biophys 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh really? The facts from the official court sentence prove the opposite. Stomakhin was put under arrest because of complains by private citizens and not by the initiative by political organizations or government.Vlad fedorov 07:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It does not matter. If International human rights organizations and notable persons, such as Bukovsky, say he is a political prisoner, he is such. Also check definition of political prisoner in Wikipedia. Even non-combatants of Vietnamise Army were classified as such. Biophys 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Bukovsky is not an ultimate judge or source of knowledge. Hitler said people like Slavs should be exterminated. Should we provide the opinion of Hitler in article on Slavs as valid and instructions on relations with Slavs?Vlad fedorov 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

3. In the Commentary section, we describe organizations or people who said something about Stomakhin. We should not describe others who did not tell anything, such as other Jewish organizations, or did not do anything ("No one human rights organization or non-governmental organization had supported Stomakhin at the trial"). Biophys 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We describe the context in which these phrases were said. If one Jewish organization supported fascist Stomakhin and tells lies in its statement, and that statement is not shared by any Jewish organization in Russia, why we shouldn't write it?
 * No, it is completely unclear in response to which events the articles were written. Without proper explanation (when needed), this is misinformation. Biophys 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am citing from the court sentence - there is no context here. When you add context to citations from the court decision - it's original research. You can't widen the court sentence for what is not written on it. You whine here that all Stomkahin's texts are controversial and probably falification, then tell me how you gonna do the original research on them?Vlad fedorov 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

4. The opinions "for Stomakhin" are too excessive. Abarinov is not a notable person (just as Maksim Sokolov), so his opinion could be mentioned only briefly. However, the Committee to Protect Journalists is a notable organization and probably should be mentioned. Biophys 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This Committee is sponsored by the US Congress and is implementing the policies of US government in Russia. It's not an NGO.
 * Funding does not matter. This is a notable Internationally recognized organization described in Wikipedia.Biophys 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a blog entry. This is forbeidden by Wikipedia policy. Who has recognized this organization? And who is an ultimate source of organization recognition? Even US politics say it is destructive and corrupt. So if you add it, then I add what americans say about it.Vlad fedorov 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Let's avoid pejorative terms, such as extremist. "Marginal" or radical is more appropriate for NPOV article. Biophys 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why avoid? If a man calls to exterminate some nation, you say he is radical? Laws of Russian Federation describe Stomakhin activities like extremist activities, the court sentence defines it like extremist activities, and you propose to falsify information ?Vlad fedorov 07:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is Encyclopedia. Even when we describe a real muss-murderer, there is no need in pejorative terms. Here, we describe a dissident with radical views. He did not kill or assaulted anyone.Biophys 23:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Go the nazism and Hitler's articles and see yourself. You are just defending Stomakhin. You baby whine just burns time.Vlad fedorov 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have told already most of that during our previous discussion. This is simply a waist of time to make second and third rounds.Biophys 23:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is you. Just loose dignity. You constantly refuse to discuss, when you feel you're right you just edit without getting the consent. The matter was decided twice and thrice and your arguments were found wrong. "Kill, kill, kill" would stay in the article. By the way you have acknowledged that Izvestia is a good source already.Vlad fedorov 05:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From the moment you was caught with crude falsification of statement: "Jesus Christ was crucified not by the Jews, but by Chechens" (you included this as Stomakin's opinion in this article), I have no moral obligation even talk and discuss anything with with you. So, I will not. You also made the following statement: "The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too. Absolutely nothing, except for a few happy people in Wikipedia" Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment. Since you openly wish me to die (and there are too many other offensive remarks of yours), I have little desire to discuss anything with you. Biophys 06:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Biophys 06:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You have personally interpreted my words, let's take a look at a full text with the context. No sane person could imply I wish you death. You may complain to anyone.

--- Talk:Anti-Russian_sentiment

Thanks. My mistake. But this article will probably be deleted. Next time I will make it right. But I did not write much about Putin, because Putin is unimportant. He is not Stalin. Just imagine that Putin suddenly dies. What will change in Russia? Absolutely nothing.Biophys 16:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The same would be in Russia if Biophys would die too. Absolutely nothing, except for a few happy people in Wikipedia.Vlad fedorov 08:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, according to your logic, you also wish another people to die. What's your problem? Why you await respect from other people, if you disrespect them? You have wrote tremendous number which is offensive in regard of Russia and Russians. You falsify information and publish hearsays and unsupported conspiracy theories in Wikipedia which are offensive on Russia. Why you extort me to be respectful of yours? Putin cannot defend himself here in Wikipedia, where such liars like you wish him to die. You also have lied that Putin is unimportant for you, because you have made a great number of edits in the article on Putin and have always provided convictions of Putin in Politkovskaya and Litvinenko articles. You are liar, that's it.213.184.225.28 11:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OR
There are a few statements in the article like "No Jewish organization in Russia supported..." "No human rights organization presented ..." etc. These are very strong statements. Do you really know in details all the decision of Jewish (or HR) Organizations? There are many of them; it is quite possible that the Jews of some Vasyuki town decided to support Stomakhin but we just do not know about it. On another levels these statements that something has not happened are intended to be arguments supporting a point of view. As such they should be attributed to somebody (or go to the talk if it is our invention). Please either provide sources or remove the statements Alex Bakharev 12:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but no one human rights organization or jewish ngo supported Stomakhin at trial - we know it from the court documents. They just blow out bla-bla-bla and cowardly sit in the bush. We know that no one has sued Russian Government on violations in Stomakhin case. Even Novodvorskaya doesn't call him political prisoner while barking at government. Any way I will supply the sources.Vlad fedorov 05:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Further actions
It is very clear (see my arguments above) that Sokolov's citation of Stomakhin and the "articles" from RKO web site do not satisfy formal Wikipedia criteria of reliable sources. So, I am going to follow exactly Wikipedia rules and revert any versions where this citation would appear (or any other versions with clear violations of Wikipedia LP policies). 3RR rule does not apply. Please understand. I do not like Stomakhin. If I only knew about such infighting and waist of time, I would have never created this article about him. But since this article has been already created by me, I feel responsible for having such version that does not defame a living person by using controversial and contradictory sources.Biophys 17:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex and Mikka, you know that I am formally right about these poor sources, just as you are probably formally right about the La Russophobe. After all these lies and personal offences by Vlad, I really do not want to write about any controversial topics, such as "La Russophobe", "FSB brigades in the Internet" (I hope they do not work in Wikipedia), "Accusations of Vladimir Putin" (there is such article in Russian Wikipedia), or other people like Stomakhin. But this article about Stomakhin must be fair, NPOV, and follow all Wikipedia policies for the reasons explained above. Then, I would rather do something for Biology or on other non-controversial subjects.Biophys 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh.. So you call me 'FSB brigade' working in Wikipedia, Biophys? It's a personal attack, and attempt to abuse me, that will be remembered by me and in appropriate event used. +1 score to me. BTW, I could also site your special interest in Putin, 'Phallus' article for example. And your love for conspiracy theories which is disgusted by every Wiki user.Vlad fedorov 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So is it OK to Wikipedia standards to make deals and bargains with administrators to violate Wikipedia policies? Your suggestion that you 'really do not want to write about any controversial topics', after inserting Putin's abuse in the 'Phallus' article are especially ridiculous. It's not the first time you vow and claim that you never be writing on controversial topics, but the fact is that you always do it. Anyway I have posted first official warnings for you.Vlad fedorov 16:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not clear. It's clear from my arguments that Stoamkhin article "Death to Russia" is an authentic text written by the subject. And you are right, the article 'doesn't defame', you shouldn't feel responsible for that, really.Vlad fedorov 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

illegally removed material from the article by Biophys
1. User:Biophys removed Stomakhin in his articles advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians, called to overthrow violently current government of Russian Federation , called to exterminate all Russians 


 * Stomakhin advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians.

This is supported by the numerous press reports (see below), by the citation which is already present in the article and the text of court sentence: "Bombing in Moscow subway was justified, natural and legal... The Chechens have full moral right to blow up anything they want in Russia after what Russia and Russians did to them, none objections on humanism and philanthropy could be accepted."[2] Moreover this is reported by RIAN news agency at and by REGNUM news agency  '''Речь идет о публикациях в информационном бюллетене "Радикальная политика" и на сайтах чеченских сепаратистов в 2000 - 2004 гг. публицистических материалов, которые, по оценке следствия, носили антиконституционный характер, содержали призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности, одобрение действий чеченских террористов, включая Шамиля Басаева, Мовсара Бараева, Салмана Радуева и др., а также позволял себе в отношении России как государства, руководства страны, российских политиков и российских военнослужащих, а также Русской православной церкви и русских как нации "отрицательные эмоциональные оценки", "унизительные характеристики" и "негативные установки на уничтожение".'''


 * Stomakhin called to overthrow violently current government of Russian Federation.

This is supported again by the citation from the court sentence that is already present in the article: "We, 'Revolutionary Contact Association' and 'Radical Politics' are united with the Committee and are ready to cooperate with it. It is understood that we [are] a lot more radical than it. We are for not waiting until 2008 and we shouldn't bother ourselves particularly with Constitution, but we are for calling people to overthrow and liquidate Putin's regime as soon as possible. And we at all do not see possibility of preserving of present Russian Federation as a single state. But we are for common front with all our allies, even more moderate".[2] Citation from the court sentence which clearly supports the above phrase: '''Таким образом Стомахин Б.В. являясь членом РКО, осознанно действуя в интересах данного объединения, планировал и призывал совершать действия, запрещенные Федеральным Законом № 114-ФЗ от 25.07.2002 года "О противодействии экстремистской деятельности" и являющиеся экстремистскими, а именно: насильственное изменение основ конституционного строя и нарушения целостности Российской Федерации;'''


 * Stomakhin called to exterminate all Russians.

This is supported by the court sentence again '''Таким образом Стомахин Б.В. являясь членом РКО, осознанно действуя в интересах данного объединения, планировал и призывал совершать действия, запрещенные Федеральным Законом № 114-ФЗ от 25.07.2002 года "О противодействии экстремистской деятельности" и являющиеся экстремистскими... обращался к гражданам и организациям лично и через издаваемый им бюллетень "Радикальная политика", обладающий в соответствии с Законом всеми признаками экстремистских материалов, как документы и иная информация на иных носителях, предназначенные для обнародования и призывающие к осуществлению экстремисткой деятельности, обосновывающие и оправдывающие необходимость осуществления такой деятельности, обосновывающие и оправдывающие национальное и (или) расовое превосходство и оправдывающие практику совершения военных и иных преступлений, направленных на полное или частичное уничтожение какой-либо этнической, социальной, расовой, национальной или религиозной группы (статья 1 Закона)'''. Also it is supported by citation from Stomakhin itself 'Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown''. ''Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced .'

Moreover, we should add from the court sentence that Stomakhin Стомахин Б.В., в своем информационном бюллетене "Радикальная политика" №1 (27) за январь 2003 года и № 9 (35) за 2003 года указал на неполноценность православного народа, передав изложенными им словесными оборотами о православии оскорбительные характеристики и отрицательные эмоциональные оценки верующих, выражения дискриминационного отношения к православию, как религии, отмечая о необходимости ликвидации таковой веры, исповедуемой русским народом, унижая, тем самым национальное достоинство граждан, исповедующих данную веру. Since it is also supported by Regnum news agency Автор также призывал не признавать православие.

2. User:Biophys removed of extremist political group "Revolutionary Contact

The court sentence itself says "Таким образом Стомахин Б.В. являясь членом РКО, осознанно действуя в интересах данного объединения, планировал и призывал совершать действия, запрещенные Федеральным Законом № 114-ФЗ от 25.07.2002 года "О противодействии экстремистской деятельности" и являющиеся экстремистскими. The court sentence qualifies his activities as extremist. Whta do we need else in order to call him extremist?

3. User:Biophys removed despite Stomakhin's claims that he is politically prosecuted in Russian Federation.

This is sourced by News agencies, Grani.ru , Prima New Agency.
 * If you insist, we can include that. Biophys

4. User:Biophys removed (Stomakhin's lawyer Alexei Golubev stated that Stomakhin jumped out of the window voluntarily.)

No need to argue that this sourced material should be kept in the article, since some sources give suspicions that Stomakhin 'was pushed from the window' which could give birth to suspicions of readers.
 * This is already supported in the previous phrase by several references. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Itis not supported. You have deleted both citations and both sentences that show Jewish Union statement contained fasle facts.Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

5. User:Biophys removed He was sentenced to five years of prison for the extremist activities,
 * O'K, we can include that. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This is clear violation, as mentioned above, Stomakhin activities were qualified by court as 'extermist' and the court sentence sentences Stomakhin for 'extremist activities' the article 280 of the Criminal Code of Russia is so called.

6. User:Biophys removed No one human rights organization or non-governmental organization had supported Stomakhin at the trial, and no one organization sued the Russian Federation government for alleged by them abuses of Stomakhin, trial abuses or Stomakhin contention abuses.

This is supported by the court sentence, where all the participants of the criminal case are listed. What else do we need?


 * See objection by Alex Bakharev.Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no conclusion in statement of Bakharev. There is only mentioning it's a strong phrase. This is not the reason for deletion.Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

7. User:Biophys added (the article was written in response to rape and murder of Chechen women Elza Kungaeva by Yuri Budanov)

This phrase is absent in the source from which the citation is taken. Therefore it is the original research by Biophys. What else do we need to delete that phrase from the article?


 * This is taken from the same court sentence. It says: "Так, в публикации "Невменяемость" Буданова — залог победы Басаева...". So that was about Budanov. But we have to explain that Budanov is the man who raped Elza Kungaeva. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You may make link to Budanov, but you have chosen 'explantion' which is original research, either your link to Budanov article, or you do original research. There is no such explanation in the court sentence.Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

8. User:Biophys deleted  However, according to the official court sentence, Stomahin pleaded not guilty on the grounds that he never made public appeals for extremist activities, never called for violent change of the constitutional regime, and never incited ethnic hatred.

It is taken from the court sentence. What else do we need to keep that phrase in the article?
 * This is already said in the previous sentence.Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Nothing is said. The court sentence contains these facts, and I will make a link to the court sentence and will include it in the article.Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

9. User:Biophys added He is currently one of two political prisoners in Russia listed by Committee to Protect Journalists, a member of International Freedom of Expression Exchange.

Here look at the link. Nothing like that is told in the link. Calling by Biophys Stomakhin as a 'political prisoner' is his original research. There is no such words in the source.

10. User:Biophys deleted ''He also described statements by Boris Stomakhin as 'non-violent'. No one Jewish NGO in Russian Federation supported his view though. Some of the facts in Statement of Union of Councils for Soviet Jews turned out to be false. According to the statement of Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union, Stomakhin 'was probably pushed from the window', however this accusation contradicts to numerous mass media and NGO reports      and statements by Stomakhin's lawyer Alexei Golubev  according to which Stomakhin jumped out of the window voluntarily. Despite evident contradiction to numerous sources which could be found easily in internet, Union of Councils for Jews in the Former Soviet Union doesn't change its statement.''

What else do we need to keep that phrase. This statement evidently tries to confuse the readers and the infromation which is contrary to the statement and sourced information should be provided.

11. User:Biophys deleted ''Litvinenko also stated the he fully supports the following Stomakhin's citation: "Not pacifist wails of 'human rights activists', not agreements and 'negotiations' with executioners and sadists - but only an armed strike!", compromising his alleged status as a prisoner of conscience. Even such vocal supporters of Stomakhin as Valeria Novodvorskaya agree that Stomakhin is not a "prisoner of conscience" since he supported violence .''

This text was forged by me and Mikka. It is evident personal attack by Biophys.
 * Nothing was "forged" there. The citation is currently included. No source tells about prisoner of conscience, as was argued before. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Look in the dictionary what 'forged' means. You have deleted undisputed text without any reason. Explain why you have deleted sourced mention that 'Valeria Novodvorskaya agrees that Stomakhin is not a "prisoner of conscience"'!Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

12. User:Biophys deleted ''However, Gannushkina in the same interview acknowledged that some Stomakhin's articles were 'absolutely outrageous' and she 'categorically disagrees with what was written or told by Stomakhin'. ''

This is absolutely sourced material. This is illegal to remove it. This was told in the same interview.
 * This is actually included. Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

13. User:Biophys deleted The Stomakhin's article contained the following passages written by Stomakhin: Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown''. ''Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced .

I still think that all the above material is properly sourced and doesn't contradict to Wikipedia policy. We need clear decision by the administrators on the evaluation of these sources.Vlad fedorov 04:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, any dated materials on the Russian-language site (but not on RKO site!) can be used (unless this is a secondary reference to a poor source, such as blogs and wikis). The court sentence was taken from there, and there are other materials.   Many of your qquestions have been already disscused and explained (so we are not going to repeat). It is important that the court sentence and proceedings were disputed by Stomakhin's lawyer and human rights organizations. Therefore, we should refer to the court's accuations only as court accusations (as we did in the part about the court). The political views of Stomakhin (he compared Putin with Saddam Hussein, etc.) should be described exactly as in non-controversial journal publications, but not as in the court sentence (the court accusations and conviction are described below and separately as such). If you find anything clearly and directly stated in the good journal publications about political views of Stomakhin, that would be appropriate to include in the beginning of the article. Please tell, what of this kind is missing.Biophys 06:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything is told and explained and sourced with news agencies publications in point #1 of this passage. All the links are provided. I don't have to repeat it once more there. Every claim in #1 is supported with good journal publications.Vlad fedorov 06:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alex attempt to find a compromise
Alex, thank you for the intervention. But you almost restored the old version by Vlad. Everyone can compare and see it. Yes, I am ready to find some kind of a compromise. For example, we can prominently represent the Sokolov's opinion. The only thing we can not compromise is defamation of a living person using controversial sources. So, I will do some editing of your version (probably today or tomorrow) to show what compromise is appropriate in my view. Biophys 16:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC). There are two main points of contention here. First, no source (including court sentence and Maksim Sokolov) says literally that "Stomakhin wanted to exterminate Russians". This is OR based on unreliable sources. Court sentence claims that Stomakhin "advocated violence against Russian people". This can be said, but it is not the same. Second, based on my arguments above, article "Death to Russia" at the RKO web site can not be considered as a reliable source, and therefore it can not be directly cited for the purpose of defamation. This is "alleged article" at best, and it can be mentioned as such and remain in the list of references if you insist. Right now, the entire "case" against Stomakhin in this article is built on citation of this unreliable (at best source). It was cited 5 times. This must be corrected. Other disagreements seem to be relatively minor, but they should be fixed to have NPOV article.Biophys 18:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The current version says: "According to his court sentence Stomakhin in his articles advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians [1]...". But reference [1] and others is not court sentence. Biophys 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Journalists have right not to disclose their sources, so you waist your time by censoring Izvestia articles. There is no requirement for the source to have a date in Wikipedia rules. There is no requirement for the journalists of respectful newspaper such as Izvestia to disclose their sources. Adminstrator Bakharev found the article "Death to Russia" to be reliable source, for it is he who reinserted this into the artcle. Adminstrator Mikka also found it to be reliable and was reinserting it after your edits. And I also found it to be reliable and to be in accord with the Wikipedia policies. You alone is a man who found it to be unreliable. Three versus one - guess what? Biophys, I beg you to stop this trolling. You know that your cited letters of Bukovsky and other statements in support of Stomakhin are also undated, moreover they just represent statement which is sighned by some people including Bukovsky and others. The real authors of these statements are unknown and therefore it is unappropriate to name them 'letter by Bonner' or 'statement of Bukovsky'. They are published at narod.ru - which is a place where all people could make their own personal websites - it is a project of yandex.ru Search portal. We couldn't trust to Google user pages and couldn't trust to every page at Geocities (which is project of Yahoo search protal). Your sources are shaky, but nevertheless I never raised any objections. Vlad fedorov 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also note that current version says three times (!) about his court conviction: (1) "According to his court sentence Stomakhin in his articles advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians..."; (2) "Stomakhin was accused of the extremist activities, calls to violent change of Constitutional regime, calls to violate territorial integrity of Russian Federation,..."; (3) "He was sentenced to five years of prison for inciting religious and ethnic hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime". Obviously, this suppose to be said only in the part about his conviction. Well, may be two times if you so insist, but three times?. This is not a major point though. Biophys 18:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See this paragraph:

"According to his court sentence Stomakhin in his articles advocated terrorist attacks on Russian civilians[1], called to overthrow violently current government of Russian Federation[1], called to exterminate all Russians[1], Stomakhin claimed that modern Russia is Evil empire and therefore must be destroyed, called Russians a "nation of occupiers", and compared President Vladimir Putin to Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic.[2] Stomakhin considered terrorists Shamil Basaev and Salman Raduev as heroes of Chechen resistance and claimed that terrorist acts committed by them are legitimate [3]. On the other hand, opposition and some human rights activists like Valeria Novodvorskaya and Yakov Krotov interpreted his writings as a graphic description of the possible feelings of Chechen people rather than the actual advocating of the terrorist activities [4]"

First, the opinions of Valeria Novodvorskaya and Yakov Krotov are completely irrelevant here. We have a separate chapter about "opinions". Second, court sentence is also irrelevant; we have a separate chaper about the court. One should put it there (but it is already there! However, this is not a major point, so we can leave it there, and just make a little bit shorter. Reference [3] is also court decision. Third, court sentence does not say all things covered by reference [1] which is not court decision. What we have here is only reference [2] (could be more of course, but not "Death to Russia", which can be mentioned with regard to Maksim Sokolov opinion (if you insist that he had in mind this alleged and not named article, although actually he cited something else!). Biophys 19:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Opinions of Novodvorskaya and Krotov here refer and concern the views of Stomakhin and not his trial - it is evident just from reading it. That perfectly justifies their citations. Biophys, the court sentence gives an estimate of Stomakhin views. We no longer need to site some special sources. The court sentence is a valid source according to Wikipedia rules. And, Oh I forgot, it is also dated as specifically required by you.Vlad fedorov 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So I made first edit. Others will follow.Biophys 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you again refused to acknowledge that your arguments are wrong, and do contradict to Wikipedia policy.Vlad fedorov 05:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alleged article "Death to Russia"
My position is not to include this material at all as unreliable (at best), plain and simple. You think it should be included. Now, I will take for a minute your position and show what kind of trouble it is. According to Vlad (see above), this article was published after the conviction, and therefore it has not been cited in the court sentence. Fine, maybe he is right, although we do not know for sure, since this text was not dated. So, Sokolov is trying to justify Stomakhin's conviction based on something that Stomakhin did already after this conviction?. This is nonsense. But maybe that was the reason why Sokolov did not indicated his source? I have no idea. This is mess. That is exactly why we should not use unreliable sources. But most important, '''the text cited by Sokolov is different from the text on RKO site. So, we do not know what is that he had cited and even Sokolov himself did tell in his article what it that he is citing'''. Biophys 00:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, I simply noted that the source of the text was not identified by Sokolov (and in fact it is inconsistent with the text in alleged article "Death to Russia"), and I briefly summarized the essence of this article. Obviously, the most important thing is announcement of nuclear war to Russian Federation by author of this article. I guess, the author of this article was actually Superman.   Biophys 01:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What you wrote above is called censoring. How could speak about human rights in 'Human rights in Russia' article if you are censor, indeed. You claim Izvestia correspondent is lying? Are you claiming that Izvestia is non-reliable source? What you wrote above is also original research by you and guesses where journalist have taken the material.Vlad fedorov 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have explained many times that I do not challenge Izvestia as a source,  but only a particular contradictory, unsourced and ridiculous citation by Maksim Sokolov. Of course, Izvestia and Maksim Sokolov could be challenged, but I am not doing it. Biophys 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, you challange Izvestia as you delete citations of Stomakhin where he calls to make terrorist attacks on Russian civilians. You have deleted this phrase which is supported by both court sentence and Sokolov's article in Izvestia. Therefore you challenge the information published there by making original research. You are now practically censoring the article, by claiming that particular sections must be sourced by materials coming only from press, or you name them defamatory which is strange, since you are not Stomkahin, who could sue anyone if he would feel he is defamed.Vlad fedorov 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I finished. Seems to be better. Biophys 01:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You again have deleted sourced and relevant information.Vlad fedorov 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, I finally realized why did Sokolov inserted these two phrases! The text of alleged article "Death to Russia" was so increadibly stupid that author did not even tell who should attack Russia. So, Sokolov wrote himself these two phrases about Chechen Shakhids to explain that it were they who should destroy Russia using their nuclear arsenal (if they only had one and were waiting for an order from the author to use their nuclear weapons). But this is OR, of course.Biophys 01:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What about good faith rule of Wikipedia? You violate this rule by stating things above.Vlad fedorov 06:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Original research by Biophys in action.Vlad fedorov 05:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I made these changes because of unreliable sources as explained above, not due to OR. You can simply ignore my previous statement if you do not like it.Biophys 05:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a rule in Wikipedia, that before making any changes to the article, editor must discuss his suggested edit with other authors. You never discuss any your edits. You just write few sentences on a talk page and then edit without getting the opinion of others. You must be ashamed of your behavior. As we already seen, you are the only one here who think that some sources are 'unreliable'. Three other authors disagree with you. Despite your defeat you continue to troll the article by calling material you dislike or which doesn't conform to your POV 'defamatory' and 'unreliable', it is called trolling actually. Your POV is already present in the article. More than half of the article is dedicated to your POV. How about other POV?Vlad fedorov 08:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have asked you to provide the direct evidence that those sources are unreliable and relevant passage from Wikipedia policies. Journalists have right not to disclose their sources, so you waist your time by censoring Izvestia articles. There is no requirement for the source to have a date in Wikipedia rules. There is no requirement for the journalists of respectful newspaper such as Izvestia to disclose their sources. Adminstrator Bakharev found the article "Death to Russia" to be reliable source, for it is he who reinserted this into the artcle. Adminstrator Mikka also found it to be reliable and was reinserting it after your edits. And I also found it to be reliable and to be in accord with the Wikipedia policies. You alone is a man who found it to be unreliable. Three versus one - guess what? You may complain to whoever you wish, but you are wrong and decline to accept your defeat.Vlad fedorov 06:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Biophys, I beg you to stop this trolling. You know that your cited letters of Bukovsky and other statements in support of Stomakhin are also undated, moreover they just represent statement which is sighned by some people including Bukovsky and others. The real authors of these statements are unknown and therefore it is unappropriate to name them 'letter by Bonner' or 'statement of Bukovsky'. They are published at narod.ru - which is a place where all people could make their own personal websites - it is a project of yandex.ru Search portal. We couldn't trust to Google user pages and couldn't trust to every page at Geocities (which is project of Yahoo search protal). Your sources are shaky, but nevertheless I never raised any objections. Why you trolling specifically me? Boris Stomakhin is not a political prisoner and forget about labelling him with such words. Having this logic we should also call Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and many others as political prisoners! It is insane.Vlad fedorov 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Vlad, I have already spent enormous amount of time discussing this article with you. I have never had a trouble discussing anything with other users but you. Yes, we argued, but it was possible to find a common ground with everyone but you. This article is NPOV now. The political views of Stomakhin are very clear from the court sentence citations. But you want to paint him as a fascist using single unreliable citation. Why? Do you hate him so much? He is already sitting in prison. I think it would be very unfair and wrong to have a defamatory article in Wikipedia based on unreliable sources. Biophys 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am using as sources: 1)Official court sentence which found Stomakhin guilty of [Extremism; 2)articles from Izvestia, Komsomolskaya Pravda and Rossiyskaya Gazeta which have respective articles in English Wikipedia and are most respectable newspapers in Russia, and 3)materials written by Stomakhin personally. If these sources paint to your opinion Stomakhin as a fascist, then they may have good reason.Vlad fedorov 07:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edits
I did my best to make this article as NPOV as possible. Right now, nothing seems to be missing except unsupported defamatory statements. If something important and supported by good sources is missing, please tell what is it. Biophys 01:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to ask you not to fire 'defamatory' accusations on me or sources which are referenced by two or more reliable sources. After my edits, the article is sourced and referenced.Vlad fedorov 11:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Way forward
I suggest to follow User:William M. Connolley advice. He said: "I suggest a way forward: for all Russian sources you want to reference, starting with the first, you get agreement on the talk page that the source is (a) reliable and (b) that the translation (of the relevant passages, not the whole thing) is agreed." O'K. I think we disagree only about one source: article "Death to Russia" and especially its citation (not dated, RKO site has no editorial oversight, and the unsourced citation by Sokolov contradicts to the alleged source). So, we have to resolve this question first. Until this is resolved, we can not move forward. I have made a compromise in the previous version: we do not cite this text directly (because two alleged texts contradict each other) but describe the content of this citation by Sokolov in general terms (although, strictly speaking, this contradicts Wikipedia LP policy). So, let's first agree about this.Biophys 16:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The thing is simple Biophys. Just post a message in appropriate noticeboard to decide the reliability of the article 'Death to Russia' . If administrators would rule out its reliability, then we should preserve it. It's not a matter which should be decided by just two people. If non-Russian speakers want to translate the article at independent translators - they always could do it at Translators available. By the way, applying your criteria also renders citations of Bukovsky, Bonner which are taken from personal pages domen zaborisa.narod.ru, unreliable too. Citation of Stomakhin from Izvestia article and namely "Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown", couldn't be scrapped, since it is one of the most respectable newspapers in Russia.Vlad fedorov 17:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a suggestion to formalise this, if needed. For each quote, a section, and lets see if the parties can agree.

quote "Death to Russia"

 * url referenced: ?
 * organisation responsible for the url: ?
 * text quoted from url in article: ?
 * the translation of the text is acceptable and not taken out of context: agree X; disagree Y (please sign as appropriate)
 * the url is a reliable source: agree X; disagree Y

OK. Now fill in the blanks above. William M. Connolley 17:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

a)
 * url referenced: http://www.izvestia.ru/sokolov/article3098675/
 * organisation responsible for the url: Newspaper Izvestia
 * text quoted from url in article: Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown
 * the translation of the text is acceptable and not taken out of context:
 * agree X
 * disagree. The cited text also includes the following sentences, which were not translated: "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят... ". They must be translated.Biophys17:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [ok, can you translate them please? William M. Connolley 17:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)]
 * I would translate. Here it goes: "Chechen Shahids blow up this blockheaded and unitelligent (variant-senseless) Russian population not without reason... They just burden the Earth..."Vlad fedorov 17:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Approximate translation of two first phrases (my English is not good enough): "The Chechen Shakhids do the right thing when they blow up this stupid and worthless Russian population. They are without any merit on the face of Earth."
 * These sentences could be found in another article of Stomakhin "Tushino, Budennovsk, Nord Ost and so on.." here at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htmVlad fedorov 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * One else (last) phrase is missing: "Эта страшная и зловонная Россия должна быть уничтожена навеки" ("This terrible and ...(smelly?) Russia must be destroyed forever"Biophys 18:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This phrase is found in the Official court sentence and Official conviction. Moreover apart from Stomakhin individual articles there were Publications of Radikalnaya Politika newspaper which was edited by Stomakhin. Here is a qoute from the court sentence in Google with highlights Vlad fedorov 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * the url is a reliable source:
 * agree X
 * Disagree. This url is a reliable source in the sense it is indeed Izvestia. But this particular article and citation is not a reliable source. The problem: author did not tell where this citation came from, or when and where it has been published? Therefore, I have suggested to avoid direct citation. Biophys

I've trimmed this down to 1 (presumably the best) and removed the excess comments. Please stick to the point. Please also sign if you agree with yourself on the X's William M. Connolley 17:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem: author did not tell where this citation came from, or when and where it has been published: can you expand on this? Do you mean, the article does not state that this is a direct quote (you suspect them of inventing it?). Or that this is a second-hand interview? Or what? Can you translate the bit where they introduce the disputed quote? William M. Connolley 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Sokolov implies a direct citation from a single source. The reason Vlad omitted these three phrases is very simple: they probably (but we do not know for sure!) were doctored (invented) by Sokolov. That was not interview. There is no any reference where it came from whatsoever. He simply stated: Stomakhin claimed that: "..." He did not tell: this is article "Death to Russia". Biophys 18:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * So you blame that journalist falsified citations? It is laughable, since everyone could find Stomakhin's articles on Revolutionary Contact Association website which is maintained by the same people who run zaborisa.marsho.net and its mirror site zaborisa.narod.ru. So you claim that collegues of Boris Stomakhin also doctored (invented) the same versions of Boris Stomakhin articles which match those citations in Izvestia article? There is no any controversy! It is only Biophys who disputes both texts published at RCA website and Izvestia article, which correspond each other.Vlad fedorov 18:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The author in question discusses the nature of article 282 of Russian Criminal Code, he covers judophobes, kavkazophobes and their statements that are usually disguised as euphemisms. He says even the phrase 'final settlement of jewish question' is euphemism. Then he says: "But Stomakhin elected explicit manner:"Chechen Shahids blow up this blockheaded and unitelligent (variant-senseless) Russian population not without reason... They just burden the Earth...Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown...". The next sentence, journalist says: "Compared with this, Mein Kampf is a textbook on humanism". Then journalist says that if this article to be applied at all, then it should be applied to the absolute champion (Stomakhin - accroding to journalist).Vlad fedorov 18:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The citations of Izvestia match perfectly word in word with the articles of Stomakhin published on the website of Revolutionary Contact Association and signed 'Boris Stomakhin'.Vlad fedorov 18:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is precisely the problem that they do not match. Two first sentences omitted by Vlad (just translated) can not be found at the RKO site. Therefeore, it is safer to avoid direct citation of such sources.Biophys 18:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't cite these phrases in the article on Stomakhin, but nevertheless... Well, let us see the RKO website (Russian) where the last sentences are found "Чеченские шахиды взрывают это тупое и бессмысленное российское население не зря... Все равно только зря землю бременят...". These sentences could be found in another article of Stomakhin "Tushino, Budennovsk, Nord Ost and so on.." here at http://rko.marsho.net/articl/tushino.htm. And citations from Sokolov article and original article of Stomakhin match again. Again, I repeat Izvestia article by Maksim Sokolov in no way implies continous citation from one text. By researching Izvestia article, you do original research and convict this respectable Media of libel. The phrase about stinking Russia could be found in both the Official court sentence and Official conviction. Here is a qoute from the court sentence in Google with highlights Vlad fedorov 07:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The citation was done like that: "text...text". So, the Sokolov's citation is a "secondary citation" of a single "primary source" (RKO web site), but this  primary source is unreliable according to Wikipedia criteria. Biophys


 * Why you judge the reliability of Izvestia by unreliable sources? If you tell that RKO website is not reliable, how do you evaluate the reliability of Izvestia article? You have a flaw in your arguments - you name RKO website as unreliable, but you evaluate Izvestia article on the basis of unreliable sources. The journalists are not required by law to disclose their sources - that guarantees them freedom of speech.Vlad fedorov 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about Izvestia at all. I am talking about this citation by Sokolov. It was taken from another unreliable and not identified by Sokolov source (probably RKO site). He also made a composition from three different articles/sources but misrepresented this as a single continuous citation. We do not want such citations in Wikipedia. Sokolov discloses his "source": Stomakhin (this is not a case with protecting an anonymous witness). Of course, he does it!  The entire article by Sokolov is clearly a defamation of a dissident ordered by government (there are numerous cases like that in Soviet history). But this is not my argument at the moment. The argument is poor source - RKO site. Biophys 19:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ooooo... Finally you have disclosed your allegation. So, accroding to Biophys, Izvestia newspaper (private newspaper) published an article ordered by government!!!! Do you have the evidence?
 * Have you ever thought that apart from the articles published by Stomakhin at the RKO website, there is also his newspaper "Radikalnaya Politka". Have you ever thought that citations you dispute were published in "Radikalnaya Politka"? Considering that this edition was unregistered samizdat, how could you verify and provide the evidence that Maksim Sokolov is defaming Stomakhin? You base your allegations on the words like "probably"? What about 'good faith' rule?Vlad fedorov 19:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This newspaper is governmental property. It was purchased by state-owned Gazprom, see Izvestia. But this is not my point at the moment. Biophys 19:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Gazprom is not government property like British Petroleum or Dick Cheney's oil company it is a private company.Vlad fedorov 19:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since that’s practically the same site as zaborisa.{marsho.net,narod.ru}, would you consider them both unreliable? In that case, which parts of the article are still supported by reliable sources? —xyzzyn 19:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would considered everything reliable at the site: http://www.zaborisa.narod.ru/, but only under the following obvious conditions. 1. The article/material is dated and signed. 2. This is not taken from another blog, wiki, or other similar unreliable sources, such as RKO site (marsho.net belongs to this category). Biophys 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok letter by Bukovksy you cited in the article is not dated. It is not clear where that letter was taken from, since the word 'letter' implies it was send to the governement.Vlad fedorov 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Izvestia article by Maksim Sokolov is dated and signed and is not taken from RKO website.Vlad fedorov 19:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As soon as we decide with RKO site, we can discuss other references. Of course, any poor sources should be eliminated. This letter was published 05/05/06 - the date and original source provided. Biophys 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC) We can refer to Sokolov opinion and article, but not citation that came from RKO site. Biophys 19:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm… OK, those sites are different, but I have trouble seeing how either one can be considered reliable. ‘For Boris’ in the URL does not really hint at reasonably neutral third-party reporting. —xyzzyn 19:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If others think like you, we can eliminate all Russian language sources all together (less trouble!), or both 'For Boris' and RKO site. The only problem: we would not be able to cite the court sentence, which also comes from the same ‘For Boris’ site. But again, I would not mind if that helps. Biophys 19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As I understand the relevant policies and guidelines, Russian sources are usable but English ones are preferred. Either way, Izvestiya, regardless of who owns it, looks rather more reliable than ‘For Boris’. As for the court sentence, wasn’t it officially made public in some way? (I don’t know how the Russian system works.) —xyzzyn 20:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Then fine, let's use more reliable Russian sources, such as printed or Internet newspapers with editorial oversight. Strictly speaking, you are right, and 'For Boris' is a private group site. So, let's exclude it. No problem. But I do not know any other reliable source where the text of the court sentence can be found. If Vlad finds one, we can use it. If we want to eliminate all texts with the references to 'Pro Boris' site, I would try to find some alternative good references, and if they are not found, just remove the unreferenced portions of text. So, let's decide: do we want to do it?  If we do, Vlad will need some time to find an alternative source with the court sentence. If he does not, we will have to delete all references to the court, except those mentioned or cited in reliable secondary publications.  So, are we going to do  this? Biophys 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I just looked at a couple of possible Russian sources. A question: if the Russian newspaper article is dated but not signed by anyone - is it a reliable source? I guess it is not. However, the official statements by organizations are not necessarily signed by its Director, which is O'K.  Lets agree in advance what is appropriate. Biophys 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We’ve got WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP for just this kind of thing. They are about as specific as they can be. Regarding that newspaper, is it by itself reliable? What is the reason the author of the article is not given? —xyzzyn 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear xyzzy_n. This is Russian's most respectable newspaper Izvestia, the author is given and the date of the newspaper article is shown. See the article here http://www.izvestia.ru/sokolov/article3098675/. Biophys disputes the citation which the author of Izvestia article wrote in his article, e.g. Biophys disputes the content which was written by the journalist.Vlad fedorov 07:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Since the Izvestiya article is signed, I think Biophys was referring to a different article (and possibly a different newspaper). —xyzzyn 13:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Biophys disputes Izvestia article written by journalist Maksim Sokolov, please read with attention all the above text.Vlad fedorov 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's agree first that we do not use RKO site and citation by Sokolov taken from several different articles of RKO site. Of course, we can describe opinion of Sokolov based on his article in Izvestia. But we do not cite directly the alleged article "Death to Russia" from anywhere, because its primary source is RKO site. Do we agree about that? Biophys 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is this. The citation in Sokolov's paper comes from RKO site, which is unreliable source because it has no editorial oversight, it is a private site run by a small group of people, and the articles are not even dated (worse than blog where all correspondence is usually dated). If we agree not to use this source, we can move forward. Biophys 01:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The bottom line is:

'''And now the basic question: where is the controversy? If Biophys claims RKO website is unreliable, then how he uses this website in order to validate Journalist citations?''' Vlad fedorov 03:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Biophys disputes the phrases not contained in the article on Boris Stomakhin, and namely the phrases about Shahids and about stinky Russia.
 * Biophys disputes these phrases by comparing them to the source he claims to be unreliable (RKO website).
 * one disputed phrase (about Shahids) is contained also at RKO website and match perfectly to that cited by Journalist.
 * Some words from the second disputed phrase (stinky Russia) are contained in both the Official court sentence and conviction.
 * Biophys disputes here only RKO website, which is not relevant to the dispute right now, because we discuss only Izvestia article.
 * Biophys disputes these phrases based on the logic that 'they were probably taken by Maksim Sokolov' from RKO website. But he couldn't know actually.
 * Biophys logic is that all Stomakhin citations should be contained on the RKO website, although we know that there are newspaper 'Radikalnaya Politika' edited by Boris Stomakhin and there are publications of other radicals which could have published citation of Stomakhin in question. I don't understand why Biophys think that all Stomakhin citations should be contained only at RKO website.
 * Biophys failed to show that there are contradictory phrases. Out of three citation by Maksim Sokolov, two are found at the RKO website1 citation at RKO website2 citation at RKO website and they perfectly match those of the Journalist and one (about 'Stinky Russia') is not found, because Journalist haven't provided sources. The impossibility to found right now missing citation is not contradiction to Izvestia article. The fact that this citation couldn't be found does not mean contradiction.
 * The phrase 'worse than blog' is absolutely incorrect in regard of RKO website, since Biophys doesn't have evidence that this site has no any review, Biophys has no information on who runs the website.
 * Journalists have the privilege not to disclose their sources, in order to provide the freedom of speech.