Talk:Darya Dugina

Requested move 22 August 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: procedural close. An article has been created at proposed target, and a merge discussion is in progress — rendering the RM discussion moot. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Darya Dugina → Killing of Darya Dugina – Unless there is some notability in her own right, this is just a WP:CFORK of her fathers article and "Killing of" is more apropriate --LaserLegs (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose, she was sanctioned independently of the father, and this information is in the article. Generally, passes GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Russia is now under almost 11,000 individual sanctions, clearly most of the people who were sanctioned are not notable. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see how you come to this conclusion. If the statement is that 11K people can not be notable it is obviously false. What I tried to explain is that she is sanctioned independently of her father, with the separate (and very clear) justification. Ymblanter (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we can check the explanation of U.S. sanctions: she was sanctioned as the chief editor of United World International (UWI), one of the many propaganda websites that were created by Yevgeny Prigozhin, owner of the famous Russian troll factory. I can not find any RS coverage of her management of this website, so I believe there is no sign of WP:JOURNALIST in Dugina. Of course, U.S. Department of the Treasury is free to sanction any Russian propagandist, even if they aren't notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Very little biographical information. Outside or relation to father and death, the subject is not terribly notable. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Support. Based on current coverage in sources, her death was a lot more important than her life. My very best wishes (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC) Some say that she could became "Russian Marine Le Pen" after Putin. That is definitely an overstatement (she was relatively unknown beyond the Russian nationalist circles and did not play major role even in propaganda by Russia), but there is a sufficient coverage about her prior to the killing to pass WP:GNG (currently cited on the page). My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * They speculate/say that she "could" only after her death. Until she was killed she got no such attention. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk). 20:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * True. So, I changed my vote. Working as an editor of a propaganda web site did not make her notable during her life. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. She had no notability before the death and no wikipedia articles. It's also not obvious that she got sanctioned not because of her relationship to her father. Even data on sanctions became widely known after her death. She had no significant influence by herself. In the ruwiki with the current state of the article it will be deleted (unless some new notability data will surface). Due to her relationship with her father her death got attention in the media. But it's WP:BLP1E. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk). 20:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. Not notable as a stand alone biography. Her father and her assassination are the only things that made her noteworthy, see WP:INVALIDBIO. Other than that she was an obscure propagandist, she had a mediocre career working for obscure news outlets and Russian propaganda mouthpieces. No journalistic or academic achievements worth noting, being a journalist is not noteworthy in and of itself, any notability is inherited from her father. In my opinion only her assassination is genuinely notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support That she was sanctioned is not notable: there is no significant coverage of her due to the sanctions, and is the fact even mentioned in a secondary source in passing? Apart from material resulting from her killing, sources cited are one primary-source sanctions list, and two articles tagged as possibly unreliable: at least one appears to be a Russian fascist website connected with her father, for whom she worked. Nothing else about her in this article appears to be of encyclopedic value. Only her killing and her father are notable.
 * Note This article was created yesterday, evidence that editors did not consider her notable in her own right prior to a single event, her assassination. Also, go through the citations, the article is cited with a number of very dubious sources. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Deaths or other newsworthy events are oftentimes the catalyst for the creation or expansion of an article about a notable subject. The state of or the lack of an article before her death is not evidence for or against her notability. After all, there are plenty of examples of articles only being created after a previously notable person was thrust in the spotlight (Donna Strickland being the most prominent example that comes to mind ). Regards So  Why  09:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair point, however at this stage I think it's WP:TOOSOON to make a call as to whether her notability will grow to be worthy of bio article as a result of her assassination, I personally doubt it. This looks like a clear case of WP:BLP1E at this point. The oppose arguments below are mostly the personal opinions of individual editors rather than arguments based on guidelines. It's not a democracy, and I think we should really measure the merits of arguments based on guidelines, especially in controversial political areas. I know nothing about Donna Strickland, but looking at her article she appears to be a respected scientist with a huge career and she's noble prize recipient. Her notability is not in question. I don't know if that's a good comparison. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose As per Ymblanter. Autarch (talk) 00:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Notable for dying, that's all. Zaathras (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. She was nowhere near WP:BIO, just a relative of a famous person, and in such cases one usually creates an article about the event per WP:BIO1E. Wikisaurus (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose She seems to have notability independent of her father, even though she is a relatively minor figure. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Keep it simple, stupid Tiny Particle (talk) 09:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks. Glades12 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Glades12, you have misunderstood. The keep it simple stupid principle is a design concept; there is even a Wikipedia article on it. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see. I knew about the KISS principle, but it wasn't in my head at the moment. Glades12 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Undecided This is a tough one. Most English references do focus on the killing, but there's nonetheless a fair amount of other biographical info here like her education and political activities. Despite making up a bit more than half of this article however, a lot of that info is indeed questionably sourced. Ultimately, I have no way to gauge the reliability of the non-English sources or how much they really say about her (can't read Russian or French), so I can't say whether the current sourcing makes a full bio sustainable. Glades12 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per Ymblanter et al. &#160;☆☆☆— PietadèTalk 09:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose she was a part of the Dugin propaganda machine for a long time, and has had standalone activism. Yes her death has been reported in Western media now, but let's be honest, how many Russian articles are missing? After all we wouldn't expect wide coverage of a US state senator outside the US or a local MP outside e.g. UK or Australia, we shouldn't therefore apply these criteria so harshly to a non-anglophone country. Minor Russian figures also can pass wikibio. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ymblanter. There are mentions in sources predating her death, e.g. . Not saying these are high high quality, but enough that if we also included Russian sources we'd have more than sufficient for GNG. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not WP:SIGCOV. The first is a mention in passing. The second appears to be a systematic aggregation of all sanctions info. —Michael Z. 02:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the British Government thought she was notable last July - it described her as a "high-profile contributor of disinformation" (source: The Guardian). -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sanctioning is not notable if no secondary source wrote about it. The Guardian only wrote that in an article on her killing, not before, showing that she had not been notable for it. —Michael Z. 02:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others, she appears to have been notable before her assassination. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per others, as a journalist and a political figure sanctioned by both the US and the UK she appears to have been notable before her death. Yadsalohcin (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just because the article didn't exist prior to her death, doesn't mean she wasn't notable. I echo others comments that she appears to have been notable even prior to her death. --TylerBurden (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Toddy. Worth keeping the bio.♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose These "Killing of.." articles are often done as a compromise to deletion due to how our 1 event rules work. What usually happens is after a few years someone will propose renaming to the person's name, and most everyone agrees because it looks silly otherwise now the 1E is long over no one cares anymore about the event it's just part of the person's history. Time will change perspective. -- Green  C  15:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, she is notable only under WP:BLP1E, so it makes sense here. stjn 15:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Her biography has notability independent of her assassination. Most of this article and its sources aren't even about the circumstances of her death, so it wouldn't make much sense to make that the focus of the title. --Grnrchst (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Notable personality whose entry appears in 19 other Wikipedias, all of which, without exception, use her standalone name as the main title header of each respective entry. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if her death is the most significant event associated with her, she is not a random victim without a name. And not only her death, but also her views, statements, etc., are and will be in media. --Evilfreethinker (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - One notable fact about a person shouldn't define the title of their article. ArticCynda (talk) 22:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak support She had no any article on Wikipedia before her death what means she is mainly notable for WP:One event. She has been nominate for deletion at UKwiki and RUwiki and has WP:REFBOMB. On the other hand quite impressive if act she reached +50 pagewatchers in two days and we have twoarticles for George Flyod (murdering and biograpy). Dawid2009 (talk) 05:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems like it is much more of an attempt at political censorship because of her views than it is a debate about her notability. If you do not like the idea of her having a Wikipedia page then do not click on it and view it. Leave it up for those who would like to be informed about who she was. Anything besides that is just your personal vendetta against her and her political party.Mr. 123453334 (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment on content, not on other users. Jeppiz (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, you are wrong here Mr 12343334... She even does nt have an article on Russian Wikipedia, she is redirect there. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The reason why I am against this is primarily because I came to get information about the person. So if wikipedia were to redirect me to an article about her death, that would be inaccurate to me. The article about the death could be a separate article, linked in from this main article. For instance, I read that she had a kid, so I want to know, and how many were in the car (I assume only one, but why isn't wikipedia mentioning this?) So there is a lack of information on the article right now. Rather than ask about renaming this willy-nilly, would it not be better to first add quality content to the article itself? 2A02:8388:1600:A200:CCD4:74A1:3FC0:A532 (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per reasons above. Relinus (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I was leading support, but she is notable enough, and now even more after she got the Order of Courage award. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Order of Courage is not a high award: there are more than 100 000 recipients and, if I remember correctly, it is posthumously awarded to every Russian soldier who die in Ukraine. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per reasons above. &#160;☆☆☆— PietadèTalk 16:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There is redirect on Russian Wikipedia: ru:Дугина, Дарья Александровна into article about killing. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST argument but what do yu think about it? Originally, I weakly supported proposal. Now I more tend to be neutral anyway. Someone will lose this discussion a ka !voting process that more people support keeping article or we will discuss it more based on sources, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, WP:One event etc.? All the best Dawid2009 (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not see how is this relevant. Ymblanter (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per all above. Only important because of her death, not because of everything else. Just another pro-Russian activist, known for being "daughter of" and for saying barbarities, and being sanctioned (like so many others) by Western countries. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Same as reasons above.--Andreicuax (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal
As Killing of Darya Dugina has now been created, are we also discussing the merge? I personally do not see why we need two separate articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Killing of Darya Dugina -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I closed that discussion as a SNOW keep. AFD is not the place to discuss merges (see Proposed article mergers). Regards So  Why  12:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. Even though it is clear at the top of the article, the merger proposal here is vague. A few editors are thinking that the proposal is proposing to merge the biography into the killing article. Would you kindly update the merger proposal, amd ping all the editors involved in RM, and merger discussion? I would have done the pinging, but currently I am on mobile. I apologise for the inconvenience. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually did not make the proposal, I merely noticed this clusterfuck and asked what we are going to do. My personal preference would be to merge both in the bio article, I think we do have enough notability not related to her death. Ymblanter (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And just to make it clear, I never opened it as a second-level header.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * article, the merger proposal here is vague. A few editors are thinking that the proposal is proposing to merge the biography into the killing article. - I feel almost everyone has that point in that discussion. Because of plenty users innthat discussion said that shenis not.notable beyond that event and article about killing is currently longer (has more referencd than article about biography). On the other hand, to be fair article about bio still is more viewed so maybe we should be patient to wait what will be later but I do not think it much at all, IMHO people should learn from Wikipedia she is notable mainly for one event. Dawid2009 (talk) 05:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dawid2009, I think we had a move discussion to move the bio into the "killing of" article, and it should have been properly closed. If the move discussion and merge succeeds, then we move everything to the "killing of" article. Otherwise it should stay here. What doesn't make sense is having a move discussion, it coming out as "oppose", the article getting splitted, and then merge everything on the other page after the move discussion didn't succeed. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger the consensus seems to be that the killing is a notable event, and the it looks like the person was notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, as per above redirect proposal. I'd add that gaining notability after death is not the same as gaining notability because of death. I think it's time to close this discussion and work on improving both articles. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so independent of her death, what in the last four days has made this subject meet notability guidelines? —Michael Z. 15:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Because her whole life is pretty much well known and scrutinised now. Yes she was a lot less notable before death, but there's plenty of sources describing what she did before and besides, there'd sources predating August 2022 anyway. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. The killing is clearly notable by itself, and if there wasn't a move here as discussed above for all the reasons, no merge either. For all the same reasons. AdrianHObradors (talk) 14:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an obvious case of WP:BLP1E - we can not have both pages. My very best wishes (talk) 19:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Meaning this page should be merged into page about her killing (this is the event she is notable for). As described here ,
 * My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support merging to the biographical article Darya Dugina leaving Killing of Darya Dugina as a redirect. The Killing of Darya Dugina is a content fork of the article on Darya Dugina. The argument for keeping the content fork was that the alleged killing of Dugina was a notable event, which is true, but does not address the fact that the article is a content fork.  It is possible that the article on Dugina will grow and it will be justifiable to have separate articles on different aspects of her life and death (for example, we have separate articles on Abraham Lincoln and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln).  But we are not there yet with Dugina, and unless she turns up alive, it is doubtful if we ever will. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * well if the article is meant to grow it shouldn't be merged surely.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The content fork has no merit now. But any decision now should not prejudge the future. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support After thinking about it more I am neutral on the name article but I have no doubt 2 separate articles is too much. Mind this article have Afd on UKwiki and RUwiki. Dawid2009 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * other wikis have no bearing on what happens here; also AfD's not even completed there anyway.Abcmaxx (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Good lord what a clusterfuck, it was an poorly thought-out idea to create a 2nd article with the title of what is being considered as the new target. That discussion above is trending oppose, the afd for the killing of article snow-closed as a keep. We cannot have two articles on a fringe death. Zaathras (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * clearly not a fringe death, even the debatable whether a fringe person. Abcmaxx (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Fringe" as in her far-right ideology, not the notability of her being taken out. Zaathras (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support. The "killing of" comes down to one sentence: a car bomb exploded. Can easily be accommodated in the subject's biography article. WWGB (talk) 01:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * WWGB, The killing can perfectly fit here, but I think there is some stuff that wouldn't have a place here, like the reactions to her death and actions that took place afterwards. I'm leaning oppose merge because of that reason. Plus also the whole investigation and the blame of the death from all the different parties. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 09:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Both her death and her activities during her lifetime received enough attention. Combining the two articles would result in an uneven weighting of content. Newbamboo (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merge, though, at 1st there (killing article) a very reliable source (“Finincial Times”) was referred to... (since which grade English is compulsory, do they have not spell checkers installed, or, are they simply illiterate...); besides, who has access to relevant data (in current “special” times) and clearance to divulge?!? ;) &#160;☆☆☆— PietadèTalk 06:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pot. Kettle. WWGB (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Did not have a wiki page before her death. Sgnpkd (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support nobody asked for the second page, it had not been discussed, it was an unilateral move. Super   Ψ   Dro  10:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all above. Only important because of her death, not because of everything else. Just another pro-Russian activist, known for being "daughter of" and for saying barbarities, and being sanctioned (like so many others) by Western countries. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Alsoriano97 this is actually to merge the Killing of Darya page into her bio page. The discussion for moving the bio page to the killing page is above. AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ups, thanks! _-_Alsor (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. This move and merge discussions are a bit confusing. There is the discussion to move this article into Killing of Darya Dugina, and to merge both articles. I have specified the tags so that the merge is into this page. The possible results then are:
 * A) Move ends up happening, this merge doesn't then make sense as all moves to "Killing of Darya Dugina"
 * B) Move doesn't happen and:
 * B.1) Merge happens, so everything ends on this page.
 * B.2) Merge doesn't happen, and both "Darya Dugina" and "Killing of Darya Dugina" articles are kept.
 * —AdrianHObradors (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are various points of view:
 * There should be 2 articles. (Option B.2)
 * There should be 1 article, which should be a biography. (Option B.1)
 * There should be 1 article, which should not be a biography. (Option A)
 * There should not be an article (i.e. redirect to her father's article).
 * I realise that you prefer Option A, but if Option A is rejected, do you prefer B.1 or B.2? I am not sure that applying strikethrough to your post of 11:56, 25 August 2022 reflects your preference. -- Toddy1 (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer B.1. _-_Alsor (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Support: She is not notable. 3skandar (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)→
 * Support. She got known only because of her death, no point in two articles. But to merge into the article of the event of killing and not into her bio. With regards, Oleg Y.  (talk). 17:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support This person did not have WP:SUSTAINED coverage as an encyclopedic subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per all the above.  Volunteer Marek   23:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. She isn't notable, but her death like is an important event. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Merge into killing of article. The event is notable, she is not...fairly obvious I would have thought. The article was created the day she died, because she was a minor figure in Russian media and no one outside of Russia had ever heard of her before she died. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge → Killing of Darya Dugina : As a journalist for RT and Tsargrad, also working as chief editor of the pro-Putin disinformation United World International, and as a political commentator at large representing the Russian far right, she's more notable on the world stage than most Fox News punditators, and almost as notable as Marine Le Pen. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. Being a journalist in of itself is not noteworthy. Lots of Russian propagandists and lots of journos out there, doesn't make them noteworthy...prior to he death she had no notability what-so-ever, as evidenced in the fact that her bio article was only created after her death...her assassination is what is notable. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As pointed out above, page creation after a notable event is not in itself evidence for or against someone's notability. Regards So  Why  14:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No but the fact that no one had considered her worthy of an article before a single event should surely raise questions regarding WP:SINGLEEVENT. Tambor de Tocino (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support merging the Killing page into the biographical page Darya Dugina At least three assassinated Russian journalists/activists had biographical articles made about them after their deaths. See List_of_assassinations_in_Europe and recent examples on that list Gadzhimurat Kamalov, Natalya Estemirova and Anastasia Baburova who all had their biography page created after they were assassinated. In all three examples the death is dealt with in their biographical page. As per the many examples in that list, I believe it would be proper for the biography page to remain and for the 'Killing' page to be a section in the Darya Dugina page.Narananas (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. This discussion shouldn't have taken place, as her independent Notability was already established in the RM above. She was a clearly known and noted figure before her death, which means BLP1E doesn't apply. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment given both articles' current size, I would like point out that there is legitimate WP:FORK here given WP:SIZESPLIT; a merged article would have to be split again. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Questions regarding death
I do not know how to use this wikipedia contention...please pose my questions in direct response neither for or against changing the title (let the questions set forth which side it ought to be deemed).
 * I have only a few questions and hope this will not be causing me to be judged adversely:
 * 1.) I read that TNT was used. Where does TNT come from (how could that suspect get it if it was not brought in to Russia)?
 * 2.) I understand the suspect arrived under a fictitious name, used numerous licence plates, departed quickly after the murder and even put her car up for sale promptly once out of the country, but will the public be able to see a real court hearing or will the suspect arrive dead and we have only the narrative to rely upon?
 * 3.) Are there any leads as to accomplices (and what measures are being taken), or did the suspect act on her own accord?
 * 4.) Will the world ever be able to see the deceased girl as proof of the act having actually occurred (or is the body beyond recognition). I only ask this because we've all witnessed false-flag operations both from the East and from the West?
 * 5.) If the explosives (tnt) was not brought into the country, where could she have obtained it while in Russia?
 * 6.) Was there any evidence of explosives residue in the suspects apartment?
 * 7.) If Estonia is not allowing the girl to face trial in Russia, is her whereabouts actually known by the Estonians and will they be actively allowing the suspect to face charges in their court?
 * 8.) It is understood that the FSB has determined that the suspect put her car up for sale...has anyone purchased the car to perform forensics?
 * 9.) Is the daughter of the suspect also going to be questioned (it would seem plausibly right to do this)?
 * 10.) If this story is legitimate, can you tell me what the bounty is to bring the suspect to justice?
 * Kudos to the FSB for some really swift investigative skills, but all I see is a blown up vehicle.

192.180.227.144 (talk) 04:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @192.180.227.144 I've moved your comments to a separate section as better chance for others to respond to your post. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a bit early to ask for 10 questions. Why don't you await the investigation? I mean it is a bit weird that the comment is on the next day and say "Kudos to the FSB". Provided the FSB may not have been involved (who knows), if uninvolved how could you assume that all these questions are already known and answered? I agree on a few of these, e. g. the causes of the detonation could be described more accurately. But I think right now there is not that much information available to the "outside". 2A02:8388:1600:A200:CCD4:74A1:3FC0:A532 (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Kudos to the FSB? How stupid do the Russian trolls believe we are in the West? This had been clearly a false flag operation, just like the Russian apartment bombings. The FSB claim, that they watched the "suspect" for weeks, still could not prevent the assassination, and let her flee the country. Her face was captured on video in close up, she conveniently lost her passport nearby, and it's been established, that Darya Dugina on her own was the target, not her father. Everything in the statement of FSB was clearly a fabricated lie, so while there is no evidence for what was going on, the most likely model is, that the FSB did it themselves, then blamed a Ukrainian woman, who conveniently stayed nearby the victim's apartment.2001:4BB8:1D0:B81D:AD35:8964:6FE5:29D0 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Kudos to the "Amateur Photoshop hour at the FSB": https://twitter.com/igorsushko/status/15618280226421719042001:4BB8:1D0:B81D:AD35:8964:6FE5:29D0 (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Many of the things you “understand” are dubious allegations of the FSB. Please don’t try to normalize them as truth or even remotely believable by reciting them in talk. —Michael Z. 15:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022
'She died in a car explosion in August 2020, possibly in an assassination attempt directed towards her father.' In 2022 not 2020. 217.173.202.206 (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Already done, thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

which street?
her car exploded in the settlement of Bolshiye Vyazyomy outside Moscow.

which street? which city? 2A02:8425:642:D701:BF55:9F65:2A1C:85EB (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Bolshiye Vyazyomy is an urban-type settlement (formally subordinated to the city of Odintsovo). The sources I have seen do not specify the street, most likely M1. Ymblanter (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * M1 russian highway looks like a divided motorway and does not look like being within Bolshiye Vyazyomy.
 * Did the event occured on a divided motorway?
 * Else, it might not be a so accurate answer... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8425:642:D701:BF55:9F65:2A1C:85EB (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * exact location: https://yandex.com/maps/-/CCURvJGOTC Lesless (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * See from https://www.gazeta.ru/social/news/2022/08/21/18374828.shtml + https://yandex.com/maps/-/CCURvVDcPD Lesless (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Information on the investigation of Darya Dugina's death.
The Macedonian news website, Sloboden Pečat (translates to "Free Press") contains some details (via RIA Novosti) on the investigation into Dugina's death. . Secondly, in the interview with Ilya Ponomarev, it is stated that according to his contact with the National Republican Army (Russia) both Darya Dugina and Alexander Dugin were collectively the targets (two targets, both of them). 110.175.188.252 (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

King’s College London + University of Cambridge
Daria was a PhD student at King’s College London. Her research focused on violence and the unfolding of conflict across several regions in eastern Ukraine, 2013 – 2014. She also led one of the Causes of War seminars in the War Studies Department. Prior to joining King’s, she worked as a teacher. She graduated with a degree in History from the University of Cambridge in 2011. Her broader interests included European history, war studies, and interdisciplinary methods source:https://www.strifeblog.org/author/daria-platonova/ 2A02:8425:642:D701:BF55:9F65:2A1C:85EB (talk) 20:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a different person. Mellk (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 2A02:8425:642:D701:BF55:9F65:2A1C:85EB, Different person, but interesting that there is another Daria Platonova writing about Ukraine and the Donbas War — AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * An odd coincidence. Her thesis: Mporter (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Two infoboxes?
Either the article is about the person or about the death. We shouldn't be splitting the baby and trying to do both, such a short article looks particularly silly with two boxes. Can the "Death of..." one be removed? It adds nothing that cannot be covered in the article text itself. Zaathras (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I would personally agree with this. Ymblanter (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Personal Life
I read elsewhere that she had a child, but I don't know anything about that. It's ok to not mention the name (perhaps), but I think if the information that she had a child was accurate then this should be mentioned. Also, on that subject, it should be pointed out more clearly how many people were in the car. I assume only one, but it would be better for wikipedia to state this too, e. g. "she was the only person in the car at the time of the explosion" or something like that. 2A02:8388:1600:A200:CCD4:74A1:3FC0:A532 (talk) 11:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it was the claimed assassin who was said to have children. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As for who was in Miss Dugina's Toyota when the bomb went off - anyone in the Toyota would have been either killed or badly wounded - the FSB claim that Miss Dugina was in her Toyota, and that her assassin and the assassin's 12(?)-year old daughter were in the Mini Cooper at the time. According to the New York Times's newsletter: It was not immediately possible to verify either the allegations or the denials. Russia has shut down independent reporting and has made it a crime to dispute the Kremlin’s account of the war with Ukraine. Russian claims about atrocities, provocations and battlefield setbacks have repeatedly proved false. The F.S.B. has long been dogged by suspicions that it blames others for crimes it committed itself or ones it was trying to cover up. -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Toddy1 is correct. Miss Dugina was alone in the vehicle she was driving. The bomber according to The Washington Post investigation in Oct 2023 was a woman who had a 14 year old daughter. They were together in another vehicle, a Mini Cooper. The 14 year old daughter had no involvement in the crime, although her mother used the daughter's pet carrier (for a cat) to smuggle the bomb components into Russia (the carrier either had a false bottom or was inadequately searched by the Russian border patrol upon entry to the country). This is detailed in the Oct 2023 WaPo article as mentioned later on this talk page. I'm writing at length as I was confused too! The pronouns were confusing (no, not THAT use of pronouns but overuse of "she").--FeralOink (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Order of Courage icon in infobox?
Neveselbert removed the icon of the Order of Courage from the infobox in, citing MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, and not without reason, I had searched and thought of it when I added it. But... it is not a flag, is it? It is a medal ribbon. The thing is that I haven't found anything about adding those to the awards in any manual of style of the Wikipedia, yet I have seen them many times. I would appreciate more info about it. Thank you — AdrianHObradors (talk) 23:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Plain and simple
Убийство Дарьи Дугиной

Edit history

Date of page creation	13:56, 21 August 2022

Killing of Darya Dugina

Edit history

Date of page creation	15:06, 22 August 2022 &#160;☆☆☆— PietadèTalk 17:45, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Дугина, Дарья Александровна — was created 10:56, 23 August 2022 (and was nominated for speedy removal, almost promptly, if I'm not mistaken); and Darya Dugina — was created 07:38, 21 August 2022 &#160;☆☆☆— PietadèTalk 14:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Pietadè, what is this and why is it posted here? What is it that you are trying to say? Please just speak plainly (pun un/intended). El_C 13:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just for comparison (creation dates); can be pointed out also, that
 * @Pietadè: Please remember that most of us don't speak Russian and we have no idea why you are linking to ru-wiki articles. As someone mentioned above, though, what ru-wiki does or does not do is not relevant for us. Regards So  Why  14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge complete
The merge from the killing of page is now complete but the page could do with some tidying up post merge. Gusfriend (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

More about life
90% of this article is about her death and the subsequent investigation. Wouldn’t it be good to have more biographical information as well as info on her politics and philosophy since this is a biography? Zaynab1418 (talk) 07:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Zaynab1418. I noticed too. Unfortunately, I don't know how much of her work was in the English language, which is all I know.--FeralOink (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Change hyperlink from “terrorism in russia” to “Assassinations of the Russo-Ukrainian war
This was not an act of terrorism. This was an assassination. 2600:1014:B010:6602:857D:1939:3AC2:BDC3 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:OR to understand why we won't make that change. Jeppiz (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the IP has a valid point. It is not even known if it was a targeted assassination or an accident (she was probably killed by an accident instead of her father). Yes, some people claim that was a terrorism act. But do we know who the "terrorists" were? No, we do not. The classification as a terrorism act is at best questionable here. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We should not be suggesting in Wikipedia's voice that the Ukraine was to blame. That is what is objectionable about linking it to the Russo-Ukrainian war. But we do not know: (1) which group killed her, (2) whether they were Russian or foreign, (3) whether they were pro- or anti-Putin, (4) whether she was the intended target. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. We do not know any of that. Therefore, we can not classify the subject of the page as terrorism. My very best wishes (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Late reply: I went through the page, and while the term "terrorism", or "terrorist attack" is used a few times in the article, it is always used when quoting people e.g. Aleksandr Dugin. Not a single source quoted in the article used the term without attributing it directly to someone. It thus appears that reliable sources do not agree that this was an act of terror. Cortador (talk) 11:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Even later reply: This was an act of terrorism. We don't by whom, but being killed in this manner is not anything other than a targeted assassination. The target was not necessarily Darya Dugina. Perhaps it was, we don't know. We don't know if her killers were pro- or anti-Putin. We do not need to link this to the Russian-Ukraine war, or special military operation or whatever they want to call it. Regardless, there needs to be acknowledgement that this was a terrorist act. Editor My very best wishes said, "she was probably killed by an accident". No, a bomb attached to the underside of one's automobile is not an accident. She might have been killed BY accident, and the bomb was intended for her father, that is valid. Regardless, her death was described as a targeted killing by the SBU and as an assassinations by the SBU. So I presume that assassinations is the correct term rather than terrorism.--FeralOink (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

SBU admits planning the operation
According to the Washington Post, Ukrainian SBU has admitted to planning the bombing. 173.48.234.53 (talk) 21:48, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems like a blue-chip reliable source.
 * It also has implications for the ongoing discourse about WP’s discussion of Western arming of Ukraine. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Here's a partial and relevant excerpt of the article since it is paywalled:
 * "The operation was orchestrated by Ukraine’s domestic security service, the SBU, according to officials who provided details that have not been previously disclosed... The car bombing that killed Daria Dugina, however, underscored Ukraine’s embrace of what officials in Kyiv refer to as “liquidations” as a weapon of war... the SBU and its military counterpart, the GUR, have carried out dozens of assassinations... Ukraine’s affinity for lethal operations: Even those who see such lethal missions as defensible in wartime question the utility of certain strikes and decisions that led to the targeting of civilians including Dugina or her father, Alexander Dugin — who officials acknowledge was the intended mark — rather than Russians more directly linked to the war.'"
 * There is an entire paragraph that is devoted to informing readers that it wasn't based on the usual "anonymous sources", or "anonymous officials who told anonymous sources" (which is how WaPo too-often describes the sources of subject material of its articles)! See here:
 * "This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen current and former Ukrainian, U.S. and Western intelligence and security officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing security concerns as well as the sensitivity of the subject. The pressure on Kyiv to score victories against Russia and find ways to deter further aggression create incentives to exaggerate the record and capabilities of Ukraine’s services. The Post vetted key details with multiple sources including Western officials with access to independent streams of intelligence."


 * Next, I will determine whether the above (dated October 2023) has yet been incorporated in this WP biographical article. Thank you, RadioactiveBoulevardier, for providing the link to the WaPo coverage for us. I agree also with your statement about it having implications (for Wikipedia discussions, and in general) about Western arming of Ukraine.--FeralOink (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I made corrections based on the Washington Post article as outlined in this talk page section. I made the following notes about the change:
 * "added content and source to the lead; copyedits; removed Mark Galeotti source as it is an op-ed from The Spectator UK written by an ideologue and there are already two WP:NPOV sources for that content; consolidated duplicate refs to Guardian"

Toddy1 reverted ALL of my changes, even the corrections to English grammar and consolidation of duplicate references as determined by one of the WMT utilities. only explanation was, "seems illadvised". I am now going to revert that reversion. Editor Toddy1 who reverted me should please discuss here. I don't want to get into a revert war on a contentious topic! The summary, "seems illadvised" isn't adequate explanation. Thank you.--FeralOink (talk) 10:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Deleting good sources such as those written by expert academics (e.g. Mark Galeotti) in favour of not-very-good sources such as MSN is clearly ill-advised. It also seemed ill-advised to delete citations to the Kyiv Post.  Deleting the sentence "It has been impossible to independently verify any of the claims made by the FSB as Russia has criminalized disagreement with the official narrative of the killing and the war in Ukraine in general, and has shut down all non-Kremlin approved reporting." was also ill-advised.  As for the alleged "corrections to English grammar" I spotted two:
 * "2012/2013" --> "2012 to 2013"
 * "On 22 August," --> "On 22 August, 2022," [note the stray comma in the new version]
 * The new version is worse than the old one. -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Mark Galeotti source was from the The Spectator UK which is not WP:NPOV. MSN was not a source! Washington Post was the source and MSN was the republisher. This was noted in the reference news template! Washington Post's extensive investigation is most certainly a VERY GOOD source. Removal of outdated citations to the Kyiv Post (and The New Yorker) are not necessarily ill-advised. I made numerous corrections to English grammar and usage, and also combined duplicate references, filled in parameters etc. and removed big blocks of observations about an acknowledged hypothetical within-Russia pro-Ukraine group that took up at least half of the article's substance.--FeralOink (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Within an hour of my restoration of content, Ymblanter reverted ALL of my content changes without discussion on the talk page as I had earlier requested. The only explanation was, "we are not in a position to attribute her assassination to SBU". I realize Ymblanter is an administrator, but it is inexplicable why all my grammar corrections, removals of outdated content, reference error corrections (e.g. combining duplicates) were also reverted back to being incorrect. Did administrator read the talk page first? I think it is time for other editors to get involved, I'm not sure what.  The motivation for my edits and updates to the article was the investigation by The Washington Post which is not MSN.--FeralOink (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not relevant that I am administrator, I am acting as a regular editor. You are welcome to reinstate the comments which are uncontrovercial, but it is absolutely not ok to say that SBU killed her based on what SBU said. They always lie, this is their job. You can say "SBU claimed" or whatever. Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that SBU (or GRU, or FSB) always lie. All of them selectively tell the truth when it suits their purposes. I concur that it is their job, and am not disparaging their integrity. I am happy to change the sentence to "SBU claimed" instead. Thank you! I believe it is important to include that.--FeralOink (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Removal of content such as the below passage IS an improvement to the article, as it is poorly sourced and conjectural AND outdated. Specifically, using the YouTube channel of someone who is not a government official to platform a hypothetical (as already stated in Wikipedia voice) "violent" "nationalist" group's manifesto who claims to have killed the subject of this BLP is not appropriate. Nor is hearsay and quibbling sourced to the Telegram channel of "rospartizan". The content itself is totally conjectural, e.g. "his purported sources in the [hitherto unknown] National Republican Army deny the claimed Ukrainian being the perpetrator while leaving ambiguous whether she may have had a role" and "Ponomarev appeared to take credit for her exfiltration from Russia at the request of unnamed "friends"". Removal of this kruft for a BLP especially given WaPo's findings IS an improvement.


 * "From Ponomarev's statement, it is unclear whether she was targeted deliberately, or whether her father was the intended target, or whether the intention might have been to kill both. Ponomarev gave a similar account to Radio NV (Радіо НВ), adding that his contacts "sent certain photos to prove their involvement."


 * "Along with the claim of responsibility for the assassination, Ponomarev aired the organization's manifesto on his media outlet "February Morning" (Утра Февраля) and hailed it as "a new page in Russian resistance to Putinism. New—but not the last." Later confronted with the news of the FSB's accusation of Ukrainian involvement, Ilya Ponomarev told the Meduza news outlet that his purported sources in the National Republican Army deny the claimed Ukrainian being the perpetrator while leaving ambiguous whether she may have had a role. In both Meduza and a message to his Telegram channel "Rospartisan" (Роспартизан), Ponomarev appeared to take credit for her exfiltration from Russia at the request of unnamed "friends". Following his announcement of support for the assassination and the NRA, Ponomarev claims to have been disinvited from a planned meeting of Russian dissidents. "


 * That this guy was disinvited from a group meeting is very much non-encyclopedic content for a BLP. Next, I will provide the full URL for the Washington Post article for verification. Please let's discuss this amicably on the talk page rather than summarily reverting me?--FeralOink (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You realize that the Washington Post is behind the paywall, right? And I am not sure why you are removing Galeotti, he is an expert, and it is ok to use opinion pieces written by recognized experts. Ymblanter (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely, Ymblanter, WaPo is behind a paywall. I do realize and stated such on this talk page section on 15:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC), see above. That was my motivation for using MSN as the link, because it reproduced in full the WaPo article. WaPo provided the investigatory news story, and MSN acted as the wire service that distributed it to readers in legally un-paywalled format. Toddy1 seemed to be objecting to that in the comment above, so I will provide here both the WaPo URL (which I was able to read as my sole article that WaPo allows me per month) and the MSN distribution of the same content. I'll be right back with both URLs. Note that the MSN URL is already in the article.  As for Galeotti, meh, but I realize he is known as an expert by some so I don't object to reinstating him as a reference in this BLP.  I apologize if I was overhasty in removing him. The New Yorker does NOT need to be included as it is paywalled and chatty.--FeralOink (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Why was my edit reverted?
Hello.

I made an edit to this article on the 24th of March from the IP address 37.99.17.242. The edit did not substantially change the contents of the article or change anything claimed in the article. The only thing I did was to make it clear that it is disputed who killed the person in question, as before my edit it seemed from only looking at the infobox like all four organizations mentioned jointly killed her, unless you read the notes. This initially confused me and I believe it could confuse others, so I added the text "Disputed:" immediately above the list and added the contents of the notes immediately after the names of the respective organizations, removing the notes themselves. I did not make any other edits to this article.

I made this edit in good faith wanting to improve the article by preventing potential confusion of people who only looked at the infobox, and I still believe that the article is better (even if only very slightly so) with my edit present.

So, please tell me the reason why my edit makes this article worse or why it was necessary to revert it. 37.99.64.107 (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have posted a comparison of the previous version (which was reverted to) and your version above. Your version differs in that it has Having "disputed" in bold text in the content is confusing because bold text is also being used to distinguish headings from content. Maybe could contribute. -- Toddy1 (talk) 13:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The word "disputed" in bold text in the "perpetrators" field
 * changes notes [a] to [d] into text in brackets.


 * I reverted the edit because it removed the formatting; "disputed" might be a valid change but needs to be discussed first. Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I do apologize if my choice of bold text for "Disputed:" can be confusing for someone. Still, I believe that my edit makes the article better, and that formatting using a bulleted list is better than a plain one, as other infoboxes of similar events on Wikipedia generally use plain lists for when multiple people or organizations were all responsible for the incident (see, for example, the Perpetrators section in the infobox on Anti-Rightist Campaign) and a bulleted list when there are multiple different claims about who was responsible (see, for example, the Perpetrator section in the infobox on 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, where nothing like the "Disputed:" text is present but a bulleted list is used, with the sources of the claims listed in circle brackets next to the names of organizations instead of in notes). 37.99.64.107 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

its very confusing it would make more sense now as it's a few years later to eliminate rumours of who killed her and just focus on the facts post mortem. 2A00:23EE:2480:CE1:6DD6:7AD8:50D4:ECD5 (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No it does not make sense. The situation is confusing, and should not be presented as a clear open-and-shut case saying that "X is guilty". -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Returning to this discussion months later and seeing how there's no resolution yet, I think that the best thing to do would be to create an WP:RFC about whether my claim of my edit making the article slightly better is true or not. I still strongly believe that an infobox which states that the perpetrator's identity is disputed and uses a bulleted list instead of a plain one is much, much better, as the current infobox makes it seem like all of the suspected perpetrators killed this article's subject jointly to someone who hasn't read the notes. (Same person as the one with 37.99.* IPs here.) 92.47.56.156 (talk) 07:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I have restored the word "disputed" - nobody seemed to disagree with it, and you have a valid point that it was a list of possible suspects - nobody was claiming that they were all in it together.


 * I have not restored the use of bolding, bullet points, and bracket format instead of note format, since Ymblanter seemed to disagree with those parts of your edit. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)