Talk:Alexander Litvinenko/Archive 2

message: I have moved the old Alexander Litvinenko to Alexander Litvinenko poisoning and split the static content to this new page. -- Petri Krohn 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed all of the article history...Why didn't you just copy and paste into the new page. That would have been simpler, y'know. Nishkid64 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aite, I did a page move again and fixed the article histories. Nishkid64 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "Comparisons to other deaths" chapter belongs to main article about Litvinenko, just as in article about Anna Politkovskaya. What do you think?Biophys 02:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page move

message: I think we must include Litvinenko claim that Putin threatened Politkovskaya
life, and that Irina Hakamada told to Politkovskaya about that; because this is on the video tape.  Is that true or not is irrelevant. It is only important that Litvinenko made this claim. Could anyone give more info when and where exactly this tape has been made?
Of course, this claim was denied by Hakamada. She tells that "I have not been in Kremlin already for three months!". That means she actually WAS in Kremlin three months ago and earlier (note that Litvinenko did not say when exactly Putin issued his threats). We also know that Hakamada and Politkoskaya were talking on numerous occasions. Most important, Hakamada is a Kremlin's insider. What does it mean? She wrote herself about this in her recent book "Sex in big politics". There are some fragments (Russian): ,, . To be a Kremlin insider means to play all their games by their rules. If someone do not follow their rules, like Tregubova (author of "Stories of a Kremlin's digger"), she will find a bomb under her door like Tregubova. Therefore, Hakamada could not tell what really happened. 
Of course, I do not think that Hakamada came to Politkovskaya and told her as Nikolay Khokhlov:"The Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union has ordered your assassination."! It is more probable that Hakamada told to Anna someting like that: "Some people on the very top (you know who I am talking about) are really angry.  If you do not stop, they can kill you. This is serious".  That is why Anna asked Litvinenko: "can they really shot me near my house?". His answer was "yes".
All of that are speculations that should not be in Wikipedia. But the claim by Litvinenko is a fact. Biophys 17:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not possible for us to establish (nor should we try) that Litvinenko's claim is a fact. You can of course believe whatever you want but this is not the place to discuss it. Of course, we probably should report Litvinenko's claim Nil Einne 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. But the claim itself is fact, as all other claims. So, I included it in the article. Biophys 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, in fact she said 3 years.Alexandre Koriakine 22:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, and Hakamada

message: Yes, we should have a separate article about the poisoning, but we also need to have a summary, however brief, on this page. Now we have a section that is empty except for a link to the poisoning subpage - that is bad style. mglg(talk) 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it is. The poisoning section was huge! Anyone have ideas as to how we should report it on the main article? Nishkid64 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put a short paragraph based on the lead to Alexander Litvinenko poisoning Alex Bakharev 05:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoning section 

message: I'm not sure how reliable this stuff is, but some sources are now saying that links between him and Al-Qaeda are currently under investigation by the British internal security service.  And an Al-Qaeda plan to purchase Polonium-210, too.  But of course, theories are flying wildly right now, so who knows?  Here are a few links in any case:  .  There are also allegations of all kinds of stuff, for example that he was getting state secrets from the FSB after his exile from his contacts there and using it to blackmail important political figures.  And another quote:
Even more problematic for Litvinenko's elevation to sainthood is the allegation that he was involved in smuggling nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union. The Independent reports:
"Alexander Litvinenko, the poisoned former Russian agent, told the Italian academic he met on the day he fell ill that he had organized the smuggling of nuclear material out of Russia for his security service employers."
According to the British newspaper, Litvinenko admitted to Scaramella that he had "masterminded the smuggling of radioactive material to Zurich in 2000."
Do with the links what you wish, but... it would of course be better if the info in them was either incorporated into the article or debunked on this talk page.   
On that note, I don't think it's a good idea to support the "good article" nomination until all of these things are covered. On the whole, I'm not at all sure that it's a good idea to nominate something like this for "good article status", because this is still a current event and it's becoming very clear that we only have a very small section of the story right now; certainly not enough to make a good encyclopedia article.  Esn 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, apparently much of this stuff is already mentioned on the "poisoning" page.  This biography article needs to get caught up, though. Esn 08:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think that   are very unreliable sources. First of them is website of a right-wing religious group. You would be surprised what they are writing about evolution, Darvin, and some other subjects.  The second one is a personal site of a libertarian who is exteremly biased on many subjects. As about other sources on this subject, I did not see them. Biophys 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This  seems awfully dubious. I don't know why they are claiming that Litvinenko's body has to be kept in a lead coffin - the alpha radiation from the polonium in his body wouldn't even get out through his skin - I think there is an excess of caution being employed there.  From what I've read of Scaramella, I don't think he could remotely be described as an honest witness.   He's up to his neck in wierd connections.  As far as Al Quada is concerned - why on earth would they want Polonium-210?  It's hideously expensive - it decays to boring old lead in a matter of months - so it has to be bought fresh and used quickly - which shortens the chain of contacts and makes you easier to trace.  It's pretty harmless stuff unless you eat or breath it - it's heavy (like lead) - so you can't disperse it into the air very easily. Polonium 210 decays by emitting alpha particles. Alpha radiation is stopped fairly effectively by one sheet of paper or a few centimeters of air or the layer of dead skin cells that covers your entire body!  There are plenty of poisons that cost $1 per gram that will kill you if you eat them - heck, you could sneak 20 grams of Tylanol into someones lunch and they'll die a few days later - but don't use Polonium!  Why pay $3,000,000 per gram?!  As a poison - it's ludicrous. The most plausible reason why they might want the stuff is as a nuclear trigger - but it's way too expensive to use as a terror weapon by itself. SteveBaker 18:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to  Pakistan might use Polonium-Berillium as the initiator for nuclear explosion, I believe earlier Soviet designs use Po-Be as well. It is outdated now but maybe still good enough for Al-Qaeda? Also it is much more convenient to have radiological weapon you can actually move somewhere without killing the porters and with difficulties in detectionAlex Bakharev 03:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Litvinenko admitted to Scaramella that he had "masterminded the smuggling of radioactive material to Zurich in 2000 has already been debunked as a misquotation, just check the news articles. Harald88 12:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al-Qaeda links?

message: I've removed the  tag because this is a biographical article of someone dead, so I dont see it changing much, apart from the reasons for his murder. I think the tag would be better on the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning article, which will change quickly. Thanks, RHB 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. Much of the activity on this article is just trying to piece together his life, while the other article has been constantly updated as a result of recent news. Nishkid64 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree. This article does not document a current event, but it is related to a current event. The  tag wouldn't belong on this article, but I believe the  does. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 00:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, yeah I guess that would make more sense since this article is subject to change if more information about the murder investigation unravels. Nishkid64 00:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Current Event"

message: It appears his deathbed conversion to Islam, has led to some controversy with his wife and Akhmed Zakayev not being happy , while Akhmed Zakayev and others appear fine with it or even happy Nil Einne 00:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: This looks like it has potential, but I've failed this for now due to the current event-ness of the article.  The article could significantly change in an hour for all we know.  Feel free to renom when it settles down. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA stuff

message: I have made serious changes in article about FSB which is related to this Litvinenko article. It would be good if someone could take a look and edit it slightly if neccessary. I am going to continue work with FSB article in the future.Biophys 18:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Litvinenko and FSB article

message: Please check your sources, Luguvoy has never been a FSB officer.
Formally, he was a KGB officer because he served in a government bodyguard division , that was included into KGB at the time.
But FSB does not have this department anymore.
So, Lugovoy started his service in KGB and when KGB has been demolished, his division was renamed to FSO (Federal Security Service) which has nothing to do with FSB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.239.83.27 (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luguvoy has never been a FSB officer 

message: Does anyone know if they can find a non-copyright version of the telling image of Litvinenko on his deathbed. It is by far the most famous view of Litvinenko and IMHO should probably be included somewhere. ronan.evans 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes of course. This is a biography, not a hospital report. Certainly his picture in a healfy state would be much better.Biophys 18:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: *References go right after a full-stop or comma, not in the middle of a sentence.
* Lots of one sentence paragraphs, merge, remove or expand.
*In the reference list there is a red wikilink, remove the wikilink as it stands out
*trim down see also and external links a little
*who is thought to have been poisoned in London., remove this as you explain it in the third paragraph
*Need an info box for his picture, theres one somewhere on wikiproject biography, if you cant find it I'll take another look.
* were followed seven years later by his poisoning — and his public accusations that the Russian government was behind his poisoning — resulted in worldwide media coverage, change to "were followed seven years later by his poisoning and public accusations that the Russian government was behind his poisoning, resulting in worldwide media coverage. "
*Don't wikilink solo years, ex 1988
* in Dagestan (a republic neighbouring Chechnya) , remove all the stuff in the brackets
* instead of '-' use commas
* too much stuff is explain in brackets when it shouldn't. Write it out using a comma
*expand early life if you can - Cant really find much on this - obituaries focus on his murder more than anything else
*statement image needs fair ruse rationale
Article is looking good apart from these. I remember a picture of him in bed after the poisoning, was that remove because of copy-right?. Anyway good-luck M3tal H3ad 01:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please not that the article contains false information inserted by user Biophys in part that Boris Stomakhin was imprisoned for his views about Chechnya independency. According to the official court sentence he was found guilty of extremist activities, calls for violent change of the constitutional regime, inciting ethnic and religious hatred, calls to exterminate Russians as ethnic group. See article 'Boris Stomakhin' Vlad fedorov 17:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You two will have to sort this out as this will fail the article for stability. There's an edit war review or something to stop this. Also why are there two dates when he was born? find out the real one and cut down on external links if you can M3tal H3ad 10:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A thing is... Biophys claimed that Stomakhin is a political prisoner. But he was accused by private persons - ordinary people. FSB has nothing to do with Stomakhin. By inserting this unsupported and irrelevant information, Biophys makes grounds for inserting false information in the article about Boris Stomakhin. So I don't bother about FSB at all. If you would look at Biophys contribs - you will see that his specialization is abusing Russia actually. He also committed a number of violations, such as citing blogs and sources proved to contain false facts.Vlad fedorov 05:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it was just Biophys inserted Boris Stomakhin in the bottom section claiming him to be a political prisoner, which has now been removed. RHB 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the images i suggest you bring back the old picture in the infobox where he is healthy, and move the poisoning image to the death section. M3tal H3ad 02:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry forgot about this, "This article documents a current event", with this tag the article will fail the GA criteria of stability. Feel free to re-nominate when things have quited down. M3tal H3ad 06:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: Somebody needs to cite the source for this. Hesperides 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Late Development Section

message: I have failed the article for Good Article status due to the image used to display his condition in his final days. The image is from the BBC News website which has a strict copyright status on the use of images from the site, see their Copyright Notice. However, it may be possible to use the image under the fair use criteria by contacting BBC News and asking for permission, explaining who you are, exactly which image you would like to use and exactly where it will be used. As long as you are entirely upfront, they should be quite accommodating. Otherwise, unfortunately the image cannot be used and would be tagged as a copyright violation and deleted. I wish you all the best with sorting that out and look forward to passing the article for Good Article status once it is sorted.
Note: I would have simply placed the article's nomination on hold since it is only the image holding the article back. However, since it could take a little while to sort this, I thought it best to remove the nomination until the problem is solved.
Wikiwoohoo 15:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well this would fall most definitely under the fair use criteria; it would be best to ensure the BBC are in full agreement with the use of the image. Once you have permission then there would be no problem. Wikiwoohoo 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article status

message: I am posting a snapshot from the video in case the article needs it. 
ilgiz 05:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ilgiz 04:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Most likely it is a fake. Alexandre Koriakine 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely it is not a fake. As to pictures of these exercise shooting targets, I saw them personally on the Vityaz site in January, so the Dziennik article has some factual base. However, I don't know where the video comes from. Colchicum 00:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most likely" because it comes from Poland. However this could be true that some of Spetznaz stuff thought that this could be funny, because officially and unofficially (which is more important) in Russia he was a traitor, so I don't see any real moral problems with this. To mention here, in 2002 very-very little people knew Litvinenko. Most people in Russia knew him only after his death.Alexandre Koriakine 15:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are we discussing? These exercise shootings did take place, that's for sure. I don't know why they use such targets, but we don't discuss it in the article. Whether Litvinenko was known to the general public in any given year is also irrelevant for the paragraph about these shootings. I see no problems here. Futhermore, as to the alleged treason, he was not a traitor officially in Russia or any place else, as he has not been called traitor by a court. He was charged with other accusations. Unoficially - well, if you can find some polls... As of now, we can only claim here that he is considered traitor by certain people, if their personal opinion is notable enough. Colchicum 16:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "That's for sure" - that's what I doubted.Alexandre Koriakine 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it has been forged, it has been forged by the Vityaz team themselves, as I have seen the pictures on their site (confirmed with WHOIS) when they were available (maybe they are still there, I haven't checked it). But I cannot see any reason for them to do this forgery. And nothing about Litvinenko's death follows from this, that's why this section has been added to this article rather than Alexander Litvinenko poisoning. Colchicum 00:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shooting target video

message: Where did the 30/8 date come from? Not that I'm doubting it, but the Times cites his birthday as 4/12 of the same year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.102.19.171 (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am personally convinced that it is 4th December - browsing the net I have found an interview with Marina Litvinenko (however I don't know of it's authenticity) and she states herself that 4th December was his birthday - they celebrated it after his death. The Lilac Pilgrim 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of birth? 

message: I think it would be a good idea to create a couple of Wikipedia articles about Litvinenko books: Criminal gang from Lubyanka and Blowing up Russia: Terror from within. Biophys 15:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Litvinenko books

message: In 1962, Russia was part of the USSR. Therefor, shouldn't we list the Birth Location as Voronezh, Soviet Union? 70.50.73.234 00:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Birth 

message: I don't think that FSB agents killed Litvinenko. It costs much too much ( cf. http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/55606781/Polonium_voor_moord_op_Litvinenko_kostte_7,6_miljoen.html?p=8,1 ). With almost 8 million euro, one pays all the Moscovite FSB agents for a whole year. I saw the film Cambrigde Spies ( http://imdb.com/title/tt0346223/ ). There it is said that MI-5 agents did not shadow people during the weekend. Paying weekend workhours was simply too expensive. There were cost cuts being done. That's why I think that the story that Litvinenko was murdered by the FSB is doubtful. Tgeorgescu 18:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doubtfull

message: "Constanyin Latyshonok, and German Scheglov"
"Constanyin" is really "Constantine" or "Konstantin".
Unfortunately the wrong spelling has spread to other wikis:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Constanyin+Latyshonok%22
I also believe that "German" should rather be spelled as "Herman" (or "Hermann") to avoid confusion with the English adjective "German" as in "from Germany". When pronounced by English speakers, "Hermann" also sounds much closer to the Russian pronounciation of the name that the word "German".
--68.7.93.198 04:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of some Russian first names 

message: Someone submitted the facsimile of the deathbed statement for deletion.  Please cast your opinion, not just a vote.  My apologies for notifying a week later.ilgiz 02:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clearly a controversy from the conflicting statements made in relation to it.  Further, please do a simply google search before you remove citations.  Such edits are destructive and not condoned.  Please observe on Wiki for a while before you jump into editing.  You still need to learn policies and how to format correctly as is obvious from this talk page. --Strothra 03:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion review of the deathbed statement's facsimile 

message: Revealed: Poisoned ex-Russian spy Litvinenko WAS a paid-up MI6 agent
EXCLUSIVE by STEPHEN WRIGHT and DAVID WILLIAMS - More by this author »
 
Last updated at 11:11am on 27th October 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490007&in_page_id=1770
This was just another unsuccefull Bondiana right from the start! My congratulations for Her Majesty. La poet 07:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Goldfarb, this is disinformation . Biophys 17:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read the news, Litivinenko was a paid MI6 agent 

message: I think someone has a really black sense of humor, if he puts information on Litvinenko involvement into Dissidence section and lowers the visibility of this information by degrading it into subsection. La poet 04:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I just wasn't sure where to put it... This information is, after all, far from being confirmed, though it does come from a reputable source... Óðinn 04:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to be put in Wikipedia it needs to come from reliable source. That's all. We don't need further EVIDENCE in Wikipedia. And we are not lawyers in order to sort it out.La poet 03:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is already included, and I did not delete it from there. Working for an intelligence agency is not a dissidence.Biophys 03:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mind WP:AGF, Biophys. Nobody accuses you of deletion, except for the introduction to the article. I asked you first not to revert this information from separate section into subsection of Dissidence section. Here is your revert I speak about ? La poet 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting information about defection and a job in MI6 in Dissidence section 

message: I will remove a number of categories ranging from dubious to outright ludicrous, like "nuclear terrorism victims". It's not even certain whether he was indeed murdered or died from accidental exposure. Óðinn 05:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please wait for opinion of others. I can provide references that tell explicitly: "this is a nuclear terrorism case".Biophys 05:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Óðinn is right. Biophys please stop moving MI6 iformation into dissidence. Litvinenko's wife may also be mi6 agent and she is a WIFE. La poet 03:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This information is already included, and I did not delete it from there. BTW, working for an intelligence agency is not a dissidence.Biophys 03:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why you did this revert  ? Mind WP:AGF, Biophys. Nobody accuses you of deletion, except for the introduction to the article. I asked you first not to revert this information from separate section into subsection of Dissidence section. La poet 03:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Biophys please stop your political propaganda by inserting unsupported category of nuclear terrorism victim, without any reliable source about that. There were no court decisions about that and official charge of British authorities doesn't contain such charges. It's about murder only. La poet 03:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This is reference I included yesterday, which explains why he is a nuclear terrorism victim. I included the following: "The death of Litvinenko has been described as a nuclear terrorism case (Reference:  Radiological Terrorism: “Soft Killers” by Morten Bremer Mærli, Bellona Foundation." In legal terms, nuclear terrorism is an offense committed if someone unlawfully and intentionally “uses in any way radioactive material … with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury”, according to International conventions. See this:  International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism Biophys 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This your (Reference:  Radiological Terrorism: “Soft Killers” by Morten Bremer Mærli, Bellona Foundation) doesn't describe Litvinenko murder as a case of nuclear terrorism, it just says in the introductory paragraph that concerns that someone could use nuclear materials for terrorism were raised after Litvinenko poisoning. And your awfull citation from legal text with massive omissions of essential details misses points that differentiate terrorism from simple homicide. You have omitted this from your Convention definition: "(iii) With the intent to compel a natural or legal person, an international organization or a State to do or refrain from doing an act." Could you provide reliable sources that show that Lugovoi had this purpose in his mind? Essentially you are trying to interpret your sources and post here your personal interpretation, which is, of course, original research. That's why your categorization of this article is just political propaganda. La poet 04:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Um. Where is the proof that he was actually murdered? Óðinn 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need any proofs of anything ("verifiability not truth"). We only need proper sourcing per WP:Source and representing all significant views per WP:NPOV.Biophys 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that exceptional claims do need exceptional sources in relation to nuclear terrorism - the Patterson article is probably the best source, but it would be better if it came from a terrorism expert as opposed to a medical one. I take offense, however, at the suggestion that he was not murdered. --Strothra 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Óðinn 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not getting into a POV argument.  Stick to a discussion of article edits and policy within that framework. --Strothra 21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then keep your own POVs and offenses for yourself. So far, his murder is no more than a theory. Óðinn 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

text: So, Biophys, I guess you wouldn't mind if I add categories such as "MI6 agents"? This claim, is, after all, perfectly verifiable. Óðinn 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is there is only a single source that asserts he worked for MI6 whereas most sources outside of Russia (particularly, outside of the state-controlled media) concur that he was murdered. --Strothra 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speculations, however numerous, are not any better than speculations of one source. Óðinn 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, until the investigation is concluded the article can't state such charges as fact.  However, there is an abundance of those charges which means that they are notable enough for inclusion as long as they are identified as charges.  However, his status as an MI6 agent is only asserted by one source which itself only states that he was paid by MI6 and doesn't suggest just exactly what he did for MI6 beyond a headline claim that he was an agent.  Thus, giving it any more importance in the article than what it currently has would be a violation of WP:UNDUE - clearly, adding an MI6 cat would be excessive.--Strothra 22:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting the article into the categories in question very much does assert such charges as a fact. There is a category called "cause of death disputed" I propose it is used instead. Óðinn 22:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you give the link to "cause of death disputed"  category?  I could not find it. Ochendzki 09:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here you are:  Óðinn 07:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Strothra. Let's follow due weight. The alleged Litvinenko work for MI6 is an exceptional claim that must be supported by multiple reliable sources. In reality, of course, this is planted disinformation as will be soon clear.Biophys 22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization as victim of nuclear terrorism