Talk:Lubyanka Criminal Group

message: Please note that "unreliable defamatory materials" should only be removed from a biography of a living person described in his article according to WP:BLP. This is article about a book. Therefore, it is completely appropriate to describe any materials from this book, however "defamatory" they might be in your opinion. You might only object if these materials would be included in biography of Putin. Note that I am going to expand this article by explaining every chapter of this book.Biophys 05:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The information introduced by the book is defamatory and was made with the purpose to defame. We couldn't publish rubbish and pulp fiction here in Wikipedia. If you would persist I would report your violations on the noticeboard. Original research explanation by Biophys would be deleted.Vlad fedorov 05:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Describing content of a reliable source, such as published book, in the article about this book is completely consistent with all Wikipedia policies!  You are welcome to report it anywhere, but you can not. How can we write an article about a book without explaining what is this book about? As long as description consistent  with the content of the book this is not OR.Biophys 13:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You personally couldn't write an article about book. It is original research unless supported by outside reliable sources. Vlad fedorov 04:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I can! This book is no different from any other source. It is perfectly fine to summarize and describe content of the sources. It is what we are doing in all articles. Summarizind and describing content of a source is not OR. It is quite the opposite. Of course, this book is "primary source", and review about the book is "secondary source". But it is just fine to use a primary source in the article about this sources (as well as in all other situations!) - see rules.  Biophys 04:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem is you do not publish reviews of others. You do it yourself - which is original research.Vlad fedorov 05:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I only use a "primary source", which is perfectly appropriate in this case. We always review and summarize different sources to create articles. In fact, this is the only thing that we do and suppose to do in Wikipedia. OR is something that is not written in the source.Biophys 18:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no provision in Wikipedia whih allows you to publish your own understanding of somebody's book. You have POV summary and original research.Vlad fedorov 20:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: So, you are telling that I can not use a book as a source in the article about this book?Biophys 01:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, there is an interesting article in Russian Wikipedia Criticism of Vladimir Putin (it is related to this article). May be I will translate it to English at some point: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Biophys (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can use citations from the book and you could use reliable source reviews and descriptions of the book. But again I repeat you prsonal summarizing does nothing with NPOV and no orginal research rules.Vlad fedorov 04:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As about Putin's allegations, please cite properly sources. Do not represent allegations as already established facts. I highly doubt that you could introduce this material in this article - it is not relevant to this - you should create another article, but still I doubt that guys from Vladimir Putin article won't edit it. I should remind you about the presumption of innocense, which is charachteristic for civilised societies and individuals. As far as I have noticed some sources in Russian Wikipedia are taken from fortunecity personal pages, so they are definitely not reliable sources and couldn't be cited here. 99% are taken from Novaya Gazeta :-) Remember that introducing such article in English Wikipedia doesn't liberate you from BLP policy.Vlad fedorov 05:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lubyanka Criminal Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20110823155751/http://old.prima-news.ru/eng/news/articles/2002/9/30/17082.html to http://old.prima-news.ru/eng/news/articles/2002/9/30/17082.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929092620/http://prima-news.ru/eng/news/news/2002/10/11/17326.html to http://prima-news.ru/eng/news/news/2002/10/11/17326.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified