This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Here is translation of his piece of writing which is quintessential phrase of all his politic ideas:
"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 programm 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 sould be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced".
You may find all the articles of Stomakhin in Russian at [1].
It's certainly not a propaganda. Mr. Stomakhin was convicted for these passages in his articles and their public dissemination which could be ascertained from your own links to official conviction of Stomakhin. These phrases and not the whole articles were the pinpoint of the prosecution.
Consider your own case of propaganda and cronyism, you wrote that "Human rights activists Svetlana Gannushkina... and a number of other independent human rights activists.." without naming these other activists. Which amounts to unsupported statement. I just not touching the issues of Svetlana Gannushkina independence which is supported by foreign grants from unidentified persons.
You also wrote that Stomakhin was sentenced just because he compared Putin with Saddam Hussein, or because he claimed that Russia as totalitarian state should be destroyed, which is lies that could be evidenced by just reading the official court sentence which is supported with specific evidence. He was proved guilty to "igniting religious and national hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime, defamatory statements, promoting violent change of territorial integrity of Russian Federation, extremist propaganda and terrorist activities". He called to destroy not only Russia, but Russians as a nation, and not because Russia is a totalitarian state, but because "Russians are bloody cannibals, orges".
You should either prove the evidence to be unreliable - which amounts to public vindication of Russian Federation, or prove the court was biased - which amounts to conviction of Russian Federation court in commiting a crime.
Even further, your text contains too many grammatical mistakes. Just for example, "Human rights activists Svetlana Gannushkina, Valeria Novodvorskaya believes...". Two individuals believe and only one believes. Learn Simple Present (aka Present Indefinite).
I'm in no way distorting the meaning of Stomakhin's articles - your assertion is not supported with arguments - you just deleted the whole section from this article. Moreover, Russian version of Wikipedia contains these same citations of Stomakhin. Why you consider the English version should lack these ones? Considering your other articles about politics in Russia in English Wikipedia, I consider you to be unobjective and biased contributor.
These words are the facts, the rest is your (Biophys') political personal opinion which should not distort the encyclopedia and its users. If you want more objective citation, please make one, if you want to translate the whole his article - please make one.
But do not try to mess with the work at encyclopedia's content. It's not your personal home page, where you could moderate others with your political beliefs. Encyclopedic content should be verifiable - these conditions are met, I provided the link to all of Stomakhins articles.
Please be advised of the main key policies of Wikipedia:
Do not forget about arbitration option in Wikipedia.
213.184.225.28 14:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure, I would register as a user in short. I would like to mention just one thing. I am not against making a summary, but... The summary must correctly state the reality. And the reality is that Mr. Stomakhin wasn't politically prosecuted as one may get from your already made summary, the court sentence contains already summary of Mr. Stomakhin's activities.
Mr. Stomakhin called for the destruction of Russia, not because it was perceived by him as totalitarian state.
Mrs. Novodvorskaya and Mr. Gannushkina are not independent human rights activists, at least because none of them have ever raised questions of russian soldiers tortures, ordeals by Chechen rebels and videotapes of their murders. They have never advocated criminal prosecution of their murderers nor they ever called Chechen rebels to stop these atrocities. I think that murder is a violation of human rights. Therefore, these individuals couldn't be called even human rights activists for their activity was always biased according to their political (ultra-liberal) beliefs.
The organization headed by Mr. Stomakhin is called Revolutionary Contact Association and its address is web.
1. This court sentence does not say that Stomakhin was convicted for actually doing any violent or terrorist activities. If you think it does, could you please insert the corresponding portion of Russian text here?
First of all, the legal definition of terrorism according to the legislation of the United States of America and the United Kingdom is not within just violent actions. Propaganda of terrorism and financial support to terrorism are also part of terrorist activities. Although Stomakhin never took part in violent activities as such, he nevertheless was (a) financing (sponsoring) terrorist activities and (b) was promoting terrorism.
According to Russian criminal law the word "extremist" equals to "terrorism" - see the definition of extremism at www.garant.ru and www.consultant.ru.
1. "а также совершил публичные призывы к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности, совершаемые с использованием средств массовой информации"
2. "тем самым призывая содействовать экстремистской деятельности в виде ее финансирования на благотворительной основе."
3. "Однако, реализованная и развивающаяся преступная деятельность Стомахияа Б.В. была пресечена правоохранительными органами путем привлечения его 26 апреля 2004 года к уголовной ответственности, что не позволило Стомахину Б.В., при наличии у него стойкого умысла, целенаправленности расширения и активизации экстремистской деятельности, вовлечь в нее новых членов, достичь желаемых противоправных целей."
4. "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; подрыв безопасности Российской Федерации; осуществление террористической деятельности; возбуждение расовой, национальной или религиозной розни, а также социальной розни, связанной с насилием и призывами к насилию; унижение национального достоинства; осуществление массовых беспорядков, хулиганских действий и актов вандализма по мотивам идеологической, политической, расовой, национальной или религиозной ненависти либо вражды, а равно по мотивам ненависти либо вражды в отношении какой-либо социальной группы; пропаганда исключительности, превосходства либо неполноценности граждан по признаку их отношения к религии, социальной, расовой, национальной, религиозной или языковой принадлежности (часть 1 статьи 1 Закона); Стомахин Б.В. публично призывал к осуществлению экстремистской деятельности и совершению конкретных экстремистских действий (часть З статьи 1 Закона); призывал к финансированию (предоставлению финансовых средств) экстремистской деятельности, ее содействию конкретными действиями иным образом (часть 4 статьи 1 Закона), 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), распространял лично бюллетень и через неустановленных следствием лиц в общественных местах городе Москвы, при проведении массовых мероприятий, в местах наибольшего скопления народа." Vlad fedorov 07:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
== You are wrong legally and factually. I never wrote that Stomahin commited "violent terrorist activities". I cited the court sentence where Stomakhin was convicted of planning and calling to terrorist activities.
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; подрыв безопасности Российской Федерации; осуществление террористической деятельности
I repeat, propaganda of terrorism and financial support to terrorism are also part of terrorist activities according to laws of Russian Federation, of the United States, and of the United Kingdom. Wikipedia's legal agent is located in St.Petesburg in the US. Wikipedia is legally located in the US. You may need to contact Wikipedia administration and (or) their legal agent.
Biased or malicious content
Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.
You should also give your full attention to the Legal Disclaimer of the Wikipedia itself at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer. You may find many interesting legal issues which are relevant to your statements.
I would like to cite the following main points:
Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics; however no warranty whatsoever is made that any of the articles are accurate. There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise. Law varies from place to place and it evolves over time — sometimes quite quickly. Even if a statement made about the law is accurate, it may only be accurate in the jurisdiction of the person posting the information; as well, the law may have changed, been modified or overturned by subsequent development since the entry was made on Wikipedia. Neither the individual contributors, system operators, developers, or sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information or disinformation presented on this web site.
It means that you are solely responsible for your statements that contradict the laws of the jurisdiction relevant. In our case it is the laws of Russian Federation. I repeat again that the crime of terrorism is defined in Russian laws as a crime of extremism. Although semantically these are two different words, legally they are the synonims.
The crime of slander is ironically one and the same both in Russian Federation and the United States.
==
2. Wikipedia policies say that unreliable and negative information about living persons is unacceptable. In that regard, this "revolutionary union" does not qualify as a reliable source. This is a marginal (you say "extremist") group. They can write and claim at their web site whatever they want. Therefore, I deleted this citation. However, it is probably O'K to cite the official court sentence if you want. You should only translate it precisely. Biophys 18:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The article definitly looks much more better now. Thank you for doing that job.
Minor suggestion. Stomakhin's organization is called Revolutionary Contact Association.
You tend to cite only pro-Stomakhin's sources (his supporters), such as grani.ru site which belongs to Berezovsky. I would add his opponents opinions. The information given about double case dismissal due to lack of evidence is wrong. The case was dismissed only once, and second time it was just postponed due to Stomakhin's escape from psychiatric expertise, but not dismissed. The source of wrong information is the well-known correspondent of Grani.ru - Vladimir Abarinov, notorious for his USA worshiping, and who, by the way, is not a person competent in legal affairs. All the official prosecution documents, including conviction, give the details for the whole process of Stomakhin's prosecution.
Psichushka as a link for the Moscow Serbsky Institute is not appropriate link definitely. The fact it was used for some time in past in order to suppress political opponents is not relevant nowdays for the Stomakhin's case.
As to the term "extremist" - the source of this term is the official court sentence. I just cited specific portion of the court decision as an official document. I would translate that portion of court sentence and include in the article later. I also cited that specific large bulk of the court sentence on russian in point 4, as you have requested. You may also just use search button in the internet explorer in order to find that passage in the court sentence.
Thank you for your job, once again.
Vlad fedorov 19:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If you insist, I can also make an article about Moscow Serbsky Institute, about people who work there, prisoners, Budanov, their expertise of poisoned Chechen children, and so on. See this: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
I think that is enought for an article. Biophys 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Use of categories. Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear in the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced. For example, Category:Criminals should only be added when the notable crime has been described in the article and sources given, and the person has either been convicted or has pleaded guilty.
Dear Alexey thank you very much for your assistance as an administrator of English Wikipedia. Vlad fedorov 06:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Types of vandalism Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations:
Sneaky vandalism Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos, hiding vandalism e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one, or reverting legitimate edits to hinder the improvement process.
Information about prosecution trying to render Stomakhin mentally ill, although officially ordered expertise proved him capable
Redirect vandalism Redirecting articles or talk pages to offensive articles or images. One example is the autofellatio redirect vandal. Some vandals will try to redirect pages to nonsense titles they create this way. This variation is usually performed by vandals whose accounts are too new to move pages. It is also often done on pages that are protected from moves.
Using a link to Psikhushka for Moscow Serbsky Institute
Link vandalism Rewriting links within an article so that they appear the same, but point to something completely different or ridiculous (e.g. France).
Using a link to Psikhushka for Moscow Serbsky Institute
Vlad fedorov 16:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's assume that RKO website is a reliable source (which is not). Then, the selected citation has been selected to demonstrate that Stomakhin is a facist who wants to exterminate all Russians. However this is not true, which is clear after reading his other alleged writings on RKO web site. He only means that military resistance to Russian occupation is legimate (including sabotage or what we call terrorism), because Russians are conducting genocide in Chechnya. He believes that it is as legimate as the resistance against Nazi occupation was. That is what he means. No more, no less. He is strongly anti-Russian (you could call him a Russophob), because he wants to protect an ethnic minority (Chechens and others) from an oppression of the kind he believes Nazi did with respect to Jews. So, he is actually an anti-facist, not the facist. Everything is turned upside-down in this article. Biophys 18:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I made a few changes and left this citation of Stomakhin as it was in the article by Maksim Sokolov. There is no need to talk several times about killing Russians, because this is already present in the cited passage. I still belive this article violates living person policies, but this version might be some kind of a compromise. Biophys 20:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. In the List of memoirs of political prisoners, I found Adolf Hitler. Biophys 21:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
If to look to Wikipedia definition of political prisoner, it includes Vietnamise non-combatant members of the military National Liberation Front. Since Stomakhin was not convicted for any violent actions, he certainly belong to political prisoners. Biophys 21:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I think that "Kill! Killl! Kill!" is not for Wikipedia. But if all other editors think otherwise, I can live with that. Biophys 21:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)