Talk:Anatoly Trofimov

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Russia Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I understand that Anatoly Trofimov was an immediate superviser of Litvinenko in FSB. Is that correct?Biophys 21:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
Bullet for General (Russian). Biophys (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edits

As I explained in edit summary, this opinion is sourced, but it is completely irrelevant. If he told about himself that he was an intelligence officer, but he was not, that opinion would be fine. But he did not claim that. And this article make it very clear that he prosecuted Soviet dissidents and did not work for foreign intelligence.Biophys (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information isn't quite irrelevant, as the article includes information from another source (i.e. Livtinenko) that Trofimov knew such and such. The sourced and attributed opinion states that although Litvinenko made the claim, that how Trofimov would have known about it is beyond the realms of logic. This is all that this is, and it is valid for inclusion in the article, and other articles as well. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you disagree with this, you should be seeking a third opinion from a noticeboard, as the burden is on the "editor who wishes to remove content from an article should first check to ensure that its inclusion has not already been discussed. While consensus can change, repeatedly going round the same loop of argument is considered disruptive and is not conducive to harmonious editing. Where disputed content is removed, it is reasonable to expect that a justification be given for its removal, and the editor seeking to remove the content engages with those who seek to include it. The aim is always to work with others to build an encyclopaedia, not to draw battle lines." --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not exclude any important information. An opinion piece you cited provides only one bit of factual information: that Trofimov did not work aboroad, and I cited it for sourcing precisely this in the last version you reverted.Biophys (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but the whole second paragraph in "Prodi" section (disputing the claim by Trofimov) does not make any sense. The Mitrokhin Commission started in October 1999. Trofimov told Litvinenko about "our man in Italy" in 2000. Thus, Trofimov was telling something that everyone already knew, something that was published in all newspapers.Biophys (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]