Talk:Elena Filatova/Archive 1

VfD

This page was listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in May, 2004. The result of that discussion was to keep the article. For an archive of the discussion, see /Delete.

Criticism, POV, fake

I'm removing the recently added paragraph about her story being (sic)"questioned in many of the motorcycle forums mentioned".

In the only one 'motorcycle forum' mentioned (in 'external links') there is really a small flame war being carried on by an lone gunwoman. This woman (as herself confirmed in a post) is in an web-wide crusade to undermine Lena's story credibillity.

Well... as the woman doesn't indentify hersef and as she acts extremally monomaniacly, I would classify that as an moderately crafted troll.

Elena's page has a link to the thread in the forum with the discussion. That's one more reason to make that paragraph irrelavant.

--Abu Badali 04:52, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Slashdot has now also become involved. Mentioning that her story is being questioned is in itself perfectly objective and neutral. -- Dissident (Talk) 00:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I think this page should probably be deleted. She has basically now said on the website that it was faked. I don't see any reason for Wikipedia to have an article on her. We don't know for sure she even exists. ᚣᚷᚷᛞᚱᚫᛋᛁᛚ

Allegations are back in. This isn't the place to decide about the credibility of the participants. Let's stick to the facts. Also, this article should stay, whether the original story is true or not. A lot of people read the original thing, and it's bound to become urban folklore (or legend). Averell 16:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Elena being a hoax is mentioned in New York Times June 15, 2005 in the article about Chernobyl tourism. The link is already in there. I was visiting the place myself with the reporters. The guide told us that Elena visited the site on a standard tour carrying motorcycling helmet and wearing a jacket and her husband took pics of her. Remain of her pics of the site is taken by other people and nobody seem to know if she has permission to use them. Also the officials and guides say that nobody has been given access to the site riding open transportation vehicles. It is also known where Elena lives but no reporters have ever caught her. I don't know if you see this information non-trusted but placed it here to discuss after all. -- Lauri Mäki - Feb 19, 2006

Smear

While there are numerous accounts of the consequences of the catastrophe, Elena presented it to the world in a way never done before.

I am perfectly aware that I am a bit overboard here. Please feel free to replace this phrase by references to earlier similar web accounts. Mikkalai 15:51, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- And by the way, I believe the efforts to put smear on her story are fueled exactly by this: no one from the mentioned "organized tour"s had got the idea to do something similar before, and now they are biting their own asses. Mikkalai 15:53, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

discrepancies

The story itself shows discrepancies, such as some pictures show herself, while she claims she has been travelling alone.

I don't really understand this example of discrepancy. Isn't it possible to take a picture of yourself with a timer in the camera? Such a feature is quite common.

Did you have a look at what was spoken about before hitting this delete key? The weblink it here, quite handy. Do you really want to set a timer only to show your backside? Mikkalai 22:04, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I say it isn't a discrepancy. She writes: "I always go for rides alone, sometimes with pillion passenger, but never in company with any other vehicle, because I do not want anyone to raise dust in front of me." Pillion = The backseat on a motorcycle for its passenger.

Early versions said simpy "alone". Even the recent, corrected version that says "we" in many places, rather than "I" doesn't give a name of the fellow traveller. Me being spoiled and lacking some moral principles, I understand this as unwilling to share glory. But still, this is a petty criticism, irrelevant to the story itself. It was me who added the paragraph "Nevertheless the actual value...".

And now I have rewriten the "criticism" part into a meore correct way, since the mentioned criticism no longer applies to the current version ofm the narrative. Thank you for pointing at the discrepancy arisen in the article. Mikkalai 22:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"discrepancies?" her story has more holes than a truck of swiss cheese at a drive-by shooting. motorcycles are expressly forbidden in the zone of exclusion, the path she took is the exact path that a tour guide takes people through (less than that, even, because the tour guide was really pissed by their trying to build a story out of it.), her dad is not a nuclear engineer, and even if he was, it wouldn't give her carte blanche to roam a radioactive danger zone. i think it's fair to at least list the allegations against her, as well as some of the holes in her story.

Published in Sweden

Here's a link I just put in, it's her book of Chernobyl photographs published in Sweden http://www.maxstrom.se/bok.aspx?id=9171260501 The publisher is reputable and the production is quite lovely.

Rimma Kiselitsa

http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.asp?fid=1&threadid=8951

Go to the post by Pulse. Apparently, if he is correct, it was staged and all taken from a tour.--2ltben 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libel allegation

I've removed the following from the article:

Filatova's libeling of some alienation zone checkpoint officials (she claimed sexual harassment which was later shown to be false), was also criticised.

I can find no reference to this in any of the published sources or discussions surrounding Filatova. --Muchness 02:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that someone has taken her quote of "I don't count those couple of times when "experts" tried to invent an excuse to give me a shower, because those had a lot more to do with physical biology than biological physics"[1] as a claim of harrassment. Bit of a stretch, if you ask me...Johnmc 03:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like libel to me, as she never made her trip on a bike into the zone it is dishonest for her to make any claim about the conduct of the checkpoint staff. I think that her comment was lible as it is a false statement which reduces the standing of the men running the checkpoints by suggesting that they are sexual perverts who try to invent a reason to take a woman's clothing off before hosing her down.Cadmium

Given that the legal definition of libel varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, we'd need a citable reference knowledgeable about Ukrainian law before we could include that — otherwise it's our interpretation of a statement. The most we could say with certainty is probably that she made a criticism, perhaps a sarcastic one. I'd say it's better simply left out of the article, now that it's been removed. – Kieran T ^(talk) 16:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that becuase her statement is a ilbel under UK and US law, that we should regard the statement about the checkpoint staff as a libel. We could also consider for a moment if we could apply a common law idea of libel to this case. I would reason that if A makes any false statement which harms the reputation of person B then a tort of either slander or libel has occured, even if statute law does not exist to define the libel then a common law approuch could still be taken. Consider that Cain murdered Abel at a time when no formal law against murder existed, he was still considered to be guilty of murder. I would reason that Cain commited murder which went against common law and what the reasonable man would view as the reasonable way to behave. Thus I think that the comment about the checkpoint staff shoud remain as being viewed as libel until a legal expert from the former Soviet Union/Ukraine says that it is not libel.

"Cain commited murder which went against common law." Wait, wasn't the world population at that time (if we go along with the fairy tale) a grand total of four? And since I don't recall women's suffrage being featured in any Biblical societies, we can assume Eve wouldn't have had any input into common law. That leaves three men, a father and his sons, to determine what the law was. I can't envision them making suggestions about what to do if one of them were to slay another. Adam would no doubt have regretted his lack of foresight after the fact, but by then it was too late -- there were only two living men with decidedly opposing viewpoints. It doesn't seem very likely that they would reach a consensus, now does it? Oh, and yore speeling is atroshus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.198.109 (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her inclusion of a statement which is a libel should be considered when considering how trustworthy she is.Cadmium

All of her photos are Public Domain

Elena has released all of her photos appearing on her website under Public Domain. Have a look (scroll down to the end) http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/afterword.html TheQuandry 19:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppossed???

On this page it says "...her photo journal of the day of the Ukraine's Orange Revolution, which she opposed to." I am not sure if this is just terrible enlglish or a clear misinterpretation of her journal. After reading through here photo journal of the Orange Revolution it is obvious she was a supporter of the revolution. She is clearly supportive of Yushchenko and the photo of "...my friends. Downtown was a meeting point for everyone" shows all her friends decked out with orange ribbons and flowers. I am going to change this if no one has a serious objection. PyrE 11:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Deletion

Keep. I have reviewed the discussion from 2004 and don't think much has changed. I think the question of how made-up her stories are is orthogonal to notability. Having been on slashdot twice and as someone said in 2004, all over every blog, meets the notability threshold for me. Tim Bray (talk) 01:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The story itself is not entirely "true", but as well not entirely "faked". The truth is more along the lines that Filatova did indeed tour the area (as *MANY* have), but did not have an "unescorted all-access pass". In fact anyone who wants to pay can get various levels of access to the area. This is a LONG way from "fake", and not much different than what many "professional journalists" peddle as "factual reporting". So the bottom line is that she didn't actually have the free access she originally claimed, but still actually toured the area. Not a lot different than any of the Big Box News Organizations really. Sure, it's not as hot and tasty as the original story, but please, let's lower the volume on all this shreaking about "FAKE FAKE FAKE", that's really a bit dramatic... =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]