Talk:Victor Bout/Archive

Additions

I made some major additions to the article, all found on the referenced articles. When time permits I might even flesh it out - in the mean time there is quite a lot of detail about him at http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/sierraleone/bout.html

About the image copyright, I have contacted the relevant holders, but it's proving difficult as there's very little of Bout image wise. Is it possible that these images are public domain because they are tied to finding a major criminal?

In case anyone wondered, I did this after watching Lord of War :) Gabbahead 18:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

His name can also be written as "Victor Bout", apparently. 66.92.165.123 20:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

And they actually write him as "Victor Butt" on the Dept. of State web site: http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/fs/2001/4004.htm

In the part says that the pentagon has used him to supply iraqi troops, I assume that means the new iraqi army? Hellfire83 11:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's an excellent, apparently still unused source: http://www.publicintegrity.org/bow/report.aspx?aid=157 --Thatnewguy 12:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.54.27 (talk)

NPOV

"Nicholas Cage's movie Lord of War portrays a fictional character that in no bit portrays Victor Bout, but is a product of author's imagination. Several other so-called writers and reporters, including Peter Landesman, Douglas Farah, Alexander Harrowell,and many others used Bout's name to build-up publicity over their unethical, misleading, and often novel-like works that otherwise will be discounted as uncorroborated yellow-press phantom stories."

"Many of the things said about Viktor are proven to be mere speculations or allegations. It is convenient for several governments to blame one individual who can neither speak out, nor fight the allegations in the absence of resources to do so."

Phrases such as these do not sound like a dispassionate article with a neutral point of view, but rather someone with an agenda. At the very least a rephrase would be useful.

I find this article having heavy anti-Russian bias. Most of the allegations are unproven and borrowed from writings of freelance journalists. Typical example is the sentence "US and UN officials say that Bout smuggled thousands upon thousands of assault rifles, grenade launchers, bullets and other weapons to African conflicts in Angola, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Kenya, Liberia, Libya, Congo-Brazzaville, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Swaziland and Uganda.[2]" Remarkably, the reference [2] for this allegation cannot be opened. Invoking the rule : "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous" I suggest to cut this article most severely, so that NPOV criterion can be satisfied.

Where is the link that suggests that the Russian Mafia are behind a spate of political assassinations in lebanon? I guess it does make sense given these people have little regard for human life, and by stirring the pot in the middle east they also keep their arms racket thriving. We hear plenty about how 'Syria' or 'Iran' are behind such killings (and maybe they are), but it also makes sense that these devious and evil men could be mafia with links in the west through banks or media, who knows??. Look at the crazy whacko kooks in London recently with their radiation poisoning! --Dean1970 21:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced Statements and lack of prose

This article just plain sucks. Not only is most of this unsourced and lacking in prose, but it the few sources it does use include Wayne Madsen. This guy is a Tabloid Reporter for crying out loud, is he really a reliable source for this article? I mean, the whole thing reaks of an agenda, and not neutrality. I think we need this page protected and investigated.Scryer_360 05:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lousy article

The link to "Gangsters Incorporated" (used six times as a reference) is dead.

Scryer is right; there is a lot of no-source and junk-source stuff in this piece.

The link at globalpolicy.org is written by a guy in the Jamestown pseudo-think-tank. Can't we do better? If the UN and Interpol don't like this Bout guy, how come there are no links at the UN or Interpol?

There are:

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/Liberia2/1015e.pdf

Pennywisepeter 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ViktorBout.jpg

Image:ViktorBout.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bout's Military Experience

I removed refernces to Bout working for the KGB (there is no reliable source). He was a major in the GRU (he was a major, I believe) (there are many sources, don't have time at this moment to find one - so I didn't state that).

So you do not have a source. But I do have a source that say he was a KGB major, and I cited this source - review in International J. of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, v. 20, page 309.Biophys (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I checked the sources in connection with recent RR warring and think they satisfy WP:Source. (1) First of them is Daily Mirror, this is not a blog. (2) Another source is original NATO web site [1]. It say: "Almost nine years after the phantom flight of their Boeing 707, officials of Air Commerce are not aware of the fact that the name of their company was used by Victor Antaloevic Bout, one of the biggest weapons smugglers in post cold War era and proven business partner of Hasan Cengic, wartime logistics man of the BiH Army, post-war businessman and deputy in the BiH Parliament. Bout's Boeing 707 did not only fly under the code of Air Commerce, but also kept it even after Bout had founded his own air company Air Cess in Liberia. It is not known how Bout found out the code of this company and misused it, but it is assumed that he was helped by his business partner Haasan Cengic. In spring 2003, UN experts for tracking and control of the biggest weapons importers and exporters were in Sarajevo and they were particularly interested in Hasan Cengic." (3) Last source is Douglas Farah - there are no doubts that it was indeed his opinion. So, everything is fine.Biophys (talk) 05:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree:

• First, this isn't a NATO original source, please read it carefully: [2]. It is SFOR web site related to media reports in Bosnia.
• Second, it's just Main News Summary in Bosnia for Friday, 11 June 2004 presented in SFOR web site, as you can see from the top of the table. Your quote is from a local newspapers (Slobodna Bosna).
• And finally, there is an SFOR NOTE at the bottom of the site, to quote:

Please Note
The portions of articles in this report are summaries from the originals. They have been derived and translated from available open source, newspapers, periodicals, TV and radio broadcasts. They reflect the opinion of the particular media or the media's sources. The use of articles and quotations does not necessarily reflect SFOR's official opinions or policy, nor are they official endorsements of any kind. Any offence is not intentional. The primary objective is to make available a variety of regional media summaries.

• Regarding your other website sources, they are not in compliance with WP:SOAP policies, especially with WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field.". Daily Mirror article isn't signed, and Douglas Farah "source" is just his opinion placed in his own web site, not a research, not a court validation etc. The way you wrote the claim in the article about Hasan Cengic is against all rules regarding WP:RS policies. The Dragon of Bosnia (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you did not provide any valid arguments here. First, this is original NATO site (a reliable secondary source that provides a summary), and we have no any obligations to trace this down to original primary sources. In fact, this is explicitly discouraged - please read WP:verifiability. If this is not SFOR official opinion, we can not refer to it as SFOR official opinion, but we can still cite the source. Second, Daily Mirror is an appropriate source, and there is no requirements for any articles to be signed per WP:Source. Third, we do not need any "research" (original research?) or "a court validation". This is not a court, this is encyclopedia. As far as opinion is clearly attributed to Douglas Farah, this is fine.Biophys (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not about NATO site. At the bottom of that site there is a note which says that this is not the SFOR claim:

Please Note The portions of articles in this report are summaries from the originals. They have been derived and translated from available open source, newspapers, periodicals, TV and radio broadcasts. They reflect the opinion of the particular media or the media's sources. The use of articles and quotations does not necessarily reflect SFOR's official opinions or policy, nor are they official endorsements of any kind. Any offence is not intentional. The primary objective is to make available a variety of regional media summaries.

Second, news report doesn't mean it is a fact or evidence: WP:SOAP, WP:RS. The Dragon of Bosnia 11:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)