Talk:Vladimir Bukovsky

Untitled

I noticed that there is some discrepancy in the dates (esp. around 1965) between En & Ru editions. Some of this could stem from diff dates of arrest v. official incarceration. In any case, any help reconciling is appreciated. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 23:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Bukovsky's passport

There are was a lot of misinformation around Bukovsly. Even among supporters there was some miscoordination. Perhaps, now they are coordinated better: in the movie, one shows the Bukovsky's passport. He is cityzen of Russia. I go to cite it correctly. Then, let us discuss it here. The movie is in Russian. If you have any English references, please, give them.dima 09:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Sorry, I did not see the refs were moved. While many references, each of them should support some statement(s) of the article. Terefore, they should be included as ref ... /ref.

I saw the Russian wiki Буковский copied and cited, but the links were not reproduced. I would prefer the peiple citing Wiki, to do contrary: take only small part of Wiki-text they need, and reproduce the links; the published and posted papers are not supposed to change while Wikipedia does; and there is no reason to reproduce a fixed version of wikiopedia. The peоple can easy copy and past the links if they are seen; owervice, one has to picк then one by one (or enter the edition mode). Let us make all the links visible.

The links to ISBN numbers still do not work well. If anybody has time to improve this, would be good.

dima 12:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

POV? I'm not well versed in what constitutes NPOV but the use of phrases such as 'journalists, academics and intellecttuals' seems to be some weasel words for 'eletist'. Also, no refs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.105.181.145 (talk) 08:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The 2008 presidential campaign section

I have some questions about this change [1]. I believe some of these questions also apply to other editors who favor giving reviews of "discussions in blogs and political websites". It appears that Wikipedia policies give little weight (authority) to such sources, so I'd rather remove speculations and leave only references to statements by government bodies, media, as well as by Bukovsky's initiative group.

1. The new version no longer mentions the refutation of pro-government media's claims of Bukovsky's falling out of the presidential race. The refutation was issued by the initiative group and therefore I consider it important for the article.

2. The argument stating that Lebed did not violate the government's interpretation of Constitution does not cite its source.

3. The word "registered" in the sentence on the number of participants in the Bukovsky's support group was replaced with "required". Was that an intentional change?

4. The reasons of refusing Bukovsky's application for the 2008 presidential race by the Central Election Committee do not cite their source. The reasons are given without quotation marks that serve as a boundary between an authoritative source and its interpretation by Wikipedia editors. The only reference to a pro-government news agency provides a mix-up and distortion of different events: (a) application to the Russian Constitutional Court by Kara-Murza Jr. about the consistency of the ban on being elected into representative bodies when having an extra citizenship and/or permanent residence; (b) the decision of the Central Election Committee on Bukovsky's application. It is worth noting that the Election Committee's decision came 3 days after the publication in RIA Novosti. (See Bukovsky's lawyer's statement [2] and its computer translation [3]).

5. The word "eligible" was probaby misspelled in the new version.

6. The new argument attributed to anonymous "some" says that Russian Consitution forbids dual-citizenship holders from being elected. This is not true. There are only 2 categories of citizens who lose the right of being elected, according to Constitution: imprisoned and incapacitated. The author of this anonymous statement could mix up the 2006 federal law amendment preventing holders of extra citizenship from being elected as a president.

7. The previous versions' attribution of the requirement of residing _preceding_ 10 years to Constitution is also invalid. The Constitution does not specify the time frame for the 10 year residence requirement.

I don't mean to wipe out arguments such as (6) and (7) from the article. I'd like to see them attributed to persons issuing such statements. Without authoritative sources, these statements look like original research.

ilgiz (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the judicial arguments altogether as I think they are of little weight. If someone wants to re-add them, I'd suggest to link CEC's, Supreme Court's decisions and Initiative group's statements rather than blogs.ilgiz (talk) 08:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Bukovsky lies !!!

In a speech at the CATO Institude (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6505) he says at 23:37 :

"... So, as a result of it (he refes to some EU-Regulation) they collect our garbage only once in two weeks and they refuse to do it once a week. In the summer, as a result of it , the bags are piling up, the rats are multiplying, the stench in cities is incredible ...."

Now, I am a German born in 1948 in Ulm and lived there and in Stuttgart (both southern Germany) . All I know is, and this includes my childhod, that the garbage always was collected once a week. Never every two weeks as Bukovsky claims ! There are no bags piling up either and consquently there is no stench. Have not seen a rat either.

So, I know from own experience that what he says here is plain and simple false ! And he says it on the lectern at CATO !!!

Now, how can one assume that either his other remarks or for that matter the other stuff at CATO is not similarily false ? 79.210.51.64 (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please limit the discussion to representing reliable sources and their interpretation in the article. Talk pages do fall under the WP:BLP limitations that, I believe, guard Wikimedia against defamation suits. If you want to point to a contradiction, find a reliable source contradicting the primary source you presented. The words you disputed find support in a Telegraph article Green light given to empty bins every 2 weeks of March 16, 2007,

"Ministers and council chiefs want authorities across the country to follow suit to meet European Union green targets".

--ilgiz (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Bukovsky Speaks the Truth

I was amazed to see the use of the word "alleged" in the following External Links item:

"Voices of Dissent An expose film of alleged human rights abuse presented by Vladimir Bukovsky (2006)". 

So now the KGB must be given the benefit of the doubt, not only during the period that the Kremlin's police did its (mis)deeds, but even 21 years (!) after the Soviet Union collapsed?!

In light of the — continued — whitening of the KGB, along with charges of Bukovsky lying, no wonder Pajamas Media published an article (The Greatest Subversive of Our Times by Michael Ledeen, 29 December 2012) speaking of the times that Vladimir Bukovsky "was subjected to the KGB’s infamous psychological and biochemical torments during his years in prison and the camps." And you still believe that "alleged" belongs in the description of that exposé film?!

Then, of course, it's easier to understand when one learns that the Russian cannot get certain books published in the West because they reveal Soviet support of Western leftists [go to www freerepublic com /focus/f-news/536808/posts — a direct redirect link being impossible on this page because a conservative internet forum is… blacklisted by… Wikipedia!!] ("Vladimir Bukovsky has written a richly detailed, heavily documented account of how the Soviet Union aided Palestinian militants, Latin American revolutionaries, and even America's Black Panther movement. Based on materials unearthed in Russian archives, 'Judgment in Moscow' also discloses Moscow's clandestine efforts to manipulate public opinion throughout the West."). Asteriks (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Being Russian myself, I have read some of the works by Bukovsky and most of his interviews. It is hard to say whether he lied there or not. More striking is another point: Bukovsky admitted that he always disliked the country he lived in, at least since he was 15 years old, and wanted to do as much damage to it as possible – not in the name of Russia, but “for himself”. As a boy, he was expelled from school for disorderly conduct in 1959, then started spreading anti-Soviet agitation and tried to organise protest demonstrations on every occasion. He said that, being obsessed with the idea of damaging the Soviet state, he could not live as an ordinary free man for more than a year, without provoking the government and getting arrested for this or that reason. He knew it wouldn’t change anything, yet he was banging his head against the wall again and again, like a fanatic. It is therefore not surprising that Bukovsky was sent to a psychiatric institution – paranoid persistence has always been a characteristic feature of Russian dissidents. In Russia, there is a popular saying: “Уничтожение карательной психиатрии лишило российских диссидентов, правозащитников и демократов даже надежды на квалифицированную медицинскую помощь” (The destruction of punitive psychiatry deprived Russian dissidents, human rights activists and democrats of the last hope of qualified medical care). Another feature is ‘Red Scare’ paranoia: a belief that Communists are hiding under every bed trying to assassinate this or that person, including the paranoid dissident himself, and that Communism is making a comeback of some sort.

For example, notorious Romanian dissident Ion Mihai Pacepa has claimed that the USSR/Russian Federation supported Islamic terrorism and carried out 9/11 attacks, that all protests against the invasion of Iraq in 2003 were funded by Russia, that the mythical Iraqi WMD were hidden or destroyed by Russian agents, etc. – a typical clinical picture of a behaviour disorder. That is the reason why we shouldn't trust everything that comes out of their mouths. The late Soviet Union was, no doubt, an authoritarian state which suppressed those who violated the public peace and called for the overthrow of the regime. But the suppression was not brutal – in accordance with the slogan “fight for every man”, the government tried to take preventive measures to persuade dissidents and saw coercion and arrest as extreme measures. For example, KGB operatives had prescriptions to enter into “explanatory conversations” with anti-Soviet activists. So, to be jailed in the USSR, you had to ignore all warnings and continually break the law.

As for the Soviet support for the Arab people of Palestine in its struggle against the Israeli occupation, for Communist parties of other countries as well as for numerous "third world" countries – it was a norm for the Soviet Union and definitely not a secret of any sort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriba-Marduk (talk • contribs) 12:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The Russian who provides the commentary above should sign the above contribution with some name, either a real name or the usual Wiki pseudonym.

So far as I understand Bukovsky did not hate his country - a common accusation against dissidents - but hated what had been done to his country under the Communist regime. As an indirect proof of that statement he was one of a small group that includes Solzhenitsyn and 3 or 4 others who were physically deported from the country against their will. The majority of other opponents of the Soviet authorities were pressured into leaving but not actually escorted to a plane leaving the USSR in handcuffs.

Much of Bukovsky's writing takes a strongly polemical form. It is mistaken and misleading, however, to identify him with the supposed views of Ion Pacepa. The text which provides not just polemic and argument, but also a substantial amount of evidence from classified Central Committee and KGB documents is Judgment in Moscow, which has long been available in French (1995), Russian (1996) and Polish (1999). There are also the online Bukovsky Archives themselves (see http://bukovsky-archives.net)if anyone doubts Bukovsky's assertion that the members of the ruling Politburo and Central Committee of the CPSU acted in a consistently cynical and amoral fashion towards the outside world and towards ordinary people in the USSR. Voronov (talk) 03:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Diana West Controversy

In his comments in defense of Diana West's book American Betrayal that wildly accuses the FDR administration of being wholly co-opted by the Soviet Union, Bukovsky expands on her notion that modern liberalism and social democracy is at the heart of the menace that the Cold War was about, not curtailing the military aggression of a totalitarian superpower, and that those who failed to engage in "rollback" were cowards and quislings, as opposed to responsible leaders who combined caution and prudence with firmness and resolution in seeking to check this menace while avoiding the prospect of nuclear war.

More significantly, Bukovsky makes clear that it is not so much democracy, but an idealized version of 19th Century laissez faire capitalism, in reality an inequitable system that caused countless misery to so many working class people, that is his main preoccupation, trying to suggest that the social welfare program of liberals, socialists and the labor movement was somehow the creation of Bolshevism or the heart of what it was about or that it is somehow inextricably linked, unlike the tyranny of free marketeers like Pinochet, with dictatorial methods and repression.

Thus the long dead spectre of Stalinist hegemony is used in an attempt to demagogically smear all liberals, progressives and moderates, going so far as to characterize current Western leaders as "closet Marxists and Mensheviks" without offering any evidence to support that assertion or to explain how that somehow translates into totalitarianism. Ironically, as most school children know, Mensheviks were traditional social democrats, who like Karl Kautsky, were bitter opponents of the Bolsheviks and communism as were most liberals and socialists. Moreover, it is highly doubtful that a liberal democrat like Vaclav Havel, who Bukovsky embraces, would agree with such ultra-reactionary views. The late Tony Judt, (author of the acclaimed Postwar (book)), and Timothy Snyder unpack these issues in their recent book Thinking the Twentieth Century. It is disappointing to see such a knee jerk, demagogic and historically ignorant commentary coming from Mr. Bukovsky.

Child Pornography Charges

I remove information about pornografy- Bukovsky, because this is not improved by court. Dissident N 1 in Russia ,Mr Bukovsky,in past was accused by KGB tens time in different-as spy, terrorism, anti soviet propaganda, ets. So, without juristical confirmation of court- it is next provocation of KGB- FSB.

Even Russian Wikipedia not published this KGB crab/rubbish/

I remained you, that Mr Bukovsky was direct enemy of Andropov/teacher of Mr putin/ I remind you, that Mr Bukovsky- former candidate in presidency of Russia - so concurent of Mr putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zasdcxz (talk • contribs) 17:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Lets keep at this way for a moment. Very little is known about the nature of those charges yet and we have WP:BLP policy against poorly sourced negative information about living people. The story seems to be dormant for some time, if it would die without going to a court, we probably should not have it in the article. And yes taking into account Bukovsky's biography a provocation by Russian government as well as British political correctness gone mad can be a real possibility Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the decision to remove link (especially to the newspaper concerned), but would counsel that it is not safe or wise to compare the UK and Russian systems of investgation and prosecution. The charges in this case are specified in more detail on the website of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

Given the appalling historic cases of child abuse that have come to light in the UK, leading to the prosecution of a variety of TV and popular music celebrities and their just conviction and imprisonment (the entertainer Rolf Harris, for example) the CPS must investigate if there is evidence; it cannot be seen to show favouritism, especially to those with high-up connections - for this see the Wikipedia entry on the late Sir Jimmy Saville and his links to Mrs Thatcher and to royalty.

How the evidence the CPS have in this case was produced, and how it came to the notice of the prosecution service, is another matter. UK media have, with one exception, been very restrained and tactful in their reporting of what seems likely to have been a well-calculated smear campaign (what could cause greater revulsion than such allegations?) by the FSB or its affiliates.

Of course, Bukovsky was regularly defamed in the Soviet era, and this did not change when he was forced to move abroad: allegations were circulated in the 1980s, for instance, that the "terrorist" Bukovsky organised the killing of US journalist Jessica Savitch. John Crowfoot (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's Bukovsky's response to these allegations: he's suing the Crown Prosecution Service for libel[4]. I feel this is worth noting in the article somewhere, but I'll leave it to others to decide exactly where. Robofish (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right Robofish. Bukovsky and his advisers, legal and otherwise, have now decided to fight back in a high-profile move (please note, Zasdcxz) challenging the prosecutors, their allegations and the investigation on which these were based.

This means that both the allegations — as detailed on the CPS website, NOT as summarised, retold, interpreted and / or distorted by any UK or Russian media report — and the details of the new High Court writ should be added to the website. I've put both in the "Health" section since, biographically speaking, the two have been intertwined ever since April this year. John Crowfoot (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel this section now provides too much detail and should be summarized more briefly. The case is currently "suspended" and so far did not officially result in anything. In addition, on controversial matters one should relay on best quality secondary sources, such as this NYT publication as opposed to relying on interviews (primary sources), etc. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

So, that NYT article cast doubts on the accusations. Indeed, years have passed, and there is no any new information about it whatsoever. There was no courts, no investigations, no official statements, nothing. Based on that, I would rather remove this content as undue in the overall context of biography of Vladimir Bukovsky. This is not something he is known for. Rather, they are potentially fabricated charges. My very best wishes (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

However, after looking at this and at the discussion above, I decided to keep this story in the body of the page, but shorten it by using more recent sources which summarize better this controversy. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The United Kingdom charged him with child pornography, and the article has stated this for a long time. If you think the government of the United Kingdom is, in your words, making "potentially fabricated charges" against pedophiles and child pornographers, then you can mention that in the article but you're not going to censor people from knowing those charges happened. Minimax Regret (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Intro

The lede needs to be tweaked; it's confusing to the general reader who is quickly perusing because the first sentence uses the verb "was", which is appropriate if the bio subject is deceased. And Bukovsky is still a Russian dissident, albeit living in western Europe for several decades. Evenrød (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, Evenrød. I've rewritten the introductory sentence to emphasise Bukovsky's active and ongoing opposition after his expulsion from the USSR in 1976. And he's become more than just a Russian dissident or oppositionist. As a later section title suggests, Bukovsky has proved a thorn in the side of every establishment and tribal form of politics. He has been a maverick in the West, criticising the pro-EU consensus, but also confounding his US neo-con "allies" by coming out against the use of water-boarding and similar "interrogation" techniques in Iraq and elsewhere. John Crowfoot (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography

This has grown considerably since I last looked. Good to have many more titles listed.John Crowfoot (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Quality of this article

Six months (?) ago this was a rather scrappy, uneven article with many gaps and not very well-written. Re-reading it for the first time in quite a few weeks I am impressed with our collective efforts and think that Wikipedia should considering giving the Bukovsky entry a quality award or ranking -- if any (either) of you know how that is done. John Crowfoot (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I believe the article meets at least good article criteria and would like to nominate it as per WP:GAI, if there are no objections to this. -- Nkrita (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

On the page for GA nominees you may be told to remove the list of Bukovsky's publications as long and worthless from the wikiarticle. Then would you like to see the list of his publications or the GA sign () in the wikiarticle? I would like to see the list of his publications rather than the GA sign. The GA sign would add nothing to the wikiarticle. Psychiatrick (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think a review process for GA status would only help this article. Of course, I don't want to force it.

As for the list: I don't think its existence is a problem. What might be raised for GA is its scope. It would indeed be more appropriate and in accordance with the MOS to have a bibliography here. At the moment it looks like it is starting to become a necessarily incomplete directory of works involving Bukovsky, including interviews, radio appearances and translations e.g. into Polish. -- Nkrita (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

OK. I do not mind your nominating the wikiarticle for GA status. Please during the review process try to keep as much information as possible in the wikiarticle. Psychiatrick (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Great to hear. Since there are no other major objections, I have nominated the article now. I agree we should keep as much information as possible, and I will/we should keep an eye on that during the review process. Nkrita (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I just took a look at the other good article nominees. The article for Carlos Castaneda has a classic bibliography; but then it also links to a separate article called Carlos Castaneda bibliography. If removal is a concern, maybe this is something to consider doing with this article as well. Nkrita (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

All interesting considerations. I leave it to you gents to set the process in motion. I think a linked bibliography that retains everything is definitely an option. As I looked through the latest list of books, and articles (and interviews?) I began to feel just a bit overwhelmed by all the detail—my preceding August comment notwithstanding!John Crowfoot (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Adding new Chronicle references to Notes

In the section on Psychiatric Abuse I have added several new notes (from note 32 to 37) with hyperlinnks to the Chronicle.

Can someone edit these so they come in the part of the end notes that is reserved for CCE alone. Thanks! John Crowfoot (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Psychiatrick (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding CCE refs for those mentioned in Bukovsky's 1971 letter about psychiatric abuse

I have now added in references to articles in the Chronicle of Current Events for almost all of those listed by Bukovsky in his 1971 appeal to Western psychiatrists.

Can one of you, as before, "segregate" these footnotes to the Chronicle section? Thanks!

John Crowfoot (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done Psychiatrick (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Intro

I am adding to the intro that Bukovsky spent twelve years in prisons, labor camps, and psychiatric hospitals. That is the first sentence appearing on the dusk jacket of his autobiography, Vladimir Bukovsky: To Build a Castle, My Life as a Dissenter. That fact, above all else, is what jumps out about his life. It also differentiates Bukovsky from other activists that penetrate our consciousness from different spheres. I think that it's not uncommon for general readers to read intros/ledes and then skim through the body of an article. I don't think that the section, "A brief overview" would need to be edited for redundancy because it gives a succinct breakdown of the years, etc.

One other thing, yes, Bukovsky is known for bringing awareness to State-use of psychiatry as a tool of oppression, but he is just as known for, including the thesis of his autobiography, to his vehement opposition to Soviet communism. Evenrød (talk) 07:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

From his autobiography: "Vladimir Bukovsky has spent twelve of his thirty-five years - over half his adult life - in prisons, labour camps and psychiatric hospitals." Evenrød (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I had changed the lead earlier and must have missed this talk page entry. The twelve years info was part of a proposal for a "Did You Know" blurb, and some reviewers mentioned that it was unclear where that tally came from. I am guessing this includes pre-trial detentions etc.? In any case, now the DYK blurb does not mention specific years anymore. Which edition is it? Let's reinsert it as a sourced statement. – Nkrita (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nkrita - it's the British edition. Vladimir Bukovsky: To Build a Castle, My Life as a Dissenter; Translated from the Russian by Michael Scammell; publisher: Andre Deutsch, London; 1978. Evenrød (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to this edition, but I found the same figure in the 2009 biographical article in Slavonic and East Europ. Review and have added that one as a source. Probably better than quoting a dust jacket anyhow. – Nkrita (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vladimir Bukovsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120727190419/http://www.democracyforcuba.org/images/stories/media/UM2/vol.5no.2a.pdf to http://www.democracyforcuba.org/images/stories/media/UM2/vol.5no.2a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Modifying the now lengthy bibliography

The bibliography of the pamphlets written, the interviews given, and the books and articles published by Bukovsky since the 1970s is now equal in length to the textual part of this entry.

There is also a multiplicity of different languages.

For the ease of readers consulting this part of the entry, I have begun to simplify this section by limiting it to publications in English with a few that have only appeared (in recent years) in Russian. The other articles, pamphlets, interviews in other languages are in the process of being moved to a different section.

Ideally, anyone who curates the French, Italian, Spanish and, of course, Russian versions of the Bukovsky entry on Wikipedia could help greatly with this process.

I hope there are no objections. This seems a sensible way to make the information more accessible and manageable.

John Crowfoot (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• John Crowfoot, why not to use templates {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite book}} to put the cited sources in better order? I guess I did my best by using the templates because they were created for using. In addition, they included links to websites containing articles and interviews by Bukovsky. Let's restore the links. Psychiatrick (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me! I was just trying "to see the wood for the trees", and there was an awful lot of growth since last I looked. I'm not very accustomed to the templates and they don't jibe in all respects with the way I was taught to give references (in 1970s and 1980s!). Can you mend those links, Psychiatrick? (Hope that does not make too much work for you.)

It's very striking from these lists how Western interest in what VKB has to say about the USSR and post-Soviet Russia waxes and wanes. A useful indicator, I think! John Crowfoot (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have added the templates and mended those links (see). Psychiatrick (talk) 08:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

May I again suggest moving the big list to an article called Vladimir Bukovsky bibliography (cf. articles like Richard Dawkins bibliography and other pages like that). This could be the place for interviews, translations into languages other than English, minor articles, associated works etc. It would free up space in this article for a "Bibliography" (books and notable articles authored by Bukovsky) and a reasonably slim "further reading" section. Nkrita (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

In the absence of comments, I have gone ahead and moved it to Vladimir Bukovsky bibliography. It is now linked it from the main article with a "Main" hatnote.– Nkrita (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vladimir Bukovsky/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 00:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Here are the issues:

• Over a dozen dead links. Check for which ones are dead using the External links section.

 Done – I have used the Checklinks tool and replaced the dead links. The tool reports no more broken links. – Nkrita (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Lot of citations are needed. Nearly half the article is uncited.

 Done – I have added citations for the less-sourced sections. If there is still content that needs citations, please mark it or mention it. – Nkrita (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• The "Article in Brief" section seems unnecessary. the lead an overview of the article?

 Done – Shortened and moved to article lead. – Nkrita (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Expand the contractions can't and don't.

 Done – Nkrita (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• All numbers less than 10 are written as words per MOS:NUM

 Done – Nkrita (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

References to A Manual on Psychiatry for Dissidents like Bukovsky & Gluzman 1975a, Bukovsky and Gluzman (1975b, 1975c, 1975d) worked and, when clicked, moved cursor to sources before but no longer do so. Could you fix them? Psychiatrick (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch. They should work now. – Nkrita (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• Passing, Well done!--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 00:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vladimir Bukovsky. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sps.ru/?id=42440

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Reduce introductory section by cutting paragraphs two and three

I have just been correcting statements in these paragraphs and begin to wonder if they are really necessary. The detail behind each is more fully, accurately and comprehensibly described in an easily located section below (2.1 Mayakovsky Square, 2.2 Glasnost Rally, 2.3. The Right to Protest) - so what do they add, if anything?

The sooner people can see the Contents, it seems to me, the quicker they will find an accurate account of the events they are seeking.

John Crowfoot (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@John Crowfoot: The lead should probably say a few words about the episode with the psychiatric imprisonment documents, given its importance for Bukovsky's biography and its wider historical significance. (WP:LEAD I think correctly suggests that many readers will only read this section). How about cutting paragraph two and shortening paragraph three? – Nkrita (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

/* Further reading */ sorting items by period

A large number of articles have now accumulated here and I think it would be more helpful to those consulting this page if they were sorted by year, or grouped in periods relating to Vladimir Bukovsky's life, rather than by author surname.

I shall attempt to do this and let us see if it works better for those seeking particular items or subjects.

John Crowfoot (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Dutch contribution to Bukovsky's deportation

A sizable section of text, now reduced and partially edited, has been added about the Dutch campaign for Bukovsky's release. It presently has two defects.

One, there is no indication of a source for this interesting description. It contained one surprising factual error, now removed, suggesting that Bukovsky was imprisoned in Siberia. During this period of imprisonment he was being held not in a penal colony but in Vladimir Prison in Central Russia.

Two, it may mislaid readers into thinking the Dutch campaign was the only form of sustained protest in the West about the treatment of Vladimir Bukovsky. On the contrary, there were people in many countries, especially in academic circles (some linked to professional psychiatric organisations), who were protesting and writing him letters after his imprisonment in 1972.

John Crowfoot (talk) 02:19, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Vladimir Bukovsky. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/about/internationaladvisors.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015172233/http://www.sakharov-center.ru/asfcd/auth/auth_pages.xtmpl?Key=17441&page=3 to http://www.sakharov-center.ru/asfcd/auth/auth_pages.xtmpl?Key=17441&page=3
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6GgjU3phD?url=http://www.tfa.net/about-us/council-and-supporters/ to http://www.tfa.net/about-us/council-and-supporters/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vladimir Bukovsky. 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://web.archive.org/web/20160301171655/https://szags.ru/media/uploads/%D1%83%D0%BA_12_4.pdf to https://szags.ru/media/uploads/%D1%83%D0%BA_12_4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vladimir Bukovsky. 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://web.archive.org/web/20151211151109/https://chronicle6883.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/1-1-the-trial-of-galanskov-ginzburg-dobrovolsky-and-lashkova/ to https://chronicle6883.wordpress.com/2013/09/21/1-1-the-trial-of-galanskov-ginzburg-dobrovolsky-and-lashkova/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160426234150/http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/beyond-opposition-beyond-a-chance/194173.html to http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/beyond-opposition-beyond-a-chance/194173.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Fix citation?

Currently Footnote 16 has an error in it:

Boobbyer, Richard (July 2009). "Vladimir Bukovskii and Soviet Communism". The Slavonic and East European Review. 87 (3): 452–487. JSTOR 40650408.

His name is actually Philip Boobbyer (see: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40650408?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)

I see this source is cited multiple times in the piece, and I cannot figure out how to edit that reference. Could somebody fix it for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.148.20.2 (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship

I don't know how US citizens distinguish between these two categories. In the Soviet Union there was a line in the internal passport or ID document that listed the individual's nationality, e.g. Russian, Tatar, Jewish, Ukrainian.

In the case of Bukovsky he was, so far as I know, of Russian ethnicity but through force of circumstance changed his citizenship three times: Soviet to Russian to British -- the first two running consecutively, the latter concurrent with both. The corresponding years are now clearly entered in the side-bar summary of his life.

John Crowfoot aka Rustat99 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I fixed it per WP:INFONAT, but another contributor reverted it, without even looking. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Given no objections on this talk page from anyone, I implemented this change and a few others per discussion on this page above. My very best wishes (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Bukovsky's child pornography trial section

This section is properly sourced. The sources (BBC News, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph) are as unbiased, as they can be. This section is very relevant in the context of Bukovsky's biography. That is why this section should be in any article about Bukovsky, that at least tries to be reasonably complete and unbiased. And that's why I restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.238.188 (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree this story should be mentioned on the page because it was covered in RS. And it is included on the page. But there are two issues with your edit [5]. First, you make a lot of changes, not only about this story. Secondly, why this should be a separate section? This is described in section "Last years (2011–2019)", which is a lot more appropriate given the significant size and the structure of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

"he falsely blamed on the Russian security services" [in WP voice]. Said who? Why do you think that Intelligence agencies of Russia were not involved? My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear My very best wishes, it seems you've been trying to censor this article for several years now, by deleting relevant and properly sourced content from it. Please, understand, that you cannot and will not censor the facts.

As for you concerns about the length of this section: it is long by necessity. The trial and the events preceeding it (Bukovsky's arrest, Bukovsky's confession, charges against him, his libel claim, his hunger strike, dismissal of his libel claim by court) deserve to be presented accurately and in order (the lone paragraph in the current version of the article does neither). Especially because the charges were grave, the trial was long and it basically never ended.

This trial sheds light both on Bukovsky's biography and his moral character. It is in a way the pinnacle of his life. His highest achievement. His legacy. It deserves a section of its own. And there was such a section before my edits! I've just rewritten, expanded it, added more reliable sources and a sentence about it to the beginning of the article. I also saved the edit you made (with the Memorial link). Not so many changes after all.

Now let's talk about your concerns about the possibility of remote putting content on Bukovsky's hard drives. If you would just take some time to read the sources, instead of deleting them, you would find, that this possibility was rejected completely by computer forensics expert under oath during the trial. Here is the BBC News article, that you've deleted, describing it: Vladimir Bukovsky indecent images not put on PC 'remotely'. Does it leave room for other interpretations? Moreover, Bukovsky confessed in downloading child pornography immediately after his arrest; some child pornography was downloading at the moment of his arrest (it's all in the sources, that you've also deleted, by the way)! And after all that Bukovsky claims that Russian Intelligence is to blame. Is this claim true or false? Any unbiased person will agree, that it's definitely false, and it should be noted.

In view of all that I will restore my edit. Please, don't try to censor the facts and delete the sources again.

The controversy was already included (last paragraph in section Vladimir_Bukovsky#Last_years_(2011–2019)). Therefore, no one is trying to censor anything. However, your edit (diff above) introduces claims not supported by cited sources, for example, "British activist" (he is obviously known as a Soviet/Russian activist), or the claim that Russian agencies were not involved in the controversy (this is something no one knows for sure and the sources do not claim). My very best wishes (talk) 01:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I never edited that part of the article. The "British activist" part was there before any of my edits ([6]). Feel free to change it or discuss it, but not in this discussion about Bukovsky's child pornography trial section. However, please, stop vandalising this section. I will restore it now. Best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.238.183 (talk) 02:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

>or the claim that Russian agencies were not involved in the controversy

>this is something no one knows for sure and the sources do not claim

But they do! Please, read that part of my answer again:

If you would just take some time to read the sources, instead of deleting them, you would find, that this possibility was rejected completely by computer forensics expert under oath during the trial. Here is the BBC News article, that you've deleted, describing it: Vladimir Bukovsky indecent images not put on PC 'remotely'. Does it leave room for other interpretations? Moreover, Bukovsky confessed in downloading child pornography immediately after his arrest; some child pornography was downloading at the moment of his arrest (it's all in the sources [7][8], that you've also deleted, by the way)! And after all that Bukovsky claims that Russian Intelligence is to blame. Is this claim true or false? Any unbiased person will agree, that it's definitely false, and it should be noted.

There are

(a) a testimony by computer forensics expert, that refutes Bukovsky's claim,

(b) a confession, made by Bukovsky himself after the arrest, that also refutes his claim,

(c) the child abuse materials, that were being downloaded by Bukovsky right at the moment of his arrest, and that also refutes his claim.

What else do you need, to tell that his claim about Russian Intelligence involvement is false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.238.183 (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this claim [about the involvement of Russian state security services] true or false? Any unbiased person will agree, that it's definitely false Well, this is WP:OR, something not directly supported by sources. So is "British activist" and some other claims that you just included [9]. My very best wishes (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This man is a child pornographer who confessed he downloaded child pornography, sourced to reliable sources. The British government confirmed this in court from expert witnesses.

Pedophiles, child pornographers, and apologists for pedophiles and child pornographers are out in force in Wikipedia, defending pedophilia and defending pedophiles and child pornographers. This pedophile is having his biography whitewashed by them, and having information removed. We are putting it back. Minimax Regret (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR, it's basic logic: the claim cannot be both true and false at the same time. The sources are crystal clear on this Bukovsky's claim: it's false.

Also, please, stop inventing the edits that I never made: the "British activist" and the "kicked out" parts were there before any of my edits [10]. Change these parts of the text, if you think they are poorly written (they probably are), support your changes by reliable sources if necessary, do it in separate edits. That's Editing 101.

Thank you, Minimax Regret, for restoring this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.25.238.183 (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear Minimax Regret and My very best wishes, let's discuss our consensus here. In my view, the only reasonable consensus is full restoration of this section as soon as possible, because it is

(a) highly relevant,

(b) reasonably concise,

(c) properly sourced.

Do you agree? W4r5a7w4r (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• I did not check this story for a long time. Quickly looking at the books (they are better sources), I can see IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age by Bill Gertz, pages 159-160, according to which it was in fact a hacking to PC of Bukovsky by Russian "security services", while another Russian agent simultaneously tipped off EU law enforcement, i.e. it was a classic "disinformation and influence operation". Other books say the same: see, Core Concepts and Contemporary Issues in Privacy - Page 195, by Ann E. Cudd, ‎Mark C. Navin. I do not need to check anything further. So yes, that should be probably added to the stable (current version). That was pure fabrication. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

The first book implies that the purpose of the operation was to discredit Bukovsky just before his testimony at the Litvinenko inquiry. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Dear My very best wishes, it seems you do not understand the concept of relevance. We are talking here about Bukovsky's child pornography trial. The only relevant book sources would be those, that describe this trial and/or Bukovsky's previous history of pedophilia.

The books you describe simply don't do this. IWar: War and Peace in the Information Age is a book about warfare being waged by world powers, rogue states—such as Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—and even terrorist groups like ISIS, seeking to defeat and ultimately destroy the United States. Do you really think Bukovsky was downloading child pornography as an ISIS agent to destroy the United States?

Core Concepts and Contemporary Issues in Privacy is a comprehensive investigation of privacy in the modern world. Do you see in this description the words trial, Bukovsky, pedophilia or child pornography? You don't, because there aren't.

I reiterate: please, confine this discussion to consensus about Bukovsky's child pornography trial section. And stop bringing irrelevant themes and sources to this discussion. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, in the interest of reaching consensus faster, let's discuss your concerns about this section. You've rejected it several times (without any modification), claiming that (in chronological order): "a lot of changes (starting from "British activist") are not supported by cited sources", "WP:OR, non-neutral language ("kicked out"), repetition of the same negative info, and yeh, a copyvio".

Please, elaborate on your claims. In which sentence of this section is the "British activist" part? Which changes are not supported by cited sources? In which sentences are WP:OR and non-neutral language? And, yeah, where exactly is copyvio? W4r5a7w4r (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

• Look, a book by well known expert, Bill Gertz tells that it was a Russian intelligence operation against Bukovsky and explains how and why they did it (the book was published in 2017, a few years after the events). Other recent books tell the same. If you have other good books or scholarly sources by experts (dated after 2017) which tell Bill Gertz and others were wrong, please place them here. But if not, this is the end of this dispute. My very best wishes (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

It says: "A Russian hacker broke to his laptop computer and planted child pornography photographs on the device. A Russian intelligence agent then tipped off ... Europol to the photos. ... It was classic Russian disinformation and influence operation" My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There was no Russian (or Chinese, or Iranian, or North Korean) hacker: Vladimir Bukovsky indecent images not put on PC 'remotely'. Bukovsky downloaded child pornography himself and confessed in downloading it after his arrest: Vladimir Bukovsky downloaded indecent images and films over 15-year period, Cambridge crown court hears. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

This book describes neither arrest of Bukovsky nor his trial. Ergo, it is completely irrelevant to this section.

Please, try to focus. Elaborate on your claims concerning this section. Let me remind them for you.

In which sentence of this section is the "British activist" part? Which changes are not supported by cited sources? In which sentences are WP:OR and non-neutral language? And, yeah, where exactly is copyvio? W4r5a7w4r (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

So, you have nothing criticizing the conclusions by Bill Gertz and others? Great. Indeed, I did not find anything too. And no, of course the book tells about the arrest and trial. Just as other sources, it says that not only he did not admit anything, but launched a defamation lawsuit and went on a hunger strike. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course I have! All the text about Bukovsky in this book is based on Bukovsky's own words during just one(!) interview by him to Guardian on 29 April 2016 (look at the page 160 of the book). Here is this interview: [11] (by the way, a link to this interview and a retelling of Bukovsky's claims during it were included in the last paragraph of this section, if only you've read it before deleting it!).

Of course this book doesn't include anything, that happened after April 2016 (and everything relevant to this section). It doesn't include dismissal of Bukovsky's libel claim. It doesn't include dismissal of his appeal. It doesn't include the trial of Bukovsky and materials made public during the trial (Bukovsky's confession during his arrest [12], and results of forensic examination of his computer Vladimir Bukovsky indecent images not put on PC 'remotely', that refute his [and yours!] claim, that his computer was hacked).

So, as I've already told you, this book is completely irrelevant to this section (moreover, it is not a reliable source). W4r5a7w4r (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

• You provided 3 news sources that qualify as RS, but none of them disputes the conclusion in the book by Bill Gertz for a simple reason: these news articles were published in 2016, but the book was published a year later. We need to use the reviews in books, such as that one, because they summarize the previously published news sources and frequently a lot of other information that an author of a book may have, especially if he is an expert like Gertz. I do not know how exactly Gertz came to such conclusion, but he did. This is not "may be" or "probably", but a definitive assertion. Yes, the hacking was not immediately obviously after the first check of his computer, as one of the news sources says. Yes, there were many other people saying it was hacking, as another your source says. Other recent books also say the same. Sure. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The sources I provided here are not new. They we already included in the text of this section before you deleted it (and they were mentioned many times in our discussion). They do contradict both your, Bukovsky's and Gertz's claims.

The two pages about Bukovsky in this book (and this book has 385 pages) are an unreliable biased retelling of a source from April 2016, that is already included in the text of this section. So, this book is completely irrelevant to this section (as I've already told you). W4r5a7w4r (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

And do you have something to substantiate your (very severe!) claims ("a lot of changes (starting from "British activist") are not supported by cited sources", "WP:OR, non-neutral language ("kicked out"), repetition of the same negative info, and yeh, a copyvio") about the text of this section?

Because if you don't, then your unstoppable deletion of this section was WP:DIS at best, WP:VAND at worst.

And that kind of behavior leads to severe punishment. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 20:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Everything is in the diff above: "kicked out", a huge chunk of copy-pasted text in Russian, and repeating the pornography claim at least twice. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I've found the source of our misunderstading.

It is this edit you've made: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vladimir_Bukovsky&diff=prev&oldid=1239386475.

You've made several changes of the text of this article in one edit:

(a) you've changed "Russian-born British" part (that was there before any of my edits: [13]) to "Soviet and Russian" in the lead

(b) you've changed "kicked out" part in the Early life section (that was there before any of my edits: [14])

(c) you've deleted a quote in Russian in the references section (that was there before any of my edits: [15])

(d) you've deleted a retelling of this reference, in which Bukovsky called Milosevic arrest "an illegal act made by new left in Europe" (that was there before any of my edits: [16])

(e) you've deleted parts of the text in Later life section (that were there before any of my edits: [17])

(f) you've changed some wording here and there

(g) you've deleted this section and a sentence about this section in the lead

So after this edit you've made was undone, the section was restored, but your other changes were lost. Looks like that gives us a way of finally reaching a consensus here.

My proposed consensus: I will add this section ([18]) to the article (and a sentence about it to the lead) in a separate edit. Then it will not interfere with your changes. Do you agree? W4r5a7w4r (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

No. I agree this controversy should be noted on the page, but how much space does it deserve and what should we say? We should rely here on reliably published brief biographies of the subject. His obituary published by The Times would be probably the best. It says [19]: A final clash with the law cast a dark shadow over his reputation. Cambridgeshire police raided his house in 2014 and found images of child pornography on his laptop. He vigorously proclaimed his innocence, suggesting that Putin’s agents had placed them there to incriminate him. He resorted to an old tactic, going on hunger strike, this time for 26 days. Last year, after suffering a health collapse and subsequent treatment in Munich, the authorities decided to take no further action against him. The truth of whether he had in fact collected images of abuse was never established.

This is all it deserves. Saying something like that (just a paragraph or two) would be fine. Except that we better use multiple review sources (rather than news reports which provide contradictory claims in this case). And one of them is definitely the book by Bill Gertz. Hence we also need to say what it said as quoted above. My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

And in the Telegraph obituary ([20]) one fourth of the text is devoted to this trial.

I've already told you, how the two pages in the Gertz's book misrepresent the reliable source they are retelling. But it seems you don't want to listen to the voice of reason.

It seems you are trolling and not seeking a consensus here. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

This article should present the facts about Bukovsky's life. So, it should present the facts of his arrest, his confession, his subsequent questioning, the charges against him, his libel claim, dismissal of his libel claim, and of course his trial and his misleading public statements during the trial. These facts should be supported by reliable sources. And that's what this section ([21]) does.

You were unable to substantiate any of your claims (WP:OR, copyvio, changes not supported by cited sources, non-neutral language) about the text of this section.

I once again remind you, that constant deletion of relevant content, supported by reliable sources, is either WP:DIS or WP:VAND. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I selected "The Times" as a much better source than the "The Telegraph". We are talking about WP:WEIGHT here. Meaning that we need (a) to focus on the coverage in best review sources/articles, such as that book by Gertz and indeed "The Times", and (b) the subject is known for something else, rather than this scandal (or apparently a Russian intelligence operation against him as the book says), hence it deserves only a very brief coverage on the page, not even a separate section. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Double checking a more recent (2018) source [22], it tells: The jury, however, never got to hear the case for the defence... The result [of the court trial] means that Bukovsky remains an innocent man. That can be in the summary on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

You don't even try to substantiate your claims about the text of this section by now. Well, it looks like we've reached the consensus here: this section is restored in full. Best wishes. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

No, it is actually you who ignore everything. For example, the copyvio of Russian text is long quotation starting from "Милошевич в Гааге незаконно...." from here [23]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

As I've already told you many times, the edit [24] by an anonymous editor (by the way, was it you?), that added this citation, has absolutely nothing to do with the section we are discussing here. You've reverted that edit and deleted this section at the same time. In one edit. Why did you do this? Maybe, because you were trying to WP:GAME? Maybe, reverting your own changes [25] is part of your WP:GAME too? Anyway, it's nice to see you have no objections about the text of this section. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter who did it first (certainly not me). When you repeatedly restore a copyright violation [26], this is your responsibility. In addition, as I noted in edit summary, this material is exclusively based on WP:PRIMARY and mostly not even about Bukovsky, but about other people. You blindly revert everything, without even looking. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

So, it's Crimea now? Really? Your whitewashing of a confessed pedophile looks completely ridiculous by now. But you will not whitewash your fellow pedophile. No way. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 06:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2024

Delete the paragraph about Bukovsky's child pornography trial (because it is factually incorrect) and add this section about the trial instead:

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bunnypranav (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Child pornography trial

On October 28, 2014 Bukovsky was arrested at his home in Cambridge on suspicion of downloading and possession of child pornography after an operation by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre linked his IP address with a child pornography site. Some of the child abuse materials were downloading at the moment of his arrest. Immediately after the arrest he confessed that he did download child abuse materials and that they were on the computer in his study. After his confession he was taken to Parkside Police Station in Cambridge for further questioning. There Bukovsky told detectives that he had downloaded child abuse images and movies over the course of 15 years, and collecting child pornography had become something of a hobby to him. He described his addiction to child pornography as a "research". He also noted that, in his opinion, children in the pornographic materials looked as if they were enjoying themselves.

Forensic examination of Bukovsky's hard drives revealed thousands of category A child abuse images and movies, featuring mostly boys and children of toddler age. No evidence of remote planting of these materials on his hard drives was found.

On 27 April 2015, the UK Crown Prosecution Service has authorised the prosecution of Bukovsky on five charges of making indecent images of children, five charges of possession of indecent images of children and one charge of possession of a prohibited image, his trial was scheduled to begin on 5 May 2015 at Cambridge magistrates court. On that same day Bukovsky issued a public statement in which he categorically denied "making any indecent or prohibited photographs, pseudo-photographs or videos of children". He left Great Britain several days later and failed to appear in court, but sent a letter from Germany saying he was being treated for a life-threatening condition there. The case was adjourned until 22 May 2015. In early May 2015 Bukovsky had undergone a nine-hour heart operation in a private German clinic, during which he was given two artificial valves. Subsequently, Bukovsky was kept in a medically induced coma for three days to improve his chances of recovery..

After four months at the German clinic, Bukovsky returned to England and sued CPS for libel, seeking £100,000 in damages. On 20 April 2016 he started a hunger strike demanding his libel action against the CPS to be heard before the criminal case against him begins. He claimed to be doing it "for the British public" and described the judicial system in UK as Kafkaesque. In July 2016 the High Court dismissed his libel claim. His appeal was later dismissed by Court of Appeal.

On 12 December 2016 his child pornography trial at Cambridge Crown Court began. During the trial Bukovsky slept in front of the jury. Two days later the trial was halted and the jury was discharged by judge Gareth Hawkesworth after Bukovsky was taken to Addenbrooke's Hospital with "pneumonia". The case was adjourned until 19 January 2016.

On 30 June 2017 a retrial with a new jury was ordered by judge Hawkesworth on 24 July 2017 despite Bukovsky's "ill health". Bukovsky was admitted to hospital shortly before trial's planned beginning.

On 12 February 2018, when the trial was finally due to begin, judge Hawkesworth ruled that Bukovsky was "too unwell" to give evidence and that "it wouldn't be fair to try the man in those circumstances". The trial was permanently halted, but the case against Bukovsky was not dropped.

During the years of his trial Bukovsky, despite his "ill health", gave numerous interviews in which he denied all charges and falsely claimed that child pornography was planted on his disks by Russian Security Services. In these interviews he never mentioned his confession after the arrest. W4r5a7w4r (talk) 06:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

References