Talk:Federal Security Service/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Table at the bottom of the page

The information offered by this table should be more clearly explained since it is not completely obvious. I am going to change its position to the see also section, since it only references to Wiki articles. Hydraton31 20:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Any objection to renaming the article to Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti Rossiiskoy Federacij? With proper redirects, of course. This would be more consistent with other articles on Russian government departments, and would also match the pattern used for U.S. agencies. -Joseph 04:36, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

We generally use English titles. If other articles on Russian government departments are in Russian, they should also be moved to the English titles. Gzornenplatz 18:50, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Only in the cases when the corresponding English titles are a commonly accepted standard.

• First, even in Russian "full titles" are not used or are unreasonable to be used. See, e.g., Smersh.
• Second, we are not supposed to "translate" titles ourselves, only to explain the existing usage. Mikkalai 02:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, in that case, this article should really be 'FSB.' But with the reorg that just happened, we should probably find out more info about that first. It will be MGB again, right? -Joseph 04:40, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

---

Err.. the "coup" of 1991? Is that really proper? Graft 21:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now "attempted coup", which links to Soviet coup attempt of 1991. -- Curps 01:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Curiosity

This section needs to be expanded on. It's quite vague, and the links are not the least bit helpful.

In the beginning of 2006 the Italian news agency ANSA reported the publication on the FSB website of an offer, open to Russian citizens working as spies for a foreign country, to work as double agents which is false. — Why is it false? As of October 2006, the offer is still up and reads as follows: "Российские граждане, сотрудничающие с иностранными разведками, могут связаться с ФСБ России по телефону доверия с тем, чтобы стать агентами-двойниками. В этом случае денежное вознаграждение, получаемое такими агентами от иностранных спецслужб, будет полностью сохранено, и с ними будут работать сотрудники ФСБ РФ высочайшего класса. При этом будет гарантирована анонимность и конфиденциальность."

I have checked this. You are right. The offer (and many other offers) are still there. I removed reference (link) [1] because it was not operational. Biophys 05:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this article should be organized better?

Text in Overview seems contradictory. It says first that FSB fights crime and terrorism (which is an official version). Then, it describes Litvinenko's views that FSB promotes the crime and terrorism, instead of fighting them. Maybe it would be better to make two separate parts, for the official and "alternative" views on FSB activities? Biophys 04:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Besides, the text about Litvinenko is not the Overview but someting else. Of course the "alternative" view must be present, because it is actually supported by many.Biophys 04:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the Litvinenko thing doesn't even seem like it should have a major paragraph in the "Overview". Perhaps it should be moved to a rumours section of sorts... 74.109.156.190 09:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I was wrong. This is probably better as a single section.Biophys 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole article needs to be re-worked. I won't put a tag on the front page, but I think the page is pretty close to needing it... The article is just jumbled and confusing. Yuletide 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is not clear what this organization does, and what its subdivisions do. FAPSI - is it currently a part of FSB or not? I think the old structure of FSB (in 1997) is not so important. A historic section describing transition from KGB to FSB should be included, but the differences or similarities of FSB and KGB functions should be explained clearly. Many claims are not supported by references. How many people work in this organization and what is its budget? I know this is secret, but some approximate estimates should exist. It seems there are different views about this organization. This is fine. The official and alternative views could be described in two different sections. But who will do this job? I can try, but I am not that much familiar with the subject. Biophys 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

So, I have spent a lot of time to rewrite Overview and two first chapters. It was important to tell a little about these apartment bombings. Otherwise, it would be completly unclear for reader what is that all about. Biophys 05:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

O'K. Then, I have to collect some references for this article:

English

• Russia's Secret Services at War
• [1]

Russian

Note that "Novaya Gazeta" is the most liberal and not the most read Russian newspaper accessible primarily through the web.

• State control of TV and newspapers
• Operations in Georgia
• Operations of FSB against Russian scientists
• Anti-Georgian operations
• How to close a newspaper
• Kaibyshev case
• Expansion of State borders
• Summit arrests
• Summit arrests
• Arrest of a Tadjik dissident
• A similar case
• People who disappear
• Special forces that kill civilians
• Movies that create a positive image of FSB
• How FSB punish journalists
• Murder of Movladi Baisarov
• Patrushev and others
• FSB and oil
• For what reason FSB needs so much power? -1
• For what reason FSB needs so much power? -2
• For what reason FSB needs so much power? -3
• Executions by FSB forces
• FSB kidnaps journalists
• He knew too much. Now he knows nothing

Biophys 20:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Restructuring FSB part

I have made a few changes to make this more understandable for a reader. Naturally, he would ask what is the difference between FSB and KGB or between FSB and FBI.

How about removing all "historic" part of Restructuring and leaving only the current organizational structure of FSB?Biophys 20:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I realize that there are no enought references at the moment. I will provide them later. Biophys 18:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Attention! Case of Stomakhin

Please know that Stomakhin wasn't procesuted by FSB, but he was prosecuted on the basis of applications of private persons, see the article on Boris Stomakhin. The statement of Union of Councils of fSU Jews is containing false statements and facts which contradict to Mass Media reports. Stomakhin is a leader of extremist organization Revolutionary Contact Association He was sentenced by court for the extremist activities, inciting religious and ethnic hatred, promoting violent change of constitutional regime, calls for violation of terriorial integrity of Russian Federation, defamatory statements(articles 280 and 282 of the Russian Criminal Code). He is not a dissident. Consider the following his statements:

Kill, Kill, Kill! To flood all Russia with blood, to not give a quarter to anyone, to try to make at least one atomic explosion on the territory of Russian Federation -- this is like the program of radical Resistance should be, and Russian's, and Chechen's, and anyone's! Let the Russians, according to their deserts, reap as they has sown. Russians should be killed, and only killed, for there is no one among them who is normal, intelligent, or who can be talked with and for understanding of whom we could rely. Harsh collective responsibility of all Russians should be introduced, of all loyal Russian citizens for the actions of the government elected by them -- for the genocide, executions, ordeals, trade with corpses... From that moment there should be no division of killers on combatant and non-combatant, wilful or forced. http://rko.marsho.net/articl/mashadov.htm

The article 'Death to Russia' by Boris Stomkahin in Google cacheVlad fedorov 17:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not doing an original research here. I only cited a notable source on the appropriate subject. This Jewish representative said "FSB". Biophys 18:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Read your passage again. You wrote personally that "Other arrested people include ... Boris Stomakhin..." Considering the name of the article, readers could imply that FSB prosecuted Stomakhin which is a lie, that contradicts to numerous press articles and reports of non-governmental organizations. Here the links:

http://www.prima-news.ru/news/news/2006/3/29/35420.html
http://www.newsru.com/russia/03oct2006/stomaxin.html
http://lenta.ru/articles/2006/11/20/court/
http://www.regnum.ru/news/739771.html
http://www.grani.ru/Society/Xenophobia/m.114646.html
http://www.svobodanews.ru/articlete.aspx?exactdate=20061128140042880
http://www.russianlife.nl/boris_stomakhin.htm
http://arrests.cjes.ru/?id=282
http://rian.ru/defense_safety/investigations/20061005/54549461.html 
http://rian.ru/society/20061124/55959089.html

Statement by Jewish representative about FSB concerns "FSB refused to investigate the distribution of a neo-Nazi hit list", and not Stomakhin.

You have intentionally wrote false infromation that Stomakhin was prosecuted by FSBVlad fedorov 18:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not write that Stomakhin was prosecuted by FSB. I only cited statement by Mr. Naftalin where he ctriticized FSB. This is obvious. But since you insist, I can do this differently to accomodate your concerns. Biophys 03:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No, by publishing ambiguous wording and selecting specific words from Naftalin you actually did so. Naftalin wasn't critisizing FSB. Naftalin critisizes court who ruled for 'long term of jail'. It is clear from your passage. FSB has nothing to do with this citation as it is not the only government body which carries out prosecution functions. It is carrying out prosecution functions mainly in state security area. And you could do nothing to cover your libelous statements which are already stored in page history.Vlad fedorov 07:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Russia and terrorists

I have removed the following fragments as it is unrelated to FSB. Something probably should go to Russia and the Arab-Israeli conflict and some somewhere else:

It was suggested that Russia helped Saddam Hussein to hide his Weapons of mass destruction before US invasion of Iraq in 2003

Critics claim that Russian government led by former FSB Director Vladimir Putin is providing modern military technology to the outcast governments and terrorist organizations worldwide. Modern Russian-made anti-tank weapons played significant role in Hezbollah operations against Israel Defense Forces during 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. Former Lt. General Ion Mihai Pacepa said that "Israel has been attacked with Soviet Kalashnikovs and Katyushas, Russian Fajr-1 and Fajr-3 rockets, Russian AT-5 Spandrel antitank missiles and Kornet antitank rockets." Some FSB-affiliated GRU detachments from Chechnya were transfered to Lebanon independently on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, where they allegedly conducted intelligence missions together with Hezbollah after the conflict. Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir revealed that Russia and Iran are providing weapons and money to the Taliban in 2006, according to his sources in Afganistan government

It is also possible that Russian government promotes the Nuclear program of Iran to use Iran as proxy against the West. Yossef Bodansky and some others even claim that Iran may have already purchased nuclear warheads from Russia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) 08:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

FSB as a ruling political party

Very interesting material (Russian), Echo of Moscow [2]

Таким событием, с моей точки зрения, стала Коллегия федеральной службы безопасности, которую провел президент В.Путин, и в которой приняли участие все важнейшие чиновники страны. А это глава администрации президента Сергей Собянин, заместитель главы администрации Игорь Сечин, помощник президента Виктор Иванов, глава Контрольного управления Александр Беглов, генеральный прокурор Юрий Чайка, министр внутренних дел Рашид Нургалиев, директор Федеральной службы охраны Евгений Муров, директор СВР - это разведка, Сергей Лебедев, руководитель Госнаркоконтроля Виктор Черкесов. Руководитель Федеральной службы по финансовому мониторингу Виктор Зубков, руководитель Главного управления спецпрограмм президента Александр Царенко, глава Счетной палаты России Сергей Степашин, председатель Верховного суда России Вячеслав Лебедев. Прошу прощения за столь длинное перечисление фамилий, оно просто показывает – не путайте, это было не заседание правительства, это была Коллегия Федеральной службы безопасности. Так вот этот список, конечно, показывает, сколь важное ключевое место в сегодняшней политике России играет наследница КГБ, Федеральная служба безопасности. Кстати, среди приглашенных на заседание этого теневого, или кто-то говорит - второго, первого - кому как больше нравится – правительства России, был приглашен и председатель Комиссии по контролю за деятельностью силовых структур Общественной палаты Анатолий Кучерена. Правда, лишь на телевизионную часть заседания. Потом контролера от кремлевской общественности попросили вон.

Мы знаем, что на этой коллегии ФСБ Путин призвал органы Госбезопасности принять самое деятельное участие в контроле за избирательным процессом. Он сказал – цитирую: «В этом году пройдут очередные выборы в региональные законодательные собрания и Госдуму. Это важнейший демократический механизм формирования государственной власти, власти ответственной, и избранной в результате здоровой политической конкуренции. Важно не только обеспечить законность, - сказал президент, - и правопорядок, но и обезопасить общество от попыток вброса на общественно-политическое поле идеологии экстремизма, национальной и конфессиональной нетерпимости».

О.КРЫШТАНОВСКАЯ: ...чем ниже уровень политического класса, тем больше там представителей всяких других, боковых ветвей, в том числе, и МВД, и армия, и прочее – то есть, все виды силовых структур уже присутствуют. Но на самой верхушке, политбюро - это буквально 50 на 50 - разведка и контрразведка. Пополам. Но сейчас интересный процесс еще другой - в составы Советов директоров крупнейших компаний с присутствием государства достаточно много сейчас тоже представителей силовиков - этот процесс новые, и пока скрытый от общественного внимания, но мы подробно этим занимаемся, и обнаружили, каким образом туда вмонтируются эти люди.

О.КРЫШТАНОВСКАЯ: ...всегда профессиональная какая-то группа выделяется по своей функции в обществе - то есть, ментальность, все прочее – это вторично. Это люди - силовики – откуда слово «силовики»? Потому что эти люди с оружием в руках призваны защищать что-то. То есть, это вооруженная группа людей - вот это их объединяет прежде всего. Если смотреть в микроскоп, то конечно - каждый вид оружия, каждый вид спецслужбы, или не спецслужбы, конечно, он различный. Но если смотреть подальше, в телескоп, так сказать, то у них так много общего, что можно их считать одной группой. Конечно, я понимаю все оговорки, которые здесь надо сделать. Почему это одна группа? Еще в советское время она была сконструирована, и слово «силовики» возникло в советское время – ни в одной стране мира почему-то нет такого слова, всегда при переводе на английский, французский, немецкий, приходится пояснить многими словами, что имеется в виду. Почему у нас все они соединены, а там это все-таки разные вещи? Есть причины. У нас была иерархия этих силовых ведомств. И КГБ, а сейчас ФСБ, являлось мозгом, которая управляла другими вооруженными структурами – ну, армией в меньшей степени.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: но, тем не менее, Третий Главк контролировало и Генштаб и Министерство обороны, и ГРУ.

О.КРЫШТАНОВСКАЯ: Да, конечно. И тройки были во всех регионах. Тройка - это УКГБ, туда еще входил главный милиционер и прокурор. Вот тройки силовиков, которые определяли на местах очень и очень многие важные вещи. Ментальность разная у них. Но поскольку лидирующие позиции занимает ФСБ, то ментальность ФСБ – она ключевая. И поскольку это организация типа такого закрытого ордена, то она построена вся на том, чтобы буквально зомбировать - может быть даже в хорошем смысле, «зомбировать» такое слово с негативным оттенком – пропитывать людей, которые проходят через эту школу, определенной совершенно идеологией. И эта идеология она главенствующая, это идеология, где патриотизм положен в основу основ. Biophys 17:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should list only referenced information

Lets reference legitimate sources if possible, even if it contradicts your personal beliefs. "According to Chechen sources" holds no value. Compare this article to the article about CIA, notice any difference?

Chechen sources is Kavkaz.org. Unfortunately, it does not work. Biophys 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you surprised? CIA is a foreign intelligence agency, FSB is a domestic security agency. Colchicum 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. But what does it mean: "a domestic security agency"? There is no comparison with CIA. This article says: "FSB is a very large organization that combines functions and powers like those exercised by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Protective Service, the Secret Service, the National Security Agency (NSA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, United States Coast Guard, and Drug Enforcement Administration. FSB also commands a contingent of Internal Troops, spetsnaz, and an extensive network of civilian informants." Note that CIA is missing here, because SVR suppose to be an equivalent of CIA. What do you think? May be something else is missing? Biophys 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Secret police organization or intelligence agency?

Clearly FSB is not an intelligence agency but secret police organization. See Chronology of Soviet secret police agencies and List of secret police organizations. Biophys 18:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can also copy a segment from discussion above:

Are you surprised? CIA is a foreign intelligence agency, FSB is a domestic security agency. Colchicum 15:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. But what does it mean: "a domestic security agency"? There is no comparison with CIA. This article says: "FSB is a very large organization that combines functions and powers like those exercised by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Federal Protective Service, the Secret Service, the National Security Agency (NSA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, United States Coast Guard, and Drug Enforcement Administration. FSB also commands a contingent of Internal Troops, spetsnaz, and an extensive network of civilian informants." Note that CIA is missing here, because SVR suppose to be an equivalent of CIA. Biophys 17:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Description of FSB as a secret police

Since the article in Wikipedia says that secret police term is usually used in totalitarian regimes, that description is an evident POV. Russia is a member of European Convetion on Protection of Human Rights and there is jurisdiction of Human Rights Court in Strasbourg over Russia. Russia is a member of European Council, the statute of which evidently excludes the membership of non-democratic states. Constitution of Russian Federation provides that Russian Federation is a ..democratic, unitarian...state. There are direct, open and equal elections in Russian Federation (unlike in the US which do not have open, direct, free and equal elections), there is a Parlament which has exclusive competention not owned by the President of Russian Federation. Totalitarian regimes do not have such institutes and Russia couldn't be characterized in terms used for totalitarian states.Vlad fedorov 04:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, secret police can be present not only in totalitarian regimes, but also in authoritarian and other regimes, including even democratic regimes. Biophys 04:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If CIA would be described as a secret police in respective article of Wikipedia, then I would agree on that. Otherwise, it is just a POV which obviously distorting the real FSB.Vlad fedorov 05:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

CIA is irrelevant. This is article about FSB.Biophys

CIA is a proper equivalent of FSB in the US. Since CIA is not described as a secret police and there are no self-descriptions of FSB as a secret police, this word collocation is a POV and defamatory.Vlad fedorov 07:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, it is not. CIA is equivalent of SVR. By assigning foreign intelligence functions to FSB (Russia) you diminish the importance of SVR, a very powerful organization.Biophys 19:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Very powerfull according to Biophys? If we all are to belive in your fantastic know-it-all abilities, then perhaps you should sometime identify your authorship (original research) in Wikipedia edits? I have written to you already that many times US Congress formed commissions designed to investigate the activities of CIA on the US soil and therefore CIA is not exclusively foreign intelligence service. Moreover, after September 11th, US Congress passed the the Patriot Act which allows CIA to spy on US citizens by virtually any means available. You description of CIA as a foreign intelligence agency is laughable. See the Encarta or Britannica.Vlad fedorov 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is not article about CIA.Biophys 19:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Summarily, if other Encyclopedias articles are irrelevant for Biophys, then Biophys opinion is irrelevant for me. Is this your last argument?Vlad fedorov 20:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The english in this page is sloppy.

On the one hand, the sources seem (although I did not read them particularly thouroughly) very comprehensive, the english is terrible. Someone with a clear understanding of a) the issues here, which are contentious and lend themselves to debate, and b) english, the language of this section of wikipedia, and hence, the language in which this article should be written, should clean this joint up.

I agree, it would be good if someone could improve English. Could you register as a user and sign your message, please? Biophys 04:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. What is more, why is FSB not "The FSB"? That is how it is commonly referred to in English.

Agree! But the article is locked. So, there is nothing we can do. Biophys 18:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Infiltration

The English language wikipedia has been infiltrated by members of the FSB (some of them being wiki admins now) who forge history files and remove content critical of Putin's Russia. So far these attempts meet stiff resistance by the wiki community.

Why do you think so? Which Wikipedia articles and what content do you mean?Biophys 22:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not the guy who posted above, this would make sense, as the above argument between Vlad and Biophys shows, but there is no actual proof that this happened, since no links are given. Please show proof CPTGbr 16:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

FSB or not, but it is simply impossible to work in Wikipedia when Vlad is tracing all my changes and reverts them saying nonsense, like Political assassinations - Please cite sources, these people were killed earlier than KGB was born in article Active measures. He said that about murder of Georgi Markov organized by KGB and described in all detail by Oleg Kalugin and Oleg Gordievsky! This is outright humiliation. This has absolutely nothing to do with creating an Encyclopedia. See also: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Vlad_fedorov.

Biophys 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Man you guys need to get a life

Yes, I will. Biophys 01:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

GESTAPO etal

Were not the majority of arrests of political criminals in NAZI Germany conducted for the Gestapo by the KRIPO? Especially as the KRIPO was also a much larger agency. AND... the police in the UK and the Commonwealth do conduct security and intelligence operations, see Special Branch. I could also add the SIS which was a branch of the FBI operating in South American during and after WWII. There were many allegations of FBI activities as Hoover was also known to oppose the establishment of the OSS and the CIA as he thought the FBI should be an all encompassing agency. Note that FBI means Federal Bureau of Investigations and is not descriptive of what type of investigations, just as the US Marshals and the US Secret Service were both heavily involved in intelligence activities, esp in America's naive adolescence. Just adding food for thought. The previous was added by Tomtom9041 --71.242.127.31 22:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tomtom9041 for your information. It is really helpful.Vlad fedorov 05:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually that had more then a few weasel words and PoV bias within it, and I'm not entirely sure I'd call it helpful to this discussion. Fun facts maybe, and appropriate in those agencies own sections of Wikipedia, but I don't see how it's directly pertinent to this specific article itself. Though maybe I missed something in the article as a whole this is refering to. Given that people can't even seem to agree with what belongs in the article just concerning the FSB, unrelated information from unconnected foriegn agencies would seem to belong more appropriatly in their own discussion forums here on Wikipedia, especially since what makes Wikipedia remotely useful as a knowledge base (and I have to really stretch to call it even that) is putting things up where other knowledgeable people can critique it. Putting that information here doesn't seem like if it's incorrect or biased it will be detected, which is why things in discussions are supposed to stay in their correct forums.

I don't really know the answer to this one: Does the FSB investigate Russian citizens, and, if so, for what reason would FSB pursue an investigation of a Russian citizen? Heathhunnicutt 04:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why would the CIA or NSA "pursue an investigation" of American citizens?--68.80.207.22 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Specifically if that citizen was believed to be involved in nefarious dealings with a foreign/outside power. If you belong or support say a middle eastern based islamic extremist group, or you spy for say a foriegn country, the CIA/NSA will investigate you (and to a point the FBI and other agencies will become involved if neccisary). If on the other hand you do the same thing for a U.S. group, say your a 'spy' for a radical hate group in the deep south, or a thug for a religious militant or antigovernment fringe group in the northwest, the FBI and its ilk are responsible for you (local, state police, etc). Though again, the agencies post 911 do communicate with each other much more efficiently, although still not perfectly. Since they often compete for federal funding, their is still some benefit to trying to keep as much in your agencies 'camp' as possible depending on how legislative whims and funding change. The important thing to understand however is the U.S. divides it's agencies into those focues on external threats, and internal ones, where as many countries simply use one agency. The U.S. method is seen as superior for seperation of power, however it isn't always as ideal because that same seperation can mean a greater degree of interagency competition. The debate on that has been raging since before I was born though, and differant countries will have differant views on it and differant times long after I am cold and in the ground. For more information go to the F.B.I. and C.I.A. wikipedia articles and discussion pages. The fine folks there will happily clarify your question with more detail then I could go into here. Now this is a stretch but... now to this article, I BELIEVE what is being said here is the FSB doesn't directly correspond to either agency.

Dispute on 'secret service' description

I would like to learn the arguments of those who describe FSB as a secret police and specific links to NPOV sites which describe FSB as a secret police, since it is a Wikipedia (Encyclopedia). Please, go on.Vlad fedorov 08:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Just look at the Wikipedia articles I cited above and others. But I proposed a compromise here. Let's tell "secret police and intelligence". Why not follow this compromise? I am sure FSB does some intelligence as well. Biophys 19:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a compromise, since the term secret police used only in regard of totalitarian regimes, and specifically in regard of Gestapo. Your description of FSB as a secret police pursues only defamatory goals (equalling of FSB to Gestapo) which is obvious POV. You haven't put forward any intelligible argument. If CIA or FBI would be described as secret police on respective articles and it should be kept by other users, then we may continue discussion.Vlad fedorov 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another important thing. Members of FSB proudly call themselves "Checkists" rather than "KGBists". They want to emphasize the historical tradition. And they are right. Such tradition does exist. So, it is important to note. Besides, people in the West know KGB but do not know FSB. So, we must tell: this is main successor of KGB. Indeed, it is FSB (rather than SVR) appears to be main successor. Telling otherwise would diminish the importance of FSB. Biophys 19:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, these are linguistic specifics of Russian language. The word 'troll' in English also has different meanings and usually it doesn't mean a character from a fairy tale. So Chekist doesn't nessecarily mean a person answering to Edmund Dzerzhinsky and abiding Builders of Communism Code. Second, they do not specify which specific traditions they heir from Cheka and your personal original research in interpreting these phrases and citations of other indivduals (me, for example) which you do not support with specific sources is actually has nothing to do with Encyclopedia. It's either you have source which proves 'beyond the reasonable doubt', or you have a hearsay which have no place here. Western ignorance on current affairs in Russia is usually cured through better education and obviously not by doing personal adaptations in Encyclopedia which is used worldwide and not only by 'the West'. I don't think that FSB would feel itself abused, if we would describe it as an intelligence service. Especially when you would look at their webpage for the first time in your life and would read about their scope of work. Ridiculously, I haven't seen to many links in this article to FSB website. More large bulk of links are dedicated to hearsays and conspiracy theory websites.Vlad fedorov 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations from the Law on FSB http://fsb.gov.ru/under/fsb.html:

Статья 8. Деятельность органов Федеральной службы безопасности Article 8 Деятельность органов Федеральной службы безопасности осуществляется по следующим основным направлениям: - контрразведывательная деятельность; - борьба с преступностью. Article 9 Контрразведывательная деятельность - деятельность органов Федеральной службы безопасности в пределах своих полномочий по выявлению, предупреждению, пресечению разведывательной и иной деятельности специальных служб и организаций иностранных государств, а также отдельных лиц, направленной на нанесение ущерба безопасности Российской Федерации. Biophys, in your opinion, контрразведка, doesn't mean intteligence?Vlad fedorov 20:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, not! This is counter-intelligence (as already written in this article), not intelligence. It also says: "fight with crime". Who fights crime? Police. Next question: is this secret police or not? Obviously, this is not normal police (such as one run by MVD), obviously it operates in secrecy as described in all sources.Biophys 21:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop your sophistic and tautalogical bad-tasting tricks. I've got 97% on Philosophy exam at the University of Oxford record, '5' mark in Warsaw University and Gomel State University. Crime is fought by the courts, congress (parlament), president, state prosecution, penitentiary system, non-governmental organizations, teachers, schools and etc. Police is just one out of many bodies who deal with crimes. Are you gonna name judge secret police member (closed court proceedings)? The question is how your current term 'counter-intelligence' relates to your previous 'secret police' description? It's pretty different to 'secret police'. Police doesn't perform counter-intelligence, indeed. And second, as I said previously, the Wikipedia article on secret police describes unambiguously that this term denotes to totalitarian regimes. Moreover there is an ongoing debate over validity of that term, which could be seen there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_police#Controversy_over_the_term. According to your personal sophisms we should characterize not only CIA as a secret polcie, but FBI, Delta and SWAT too. There are no even hints in the respective Wikipedia articles, that FBI and CIA are 'secret police'. How then it comes in accord with your allegations? Could we write in Encyclopedia article that "FSB, according to the learned opinion of anonimous Wikipedia user Biophys, is a secret police"? Could you identify yourself as a reliable source here in Wikipedia? E.g. provide your address, education background, bibliography of your research works written and etc.? Do you acknowledge your intentional defamation of FSB? Intelligence and counter-intelligence are actually refer to one and the same matter - intelligence.Vlad fedorov 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

So, you want to tell that FSB is a "domestic security agency"? The secret police article says: "Secret police forces may be contrasted with the domestic security agencies found in modern liberal democratic states, which are generally subject to government regulation, reporting requirements and other accountability measures." But a significant portion of this FSB (Russia) article contradicts completely this assessment. Take a look at "Criticism of FSB actions". It is supported by at least fifty valid references. All of them tell exactly the opposite. They tell that FSB "activities are not transparent to the public, their primary purpose is to maintain the political power of the state rather than uphold the rule of law, and they have often been used as an instrument of political repression", as explained in the secret police article. So, this is already supported by ~50 referencesBiophys 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Try to meditate over the meaning of the word 'to contrast".Vlad fedorov 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

But a significant portion of this FSB (Russia) article contradicts completely this assessment. Take a look at "Criticism of FSB actions". It is supported by at least fifty valid references.

May I just correct you? 'Fifty valid references' to empty allegations by either foreign government sponsored organizations and individuals or by the radical opposition representatives seeking to defame acting government. No court judgements, no official statements, no any specifics and whereabout. Of course we should all believe that these guys are claiming these allegations with 'good faith' hidden in their pockets. And these guys, of course, are objective, independent experts on these topics, like Mitrokhin, the traitor, former KGB spy, working on the CIA disinformation team?Vlad fedorov 15:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All of them tell exactly the opposite. They tell that FSB "activities are not transparent to the public, their primary purpose is to maintain the political power of the state rather than uphold the rule of law, and they have often been used as an instrument of political repression", as explained in the secret police article. So, this is already supported by ~50 referencesBiophys 14:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

May I just cite the respective passage of Law on FSB? It says that anyone has the right to receive explanations and information from FSB in case their rights and freedoms are restricted. Could you cite me analogous passage from the US legislation on the CIA or FBI? I bet you won't, since the United States Code doesn't vest the US citizens even with right to demand explanations from them. It is exactly why the US Congress, itself, has set up the Committee to investigate the activities of CIA on the US soil. Many thanks. http://fsb.gov.ru/under/fsb.html

Статья 6. Соблюдение прав и свобод человека и гражданина в деятельности органов Федеральной службы безопасности

Государство гарантирует соблюдение прав и свобод человека и гражданина при осуществлении органами Федеральной службы безопасности своей деятельности. Не допускается ограничение прав и свобод человека и гражданина, за исключением случаев, предусмотренных федеральными конституционными законами и федеральными законами.

Лицо, полагающее, что органами Федеральной службы безопасности либо их должностными лицами нарушены его права и свободы, вправе обжаловать действия указанных органов и должностных лиц в вышестоящий орган Федеральной службы безопасности, прокуратуру или суд.

Государственные органы, предприятия, учреждения и организации независимо от форм собственности, а также общественные объединения и граждане имеют право в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации получать разъяснения и информацию от органов Федеральной службы безопасности в случае ограничения своих прав и свобод.

Irrelevant. All these fifty sources satisfy Wikipedia verifiability criteriaBiophys 15:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

All these fifty sources do not contain description of FSB as a 'secret police', they just contain criticism. Vlad fedorov 15:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

All lawyers in Russian total more than 10 million. 10 million versus 50 induviduals??? 50 individuals present their respective POV, so their individual POV's couldn't be presented as everyone's POV. And definetly term 'secret polcie' couldn't be used in the opening passage. Would you be so nice by not expressing your arguments in single words such as 'irreleveant'? Vlad fedorov 15:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawyers are completely irrelevant. This is Encyclopedia, not a court. Biophys 17:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawyers and regulations are relevant. Your famous 50 references do not describe FSB as a secret police. And it is exactly why you are just waisting time there. It was your personal POV. We may add Cholcium, but that's won't change anything.Vlad fedorov 04:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The functions of FSB are almost exactly parallel to those of the infamous Geheime Staatspolizei, which was undoubtedly a secret police, as witnessed by its very name. Colchicum 18:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you support your POV with citations from other encyclopedias? Encarta or Britannica? If no, then I congratulate you with another POV which you may personally maintain. Ironically, Boris Stomakhin writings were characterized as being worse that Mein Kampf, while Boris Stomakhin is considered by Biophys as dissident.Vlad fedorov 04:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

True. But Vlad will never agree. Does it mean this article will be locked forever because of such minor and absurd dispute? This is probably a question for administrators. I can promise not to be involved in RR wars with regard to this article if it helps.Biophys 19:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let him alone with his problems. Actually, he makes much less changes in the overall impression from the articles than he might like. Although I agree that his activity is a bit disruptive, nothing important really depends on it, and nobody will ever be allowed to make enough damage here by the general Wikipedia community. I think it is much more important to create a network of new articles (stubs at least) covering the recent Russian history than to enter into an edit battle with somebody over these subtleties. Networks are much less prone to such damage. Colchicum 20:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would remember this violation by you of 'good faith rule' and personal attack.Vlad fedorov 04:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care much about what you are going to remember. You yourself was warned by Wikipedia administrators against committing personal attacks as often as imaginable. By the way, could you please make yourself familiar with the topics you are writing on before editing? I have noticed that you tried to add some false information to Wikipedia, e.g. that Stepashin had never worked for FSB, Potanin was married to a daughter of Yeltsin and some similar nonsense. Colchicum 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well that's all you could convict me of. However I just made two mistakes which I have acknowledged. But your POV edits describing FSB as SS or Gestapo are much more serious since you two forcibly advance your own biased anti-Russian opinion unsupported by any sources whatsoever. May I notice that it is you who discusses personality of users here. Are you Wikipedian indeed? I thought everyone's discussing the article here, not the personality of contributors and it is you who the first touched my personality not me. So just learn Wikipedia guidelines prior to joining this article. Ok? Vlad fedorov 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Right. Then you need more people with knowledge of recent Russian history and good English in Wikipedia. I am actually very far from it. I simply could not stand and see how FSBists are killing very best people. Otherwise, I would not write much on political/history topics.Biophys 21:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Okey Mister Colchicum, then if I am alone such a nasty individual how then it comes that CIA, FBI have pretty much the same functions and are not reffered to as 'secret police' or Geheime Staatspolizei? Please comment this... Does that mean that according to User Colchicum, american users editing Wiki's respective articles are disrupting the Community work? Considering this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_Siege#The_initial_assault and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge#Siege FBI is pretty much acting like Geheime Staatspolizei. Try to sort out your POV from your allegations. I have already written that this term is considered to be contradictory in the respective Wikipedia article on secret police. And if you don't have any valid arguments for putting that term into the opening passage, you better stop your time waisting.Vlad fedorov 04:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations from the Law on FSB say that anyone has the right to receive explanations and information from FSB in case their rights and freedoms are restricted. Could anyone here cite me analogous passage from the US legislation on the CIA or FBI?Vlad fedorov 04:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me interject for a minute and say something. The FSB is most likely a secret police, as the Litvinenko case proves. Link? Sure, why not? Ion Mihai Pacepa. Since it is a Russian POV, and he has considerable proof connecting the FSB with Litvinenko's death, I'd consider the FSB a secret police from the article CPTGbr 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Okey, then let's write that FBI and CIA are also secret police. Moreover there are some notorious supporters of this like Timothy McVeigh. Why don't you write this in FBI and CIA articles then? They plot and kill people around the world, disinform and make provocations! Are you specific in your disinformation and bias? Why the bias of such people like you only concerns FSB, but when it comes to FBI and CIA this bias vanishes like a girl's virginity after the graduation party?Vlad fedorov 05:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Practice what you preach Vlad. I gave proof that they are secret police, yet you make accusations all across the board without citing anything. So please, stop being a hypocrite and start defending yourself, not attacking me. Plus the FBI and the CIA have nothing to do with the FSB and have no place in this discussion. CPTGbr 03:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you gave me nothing in proof. Could you cite anyone who is saying that FSB is a secret police, except you? Second, no one has established that FSB is liable for Litvinenko death. I would like to remind, if you are not acquainted with news, that the likely killer flied to Jugoslavia from London, according to London police. Please, stop your false accusations that I attack you, because the next time you would write it I would complain on the noticeboard. If you couldn't cite reliable sources claiming that FSB is a secret police, if you can't realize the definition of secret police, then its your personal problem. Again, I repeat you have presented no sources to support you empty words. It is encyclopedia, not a place for publication of your personal views. I again could cite from Britannica and Encarta on FSB, and stress the absence of a term "secret police":

Encarta

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569000_15/Russia.html#p202

"In the Soviet era the KGB (Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti; Russian for 'State Security Committee') and its predecessors were large and powerful organizations. The KGB’s role included intelligence work abroad, counterespionage, and the repression of domestic dissent. The KGB also provided the top Soviet leadership with information about public moods and international developments that could not be gained from the USSR’s censored press. KGB officers were members of the Soviet elite and were often very intelligent and well educated. In 1991 public outcry erupted after the agency participated in a failed coup, and President Yeltsin subsequently split the agency into five bodies. The main heirs to the KGB are the FSB (Federal Security Services), which concentrates on domestic affairs, and the SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service), which inherited the KGB’s foreign agents and activities. Although the major successor agencies are still large bodies with pervasive influence, Russians are now far freer to express their opinions and engage in independent political activity than they were under the KGB in the Soviet Union".

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574501/KGB.html "KGB, in full, Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti (State Security Committee), the government agency of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics..."

Definition of secret police by Encarta: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565081/Secret_Police.html Secret Police, special police force organized by autocratic or totalitarian regimes in defense against their enemies.

Britannica

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9384885/Federal-Security-Service

Russian Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti , formerly (1994–95) Federal Counterintelligence Service Russian internal security and counterintelligence service created in 1994 as one of the successor agencies of the Soviet-era KGB. It is responsible for counterintelligence, antiterrorism, and surveillance of the military. The FSB occupies the former headquarters of the KGB on Lubyanka Square in downtown Moscow.

Britannica on secret police: http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9378132

Generally clandestine, secret police have operated independently of the civil police. Particularly notorious examples were the Nazi Gestapo, the Russian KGB, and the East German Stasi. Secret-police tactics include arrest, imprisonment, torture, and execution of political enemies and intimidation of potential opposition members.

As we see from this review neither Encarta, nor Britannica call FSB a secret police. I believe that user CPTGbr, is just aspiring to push forcibly his point of view (personal opinion) without citing any sources here. For that he undertook some defamatory and personal attack moves whichj could be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABiophys&diff=114715622&oldid=114560367 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlex_Bakharev&diff=114896675&oldid=114890366. Vlad fedorov 05:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While I haven't gone through the articles or whether or not they are reliable, you took from a sources that a). Need a subscription to fully read and b). Have very little information proving your point, of what is readable. The second thing is that my comments that I make are separate from this discussion. In fact, I'm surprised that an intelligent person like you would take a cheap tactic like that. And I think (i.e. personal opinion) that you are forcing your opinion on others as well, as well as the admin who locked this page, so I guess that makes us even. As well, by saying that I haven't proved my point, when I obviously gave a link to support it. And yes, the British Police have linked Russia (and the FSB) to Litvinenko's assassination. Either way, you still haven't disproved that the FSB is a secret police. Short Summary: Back up your points with pages that you can actually read the whole thing. CPTGbr 23:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

So you haven't visited these links and you don't want to know how these encyclopedias describe FSB. Encarta allows full access and Britannica allows part access. However, I possess Britannica 2007 ultimate edition and could post whole article just for you here. You haven't made any link in support of your position and haven't made any sound arguments about this. You just trying to advance without any facts your personal original research WP:OR and POV WP:POV, weasel word WP:Weasel and undue weight WP:WEIGHT Moreover, your personal attack on me that I am "intelligent person" who "forcing ... opinion on others as well" would be reported on Administrators board next time. Discuss the article, not my or admin personality. You violate WP:CIV by doing that. You have already been warned for your personal attack on yours talk page. This time I frogive you personal attack, but if you would continue there or on other pages I would report this. Vlad fedorov 05:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

As for your link on Ion Mihai Pacepa, I could say that he convicted Russians of killing attempt on pope John Paul II, a thing which was found by Italian Parlamentary Commision to be a hoax. We cannot introduce texts in encyclopedia based on ussuported and unchecked allegations of person who was found to be lying. See WP:RS. It is also WP:COI. Vlad fedorov 08:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

First: Do you have proof that general Pacepa was lying? He could have been telling the truth for all you know. You can't just make statements like that. The second thing is that I was warning you to keep on topic, and I apologize that I came on strong. Anyways, back to the whole Litvinenko thing. The whole thing seems to involve the FSB, as stated here by the British Police: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/01/it_was_in_the_t.htmlThe Blotter. Either way, I still do not feel convinced that your "argument" proves the FSB is not a secret police. CPTGbr 22:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you also prove that you have the encyclopedia Britannica membership? I just think that there should be proof that you are a member and not just saying that without actually being one. Thanks. CPTGbr 03:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Links to other Russian agencies

Just as a tie in to the above last edit and to help clarify this to us Westerners, if the FSB is 'one of' the descendants of the old KGB we all came to know and love would it be possible for someone in the know to link some of it's other descendant agencies to this article? Or, alternatively, put a more dedicated section into the KGB article explaining what old KGB duties went to what new agencies? IE what agency handles internal security to internal threats?

A lot of ex-KGB agents still work at the FSB. That is why many people think the FSB use some KGB tactics/ descended from the KGB. I don't quiet understand the second half of your statement though. CPTGbr 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Protected edit

I have made an edit while the article was protected. Please complain to WP:AN/I if you think I have abused my admin rights but otherwise the leading phrase does not make sense. Alex Bakharev 05:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this kind of introduction is employed by Britannica, but it mentions only KGB. Encarta doesn't employ such intro at all. This kind of intro here is tricky and ambiguous in regard of what is heired from the earlier agencies. And this is unencyclopedic, because ambiguous. Anyway, this is no problem for me. However, secret police, is over the top.Vlad fedorov 06:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous in the intro paragraph is not "unencyclopedic", as long as it is clarified later in the article (or eventually clarified, as the case here is currently).

Reply to anonymous user. I don't see any clarifications - just violations of WP:WEIGHT and missatribution.Vlad fedorov 06:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of FSB?

This is answer to ellol question Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Internet_brigades_(2nd_nomination).

You should probably read articles about NKVD, KGB, etc. The purpose of these organizations was never to protect the country from terrorists or outside enemies. Their actual goal was to control the population of their own country. Ideology and propaganda are even more important than repressions to achieve this goal. Hence, they always did disinformation and other "active measures" rather than intelligence (they are doing a lot of "intelligence" within the country using an army of informers). The compete dissolution of FSB (except Border guards) would make the country only much safer. But that will never happen because they are the government of Russia.Biophys 20:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you should not read NKVD and KGB articles. These articles actually do not explain much, because the strategy of deception is really working (Congratulations, comrades!). I mean: just take a look at certain History textbooks in the US. It seems they were written in FSB. I do not accuse anyone personally of course. Biophys 20:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, what about other secret services then? We also shouldn't believe to CIA, FBI, Mossad websites, because they decept too? By the way claims that Iraq possesed WMD were deception. So what in the end? We couldn't rely on official sources and should repost to Wikipedia allegations, rumors, hearsays and half-truths?Vlad fedorov 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

See interesting reference: A Rogue Intelligence State? Why Europe and America Cannot Ignore Russia. By Reuel Marc Gerecht. He said: "The FSB and SVR are boldly but sloppily using nuclear hit teams abroad. The "wet jobs" of the former Soviet Union seem pristine in comparison. Western security and intelligence services should start harassing FSB and SVR personnel wherever possible. It should be routine to boot these officers from foreign postings. We should disrupt their lives and the lives of their families whenever and wherever possible. American and European internal-security and foreign-intelligence services should track the finances of former and active-duty FSB and SVR officers. If it is possible to cause them pain--for example, by regularly blocking the accounts of officers even tangentially connected to anti-dissident or criminal activity in Europe or Russia--we should do so." Is that a good idea? Biophys 02:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous. That man is a sadist: "If it is possible to cause them pain... we should do so". What about human rights and tortures? Consider this "We should disrupt their lives and the lives of their families whenever and wherever possible". This is a violation of human rights. He's calling to mass violation of human rights. This is a fascism.Vlad fedorov 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Taking away their dirty and bloody money is real sadism.Biophys 19:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Who is taking away whose monies? Could you conversate more rationally? What do you mean? CIA agents are stealing monies from russian KGB families? Are CIA spies underprivileged in the US? Vlad fedorov 19:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

POV

I think the "critisizim" section is too POV, it treats mere allegations as fact and has too many personal quotes (sound familiar?) QZXA2 00:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the "critisicim" section here, as it seems too POV. Perhps we could fix it up and re add it.     QZXA2 22:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For other uses

Do we need the For other uses, see FSB part at the top? FSB is the disambiguation page, not something that redirects here, so articles won't link to it by mistake, and readers won't wander into it by mistake. I would have removed the tag myself, but wanted to query it as it's been there for nearly a year (since this edit: [3]). Anakin 17:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Format

• POV tag: not sure if only an administrator can remove it or anyone?
• A brief summary of the history of the pre-FSB history would be good because the FSB and other sisters agencies inherited a lot and remained largely unreformed from the Soviet era, e.g. it's still subject to little legislative or judicial oversight. It's not like its a brand new organization. So it would be nice to give the reader a nice context to the whole thing.
• Changed Criticism section, as it makes whatever the FSB did "wrong", to Controversies to make it more ambiguous, so the reader can make up his/her own mind.
• I put back the Anti-corruption and organized crime section because I think its still an important part of its role, even though it's not really referenced but on the other hand it doesn't say anything controversial.
• I really really think the organization should be moved up as it aint really technical and should be part of the overview. When someone is looking at the overview I'm sure they're also thinking how the organization is structured.

Muffkino 07:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect

Talk:FSB directs here, but FSB does not redirect to Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. I'm not sure if this is correct. (212.247.11.155 (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC))

Fixed. Hadoooookin (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by QZXA2

QZXA2, it is not enough to tell that "30 refernces I deleted are hardly reliable". You must explain why each specific reference you deleted does not satisfy WP:SOURCE. Note that I have organized this article to be pretty much NPOV. I made "Pro" ("Officially stated activities") section followed by "Contra" ("criticizm") section. This is standard practice to achive NPOV in many articles. If you think article was not balanced, you can extend "pro" section, rather than deleting everything you do not like, which is the entire "criticism" section. Do you agree? If you do not, I can combine "pro" and "contra" sections together, while keeping all relevant information and references, of course. Biophys 20:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Biophys, having "official activities" just doesn't work as a balancing tool. Even Nazi death squads had "official" stated activities. Most people will only see the Official activities section as "in theory" and "critisizm" as "in reality". And it is simply not right to add every single negative statement about the FSB. If there were other people involved with this article Im sure they would agree that this article in grossly unbalanced. And I am certain that Wikipedia admimins. would also agree. You also cannot word these unproven statements as solid fact, and it is not in violation of any wikipolicies to call a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory. QZXA2 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. Do you want to keep old structure of this article? Yes or no, please. I understand that your answer is "no". What others think about it?Biophys 23:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You want my answer? No. I want a balanced version.QZXA2 00:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just re word the "critisiscm" section while keeping all of the sources? (and of course adding a note thatthere is no solid proof that those allegations are true) QZXA2 01:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Will you chaps please learn to spell? -CRITICISM. 199.172.206.47 (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Heads of FSB

I have added Aleksandr Bortnikov as new head of FSB. He was just apointed by President Medvedev. --SergeiXXX (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Template

This is Federal agency, not a law enforcement agency. Therefore, the template should be like in article United States Secret Service.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The USSS IS a law enforcement agency and its infobox will too be coverted soon. Peet Ern (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So, USSS is a law enforcement agency. That's fine. I have no objections. But would you call the Gestapo "a law enforcement agency"? The KGB?Biophys (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Article must be balanced

Colchicum, why are you reverting my well balanced version? I left the vast majority of sources, I only deleted the most absurd links. I dont get what is wrong with re-wording such a biased article. QZXA2 18:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

QZXA2, You deleted text supported by more than 30 references, together with 30 references. You did it without any reasonable arguments. "Must be balanced" means only "I do not like it". You have been warned on your talk page not to do such things. So, please stop. If you think the article is POV, you are welcome to add alternative views supported by reliable sources. There are chapters in this article (Stated FSB activities) precisely for that. You also know about WP:3RR rule. Biophys 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The 30 refernces I deleted are hardly "reliable". Besides, I mostly just re-worded most of the statements so they would be less POV. You said yourself that I could do so. Why don't you just re-add the sources I deleted rather than the revert my whole edit? QZXA2 22:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is biased tripe, even by the often low standards of wikipedia. It should be extensively balanced or deleted entirely. Kharaku (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to balance this article, please add any missing sourced information. Is something was poorly sourced, please explain what it was at this talk page and mark the corresponding segment of text as .Biophys (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The vast majority of the sources in the article cite biased publications and individuals. Just because some old babushka said she heard the FSB is the KGB does not make it sourced, nor does a publication frequently involved in disputes with the FSB stand as a reliable information source about them. Frankly you could use the same techniques and suggest there is serious belief the US government is run by lizard men and it would be no less absurd. How do I get the neutrality is disputed heading onto this page? Kharaku (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

90% of this article is raw and stupid propaganda. It is like an article of CIA or FBI written using Soviet propaganda publications - about "damn capitalistic bastards hardly oppressing the people of the United States". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.179.106.178 (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A general pledge: Wikipedia super-users, moderators and experts: Please do not look for "neutrality" when it comes to power and its possible abuse. Instead only look for honesty, witnesses, sources and truth. Thanks, Myriam Thyes, Dusseldorf. —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC).

Acronym vs. abbreviation

It is stated that FSB is an acronym, but if you look at the definition of acronym, you find that this kind of abbreviation is voiced as a word, such as NASA. If this is correct, then what type of sound does pronouncing FSB make "FISB" or "FOSB"? Or should it just be an abbreviation "F"-"S"-"B"?

It's "Eff es bh" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.2.106 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

A book mentioned a military-style FSB anti-corruption group called Cobra or Kobra. Does anybody know what this is? (No, not the bad guys from G.I. Joe!) Thanks. 118.165.204.171 (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this question has lingered for ten months, let me 'take-a-stab-at-it'. I was in Costco here in So.Calif. and saw Cobra on sale. It is probably not the book you saw—what book was it? Instead, it is a new book by the author of The Day of the Jackal, another spy novel. Here is a note from Amazon.com :: "Frederick Forsyth is the author of fifteen novels and short-story collections. He lives in England." [Thumbing through it, not wanting to spend my $$, I saw it has to do with espionage against So.American drug business, but goes to Europe also.] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC) If I come into some $$ I'll buy Cobra and let you know.

Name of Article

Since we use the name KGB for the KGB article, why must we use a semi-descriptive name for FSB (Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation), instead of FSB? Aris Katsaris 05:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because KGB has long since been unique in English mainstream usage, almost never being tranlated. "FSB" is way far from a unique meaning. There is no reason to flood English language with nontransparent abbreviations, from foreign languages, especially when the native (English) language has other meanings. Also, a general rule that the article title is preferrably the full official name of something, various abbreviations being redirects. Of course, there are exceptions, for various reasons, mostly because of tradition, like "United States". Mikkalai 22:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most English-language media use FSB, see CNN for instance. The fact that FSB is not unique is handled in the Wikipedia standard way, by appending a qualification in parentheses: FSB (Russia). I think Mikkalai is mistaken about a policy of using official names for article titles, in fact the policy is to use the most common names: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Thus we have Uruguay, not "Oriental Republic of Uruguay", and United Kingdom, not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Of course the full official name should often be mentioned in the first sentence or paragraph of the article. -- Curps 01:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Although I am new to the topic (FSB), it took me only moments via Google to discover that the middle word when translated means 'Force' (or enforce). A better translation of the Russian words for F.S.B. could be provided in the initial paragraph(s) of the Article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC) PS: Am I wrong, or is it more accurately: "Federal Enforcement Bureau". .?.

An article of current bullying: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/23/russia-targeting-western-diplomats . . . Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)