Talk:David Satter#Wikistalking by Vlad Fedorov

Please explain why did you delete [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Satter&diff=286575109&oldid=269606610 this]. These are obviously sourced and relevant materials.Biophys (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

:Please talk and explain what sources tell he is a "conspiracy theorist" instead of blindly reverting me. Thanks.Biophys (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

:"Satter emphasizes the importance of psychology..." is not sourced - it is OR.

:"Satter noted that Russia has one of the lowest birth rates..." simply isn't relevant enough to his biography.

:Angus Macqueenn is the reviewer who found "some similarities between his book Darkness at Dawn and Putin's Russia" - there are not multiple reviewers, and the claim must be attributed.

:The three ELs I removed are unnecessary and present a biased selection.

:Satter claimed, that the bombings were a conspiracy by FSB; thus, he is a conspiracy theorist. Offliner (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• The point about "conspiracy theorist". All your conclusions here are classic WP:OR. Which source tells "Satter is a conspiracy theorist"?Biophys (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• No, this is all sourced to his book. Do you want direct citation? I can certainly provide it.Biophys (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Once, again, Satter described this as important ideas in the Introductions of his books. I can provide direct citation if you want.Biophys (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

:This was a largely unreferenced biography of a living person, making all sorts of controversial claims on the basis of little or no supporting references. I've stubbed it. If you want to expand it, ensure that any expansion is fully in line with the standards of writing, sourcing and balance expected of BLPs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

::And, just to be clear, a rewrite should not give undue space to Satter's works. If they were notable, they'd have their own article. A short description of his books is fine, but the article is about Satter. Using this article as a surrogate means to give more coverage conspiracy theories about the apartment bombings, already covered in Russian apartment bombings, is most unlikely to produce acceptable results. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

:::Agreed on both counts. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 00:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Satter. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=799224860 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/20110927065706/http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SatterHouseTestimony2007.pdf to http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SatterHouseTestimony2007.pdf

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

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

[https://www.svoboda.org/a/usa-today-putin-20-years/30114434.html link]. My very best wishes (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

In the section "Russian apartment bombings", claims made by Satter are interspersed with statements of fact backed by references. This appears to be credible evaluation, however a closer inspection of references shows that all the claims are in fact made by none other than David Satter. Two of the articles are directly written by him, and the claims he makes that are supported by Cardin's report cite Satter as the source.

The only claim in this section that can be corroborated is the diplomatic cable record. He did in fact make the request; it is documented as " David Satter v. Dep't of Justice, et al., No. 16-cv-01749 (D.D.C.) " with a request ID of F-2016-08858. However attempting to retrieve it from the US State Department website fails, and therefore the statement cannot actually be verified.

The article wording has been changed to show that this is in fact his personal opinion, merely reinforced by his prior expressions of his opinion. JSory (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2023 (UTC)