Talk:Anna Chapman/Archives/2013/September

Style and sources

Article style is not really encyclopedic and seems to copy the yellow press style a bit. Also some of its content doesn't seems to be highly questionable and possibly not properly sourced (born in NYC?, IQ 162?). I removed some of that stuff in the lead, but somebody may have to check the article and sources more thoroughly.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree, it reads more like an online dating profile than anything else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.183.43 (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of derogatory info with only a disgruntled ex-husband as the source. Does that belong in here? The guy must be quite a lowlife to have sold her photos to the tabloids. (When will women learn that "private" photos never stay private? Well, a 21-year-old is allowed the mistake of trusting her husband.) Trudyjh (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Her sexy image contributed to the high profile of the case. The high profile of the case got her and the other 9 released so soon. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Image Uploading/attach problem?

I wrote the article; This was my first article I'm a noob still... But a quick question about the image, I have been trying to add the imagee of her, but seems I can't, but most of the images out in the public; were release by media outlets and The US Goverment.

How How will I be able to attact a image?

Thx for the reply... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastefx (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Images published in the press usually have a copyright blocking it from being used in WP or Commons. However images published by government usually are ok. In any case for uploaded image it needs to be clear to the WP administrators, that the copyright allows use in WP. If not or as long as there is reasonable doubt about this, administrators will simply delete the uploaded pictures.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Images

Aside from the problem of the main image being invalid for fair use (and no doubt soon to be deleted), I see no reason at all why we need a link to the so-called erotic images that Anna has taken of herself. Yes, it has been mentioned in news stories, but that doesn't mean that we have to link to it any more directly than we would ordinarily (a source leading from the mention in the article itself). magnius (talk) 12:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"erotic" or not it is desirable that the article features at least one image of her (assuming we can get one with copyright issues resolved.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Magnius

Please, use the discussion page. Undos are not the best way for consensus seeking. The reason to add Chapman's erotic self-portrait link was the way she is discussed in the press throughout all this story. Check this out and find some links for respectful press: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=sexy+russian+spy We are not gonna be the most chastely source. Just the neutral one. So the link should be presented as a considerable part of the story. What is about your reason to remove the second link — you didn't comment it all. Could you please? --eugrus (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a considerable part of the story. Most news articles do not mention it. Her notability is based on her alleged money laundering, what does this personal photograph of hers have to do with it? It seems a violation of privacy to me. Wikipedia is not a tabloid.Vmeruck (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I must Agree, the picture is a violation of her privacy, I have attach a new image of her which is Public Domain and could be use by anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fastefx (talk • contribs) 03:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Is there a real justification to keep this separate biography for a person known for only one event? I think we should merge this into Illegals Program#Anna Chapman. Seriously, the only reason this article exists is that she's attractive; she isn't any more important in this incident than any of the other participants. Fences&Windows 00:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not really, there is an encyclopedic interest to have a complete biography of people being involved in some notable event, at least if there's sufficient material available and it looks like there's much more published about her than about the others.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand this argument, but I ultimately disagree with it. Whether or not she deserves the extra attention is irrelevant. She has a separate entry because there have been dozens of articles written about her rather than the other accused spies.Dagojr (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are hundreds of "single-event" biographical articles on Wikipedia. There is more to the notability criteria than that, and Chapman satisfies enough of the criteria to justify a separate article. Back in 1945 there would probably be people questioning whether Igor Gouzenko merited an article using the same "single-event" rationale, too. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no Wikipedia back in 1945 - 71.192.108.214 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Concern about the lead

When I worked for a newspaper, one thing I was told was that using the word "alleged", as in "so and so is an alleged ax murderer", offers zero defence in libel cases because it is an attempt to get around "innocent until proven guilty". Chapman is innocent until proven guilty, yet the lead includes a use of the "Alleged Phrase" which has me concerned under WP: BLP. A safer way of wording it is "she is accused of being a Russian spy" or some variation. As I understand it, she isn't even on charges for that, but for accusations of money laundering. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is quite true. Out of curiousity, I went to Yahoo News and Google news, and did a search using the term "alleged." I received dozens of hits, including from respected sources such as CNN and AP, among others. I don't see a problem with the use of the word "alleged."Dagojr (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Dagojr. "alleged" is the nomenclature typically used by Wikipedia editors (and the American media for that matter) in the context of a person charged with a crime. --PinkBull 22:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead says that she is admitted to being a spy. This is a forced confession. It is true but forced. Look here...http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/russia_spy_arrests

Daniel Lopez, who represented defendant Mikhail Semenko in the case, says he has handled over 1,000 criminal cases "and I've never seen one move this quickly."..."It became clear that the choices were limited," Krakow went on, and his client agreed to go — promised support for himself and his family in their new life. John Rodriguez, lawyer for Vasenkov's wife Vicky Pelaez, said the couple had 24 hours to accept the "all-or-nothing" deal to go to Moscow or face years behind bars in the U.S.

Faced with release and money or jail, many people would "confess". The bottom line is she is a spy but we should not overly emphasize that she "admitted" to it. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Major overhaul underway

Given the nature of who she is and what is actually known about her, I have begun consolidating a lot of the information on this page. I simply don't see the need for the verbiage which was previously present when they only real source is her ex-husband. If more concrete information becomes available, I think it should certainly be posted, but for now the nature of her activities can be summarized fairly succinctly: She married Alex Chapman in 2001, and by 2005 they were divorced. During that period, she became more distant and spent more and more time amongst Russians. In 2006 she moved to the US, and by 2009 she had a successful real estate business. In June 2010, she was arrested and deported. The only other pertinent fact is that the ex husband alleges that her father was a KGB agent.

In light of the scarcity of information available about who she truly is and what she did, I have consolidated several paragraphs worth of statements about her husband into a much smaller, well-referenced section. The rest of the article appears to be in alright shape and I will clean it up where needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexWoody (talk • contribs) 19:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is true, that the sexy information is sourced from the husband. However, she is most known for being sexy. The other spies are much more low profile because they are not sex kittens, like she is. Therefore, encyclopedic sensitivities favor omission of the sexy information but the "what this person is known for" favors inclusion.

As far as one source, only the U.S. government says she is a spy. Nobody else reports that except to echo the government's accusation. But everyone "knows" it's true.

That is the dilemma. If we only go with excluding anything with only one source, then the sexy information AND the spy information gets deleted. The compromise is that we should report what other sources are saying, something about the sex kitten aspect. Anyone see a source? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. I propose that we start a new section so that we might separate the 'sex kitten' information from the more important information as much as possible. I think a section entitled 'celebrity status' or something along those lines would be an appropriate way to detail the public's fascination with her while still making it very clear to the readers that most of what we know about her is unsubstantiated hearsay. I think that the hearsay aspect is the main reason I started re-writing this article, and I think that our shared goal while working on this project should first and foremost be to highlight the vague nature of the facts about this individual.--AlexWoody (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The "sex kitten" garbage is not going to reappear in the article. It comes from one single and horribly biased source, is not rally relevant to the woman's biographical info or to the spy case. If you want to write like TMZ, then go to [www.tmz.com] and apply for a job. If you want to write for an online encyclopedia, then familiarize yourself with some basic policies. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, Tarc, but the whole point of writing what I did above was because while it is obviously not biographically relevant, there is an encyclopedic concern in documenting the way the public perceives this woman, and I have done enough research on this topic to know that though her husband is the primary source of this talk, there are plenty of other reasons why it is clearly worth including. Your tone is not appreciated, necessary, or appropriate. If you want to flame people on the internet, perhaps you should go to 4chan? --AlexWoody (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This The New York Times article could be used as a tertiary source for celebrity status. Or is it just a James Bond screenwriter fantasizing about his favorite film? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Michael Wilson (July 8, 2010). "She Had Us at Privyet". The New York Times. Retrieved 2010-07-10.

We do know that she had a Facebook photo splashed across the press, appearing in many stories, the one were she is wearing the blue lingerie. We know that there were reports of her sexual prowless. That is all legimate for Wikipedia.

The part about having sex aboard in a British Airways toilet is less confirmed. The part about her being good in oral sex is also poorly substantiated. So some mention about her publicity would be helpful to the article without the sordid oral sex description.

Anna Chapman is, by far, the most drooled over spy than the other 9. Nobody, other than the CIA, gives a shit (pardon my French) about the Michael Zottoli and Patricia Mills. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Wikipedia is not a gossip rag or a men's magazine. Reports of how sexy she is or her sexual prowess have no place here at all. Fences&Windows 19:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

They are, if they can be attributed to reliable secondary and tertiary sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tabloids and similar rags gushing and re-gushing over her ex-husband's lurid stories are not encyclopedic in any way. Some of this shit that was in this article at one time was appalling. Tarc (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you all read the New York Times article I posted above and use it as a source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, I did. The NYT article is a bit of a tongue-in-cheek observation of the subject's Bond-girl like story and how the media and the public got carried away with it; I really don't see much there that'd be useful to include here. What I was referring to above was the stories about nude photos and sex toys that the likes of Mr. Suomi Finland seem to have quite a fixation on. Tarc (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and this observation should be reflected in the article — with possibly some reference to the news sources being "observed". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Advocating for TMZ-style gossip is why some people should not be allowed within spitting distance of BLP articles. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep this sentence, though: "Alex has stated that Anna continuously told him the enterprise was in the red for the first couple of years." "In the red ..." lolz! 207.238.52.162 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Given name

I'm new to Wikipedia, so not yet familiar with all the appropriate writing conventions - apologies. I've updated Ms. Chapman's given name at birth to Anna Kushchenko, as Anya is a diminutive and not a proper name. Russian sources (Wikipedia Russia and Lenta.Ru) indicate that her full name at birth with patronymic was Anna Vasil'evna Kushchenko (Анна Васильевна Кущенко in Cyrillic) - should the editors wish to include this information. --173.35.109.220 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. This corresponds with information in the German and Russian wikis. KimChee (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the sexiness

I'm somewhat splitting this off from a discussion in the above section "Major Overhaul Underway." I fully agree with a couple of other editors that there is no place here for speculation and poorly sourced info about Ms. Chapman's sexual prowess, or photos that may be floating around, or the like. Without more concrete info it's not remotely acceptable, and even with more concrete info it's extremely questionable as to whether it would warrant inclusion.

On the other hand, there's little doubt that Americans who can name one of these Russian spies can came Ms. Chapman, and there's a reason for that—she is perceived to be attractive and has garnered some "celebrity" status as a result. Personally I find this interesting and almost an example of Cold War nostalgia so I came here to see if our article had a section detailing this celebrity aspect (while eschewing the more lurid and unconfirmed details, which I did not even know about until reading the above section). Note that this is not just a minor side detail to the spy story, in Ms. Chapman's case it's central to her story, and it would be a mistake to ignore it completely.

Media reports (including the fairly cheeky NYT article mentioned above) routinely speak of Ms. Chapman in terms of her celebrity status and attractiveness, e.g. [1] [2] [3]. Even VP Biden alluded to it after Jay Leno broached the subject on his show. [4] I'm not remotely saying we should obsess over every detail, but what will be of most "historical" (to the extent I dare use that word) interest regarding Ms. Chapman will be the way the media and much of the public reacted to her and framed her story in terms of cultural notions of the sexy Russian spy that we get from James Bond movies and the like. It's not particularly edifying but it is interesting and even encyclopedic on some level. I'm not sure if some of those commenting above think these aspects of the story have no place in the article at all (the discussion above was focused on the more extreme comments from her ex-husband), but if so I definitely disagree and would recommend some sort of "popular and media reaction" section as a way to cover this issue. It's entirely possible to discuss that while keeping out the kind of crap that would fall afoul of BLP. Does this seem like a decent way to approach the article? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. What I have objected to is prurient shit like this and this. Tarc (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that kind of stuff has absolutely no place in this article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree in part, disagree in part. I can fully understand why we don't want a quote like "she was great in bed...gave good oral sex". However, one editor "obected to is prurient shit like...." and that material says that her ex-husband sold nude phots of her. The fact is ok. Nobody is saying those pictures should be copied here or are fair use. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This article raises some difficult questions. I agree with much of what Tarc has said throughout this discussion, though I find him to be completely lacking in eloquence and tact. The first question I asked myself when I started this whole debate was whether or not her status as a celebrity is something that should and can be documented. The first question that comes to mind is, 'what are the sources'? Is it a widely accepted fact that she has gained some sort of celebrity status? I think the simply answer to that is, sure. Joe Biden joked about it, as mentioned below, as have many others. I think the fact that there is a sort of pop-culture sensation surrounding this woman is undeniable. That being said, we must certainly do everything in our power to ensure that 'purient' information be excluded. Ever since my intitial rewrite of this article, people have been vigilant in keeping certain information from the interviews with her husband out of the article, and I think this is good. However, if her husband did in fact sell nude photos of her, this might be worth mentioning. It is an historical fact, and I don't see why such a fact should be excluded. As I initially recommended last week, I think that we should create a section for 'Popular and Media reaction', as suggested by Bigtimepeace, and very succinctly and tactfully document the utmost concrete details that we have on that subject. Obviously the sexual comments by her sensationalist husband should be excluded. But that point also raises another interesting question: If we aren't taking the sexual comments made by her husband for material in this article, why should we take anything that he has said at all? --AlexWoody (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Having a separate section for the media circus is a good idea, because of the immense media coverage, and keep it reportative to include the magnitude of the press coverage, avoiding the lurid descriptions of her sexual prowess, and also, accounts from her sensationalist ex-husband should be minimized, especially in the main illegals program article where his tabloid story is passed off as facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.199.248.101 (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Still, they are hot nonetheless, Leno said, displaying a sultry photo of Anna Chapman as evidence. Mr. Biden joked, "Let me be clear. It was not my idea to send her back." http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/07/joe_biden_wouldnt_have_sent_ba.html

Now that is funny!

There should be an article on the funny things Mr. Biden has said. Some are gaffes but all are funny.

Seriously, for this article, the Biden quote is a possible reference that Anna 008 is more high profile that those other 9 nameless Borises and Vladimirs. True, she is notable for only one thing, but that's a different discussion. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:BLP again, carefully, particularly "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." You need to curtail your enthusiasm for tabloid gossip. Fences&Windows 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have! I have resisted the temptation to have the nude photos using the excuse of fair use. Fair use is often used as a lame excuse. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Russian spy" as occupation

I noticed some back and forth in the edit history about whether to include "russian spy" as Chapmam's occupation.It appears she was paid by the Russian government to undertake spy-like activities, thus is appears logical to describe one of her occupations as "Russian spy" (Perhaps "spy for russia is better?) But, I don't have strong feeling on this issue, after all, it's only a matter of two words in the infobox. I'm bringing it up because it appears not to have been discussed yet at this talk page, and am curious about the position against inclusion of the term.--PinkBull 13:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think of it as more of a crime committed than an occupation held, but it appears that modern-day contemporaries, e.g. Robert Hanssen, Jonathan Pollard, Aldrich Ames, list it as such, so... Tarc (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"Spy for Russia" as you modified makes more sense then "Russian spy" and is consistent with the other spy biographies.--PinkBull 16:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What she has confessed to is being an agent of the Russian Federation (without notifying the U.S. Attorney General). Everything else would be unsourced speculation and against WP:BLP. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. Listing it as occupation is simply unfounded.--AlexWoody (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User: Petri Krohn is correct that she did not technically plead guilty to charges being a spy. However, the factual basis for the charges written in the government complaint describe spy-like activities. Indeed, as far as I can discern, most most media sources simply describe her as a "spy." The descriptor given by media sources should be considered the most verifiable description and should mollify any BLP concerns.--PinkBull 14:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Internationally within the profession the term "spy" is frowned upon. "Intelligence officer" is the generally accepted description. That said, I am in agreement with Petri Krohn; she is a confirmed "agent" of the Russian Federation. Until a more detailed (and sourced) description of her occupation becomes available, better to go with that variant. --173.35.109.220 (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is to mirror reliable sources. So, if most sources call her a spy -as it overwhelmingly seems to be the case- she should be listed as such. Likeminas (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Justification for a separate entry instead of section in Illegals Program article

Is there any really?

I see no reason why the Illegals Program article is being forked by adding a separate entry for this woman.

I will add a template and propose a merge with the main article.

Please don't remove it untill consensus is reached. Likeminas (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, removed it anyway before reading this though, since so far there was a preliminary tendency was against a merge (older discussion above) and the template was linking to the wrong discussion page as well. If you really see the need for a larger vote, feel free to put in again but please with linking it to the correct discussion page (this one).--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This was addressed earlier on the Discussion page under "Merge". There appears to be sufficient public interest in Ms. Chapman as an individual to justify a separate Wikipedia article. Suggest the discussion be continued above under "Merge." --173.35.109.220 (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I read that and besides User:Kmhkmh and an anonymous IP, I see no other people commenting on it. I might open an RFC so that we can get more input from others. Likeminas (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Has independent celebrity status. Former UK citizenship has created a focus on her in the British media. Front page "news" globally. --- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. She has independent status due to the WP:RS from her time in the UK, and subsequent investigation by the UK media. Technically, she was legal in the UK: married, had a passport/citizenship and worked in various companies. She is only one member of the separate USA Illegals issue, and again has more WP:RS associated with the revokation of her UK citizenship. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I hate articles on one-trick-pony celebrity fame, but the coverage on this girl is so vast and global that even the most ardent WP:BLP1E proponent (i.e. me) cannot see a justification for a redirect. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The treatment of Chapman in the press is clearly different from the other "spies" and there is obviously a bigger interest in biographical information about her than about the others and larger variety of sources being available. In addition it seems highly likely that there will additional material related to her (potential book deal, loss of the uk citizenship, etc.)--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: people reading this page will obviously tend to oppose a merge; they're interested in the subject and it's very soon after the event. A merge proposal here and now is bound to fail, but peering into my crystal ball I predict that a wider sampling of editors at a later date will probably agree to a merge. Fences&Windows 01:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  Looks like she is not going away anytime son. Too bad the elections are only in 2011. The other ten may however be given new secret identities, making it unlikely we will ever hear of them again. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  That article is bandwagon-jumping and speculation, it gives no real indication that she intends to be in the public eye, let alone stand for election. Fences&Windows 13:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As with all suddenly famous people, before rushing to merge or delete, I think it's best to wait around a few months at least to determine whether it's a WP:BLP1E or whether the fame is long lasting. I think I'm echoing what User:Fences and windows says above. --PinkBull 14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of these "are they/aren't they" suitable for a wikipedia entry clarify themselves with time. She's got enough WP:RS at present, and a history outside the wholly US centric Illegals programme, to justify a separate entry. Whether that is sustainable - much akin to the lead singer of a notable boy band releasing one single - will be shown in a few months time. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Alex Chapman and publicist Max Clifford

The fact that Max Clifford was involved in the Alex Chapman's articles, you cannot in anyway assume that he volunteered his services, or edit an article to make it seem as if that was the case. This is not an innocent until proven guilty scenario. When a speaker is hired to talk about BP's oil spill incident, we do not say "BP, through the speaker, announced that they are looking into the incident." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.199.248.101 (talk) 15:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you know Clifford's method of operation? Have you read his auto-biography? Or can you find a UK newspaper claiming that Clifford is anything more than a representative or publicist? If you had, you would know that Clifford often doesn't charge his clients, instead getting paid by the newspapers; or he gives the newspapers one story so that they will bury another, for which he is paid by both parties (newspaper and "bury story" client). The reason you won't find a UK newspaper reference stating that Alex Chapman hired Clifford is that they all know that he has a posse of lawyers sat behind him, and he'd cut them off the moment they suggested such from any future stories. The rest of the world media can claim or imply what its wants, and interpret how the pair engaged, but until a UK newspaper says Chapman paid Clifford it in writing, its all speculation, and we have to follow what the references say. When a WP:RS like the BBC just says "publicist", that's all we can say. No one is implying paid or not, just engaged, reflecting what the references say. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Dickens quotation

I'm questioning what purpose the line from Dickens serves. The wiki article states that it is in reference to her time in the US; the reference cited claims that Chapman is referring to her "spy ordeal". In either case, one cannot be sure which aspects are, to Chapman, the "best" and the "worst". Suggest deletion; thoughts? --173.35.109.220 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Material removed by someone

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Illegals_Program&action=historysubmit&diff=374898092&oldid=374881337

"This does nor belong here: this article is about the 'spy' scandal -- not her bio"

So consider it here. I am not for or against inclusion, just presenting it here so material is not lost.

Here's what the diff removes...

It was reported on July 19 2010, that Chapman is shopping for a 250,000 USD media deal using an associate of hers and a 'secret' Swiss bank account to avoid her profits being seized by the US government. While her plea deal requires her to forgo any proceeds from such a deal, her attorney Robert Baum noted that she is not prohibited from telling her story and that it would be difficult for American authorities to enforce the terms of her plea deal now that she is in Russia. While Anna Chapman herself, angrily denies those claims, calling it "an absolute lie". Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is her bio! The spy scandal is at Illegals program. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Media section

Having seen the number of edits we are still getting here, I wanted to keep the core timeline sections solid, while allowing a focus on both the media coverage as well as post-deportation events (and a catch-point for the rumour!). I hence created a separate Meda Section towards the bottom of the article. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Vivid Video offer

The current version included a sentence about how "Vivid Video offered Chapman a starring role in a porn film." I propose it should be removed. The offer may have been more a publicity stunt from Vivid Video offer, then an offer they thought she would take. A reader may get the impression that the offer is a serious offer, which would put Chapaman in a bad light, thus not in accordance with our BLP policy.--PinkBull 06:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree --Garik 11 (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree Vivid Video in a publicity stunt? Now that is quite normal! --Trident13 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it's been removed.--PinkBull 13:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree Refusal shows that she is no porn actress. CBS News, not the National Enquirer, said it. RIPGC (talk) 03:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove mug shot

Other articles have decided that mug shots are prejudicial and put the person in a bad light, therefore is a BLP violation. Russian spies should be treated no worse. An alternative is to move it out of the userbox. RIPGC (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I have removed it and placed it down in the Arrests section as a thumbnail. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Chapman's notability stems from being arrested so I'm not sure the mugshot in this specific case would be overly prejudicial. Unlike, say Paris Hilton, who was notable before being charged with a crime. But regardless, from the picture itself you can't tell that it's a mugshot (or at least I couldn't tell). Perhaps we can place the mugshot in the infobox, but avoid mentioning in the caption that it's a mugshot. --PinkBull 16:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with PinkBull personally here. Chapman is notable thanks to her "pleaded guilty to and convicted of" activities and subsequent arrest, which self-implicates and publicly confirms the illegal nature of at least part of her activity in the United States. Secondly, that picture doesn't look like a typical mug shot, with her holding a board saying something like "LA PD Detainee No. ABC 123 XYZ." The words are more prejudicial and biasing than the picture. Put the picture in the infobox, but we must remove the current words. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well, not having the picture in the infobox makes no sense too me nor can i I see anything prejudicial here. Mugshots might be prejudicial if they create a visual impression, that the concerned person is a criminal, while in reality they've been only temporarily arrested on minor charges or something like that. But in this case half of the article deals with her criminal status and she was convicted or did sign a confession, so assuming a prejudicial effect of the mugshot here is somewhat nonsensical.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:MUG, there is nothing against the use of a free mugshot as long as it is not used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is hardly prejudicial as she has pled guilty and has been deported. KimChee (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

fine with me.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not fine at all, and reverted. Leave it in the sub-section. Tarc (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you cite the Wikipedia policy for the revert or is this your sole opinion? KimChee (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the conversation above seems to suggest there is no such policy nor am I personally aware of one. All that there is, is a practice to avoid defaming/prejudicial pictures, however so far the majority of editors doesn't see that practice really violated here. In addition it's not like, we currently have a variety of pictures to choose from anyhow and vague or even incorrect descriptions of a picture are not an option imho. Nor is it true as above indicated that other article do not use mug shots, there are articles who do like Joaquín Guzmán Loera or Frank Lucas (drug lord) to give just 2 examples.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The "disparagement" that Tarc cited is not present as there is no visual element of the police booking in the photo itself. Furthermore, the subject of the article has been convicted of the charges related to the arrest in which she was photographed. As I have no opinion of the content of the photo other than its importance in providing identification of the subject of the article, if a better free image can be found, feel free to provide one in its place. KimChee (talk) 00:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing wrong with this photo in the infobox. It is not "out of context", it is perfectly in context. I would prefer a different photo -- and as we all know there would be many to choose from, and I mean one of the ones where she is fully clothed -- but this probably the only one that is in the public domain. It is not obvious from the photo itself that it is a mug shot. It seems to be a fair representation of what she actually looks like (unlike some of her more widely-circulated photos, in which she looks somewhat different from photo to photo). She is even almost smiling. One thing I do wonder is, do we need to say in the caption that the photo was taken by the U.S. Marshal? Can't the caption just be, "Anna Chapman, June 2010"? The photo credits can be found by clicking on the photo. Neutron (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I changed the caption per the above. Also, I started a related discussion at Talk:Illegals Program#Mug shots, where all of the "mug shots" for the "Illegals" appear twice. Neutron (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple issues

After seeing a few claims with no reliable sources, and some claims which incorrectly summarised the sources, I added the {{Multiple issues}} template with "needs additional references or sources for verification" and "may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations which do not verify the text". Possibly there were sources for the claims and they got lost or moved in subsequent editing. I also noticed the BBC source has 2002 for a date while the Telegraph has 2001. I then quickly checked a few sources up to the "Illegals Program and arrest" section, removing uncited stuff and adding some {{Citation needed}}. It is likely there are more problems after this section, I leave that to other editors to check. -84user (talk) 12:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

New source: Vacationing in Russia

Ne source: Vacationing in Russia. 11/2010:

• To Russia with love

The text is on page 104 in the printed version, the picture spread is on pages 84–105. The printed version can be read on-line (with page numbers off by two). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, unless one can read Russian (which I guess I'm assuming is what that is), this puts a new twist on the well-worn phrase, "I only read it for the articles." Though I have to say, I am not convinced that all of those photos are of her. A couple clearly are, the rest... ? Whoever they're of, I guess we can console ourselves with the knowledge that Russia has clearly adopted Western values, as they now have sort of a Paris Hilton equivalent, someone mainly famous for being famous. Neutron (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Not Russian - Ukrainian!

She is obviously NOT RUSSIAN - her family name Kuschenko is Ukrainian. I don't care where she was born and raised - her heritage is Ukrainian.

There are some English websites who claim she was born in Kharkiv, but websites in Ukrainian (did a short google search) don't mentioned this. Wouldn't be to upset though; trading Chapman for Olga Kurylenko seems like a good deal File:Navy.gif and Oleg Blokhin is still a better footballer then her . — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 01:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I only read in the artical where she is born Volgograd (Russia), resides Moscow (Russia), citizenship (Russian, and once British), and her nationality (Russian). Nothing on heritage (unknown). A name does not make your heritage defininate, a Samoan born in Hawaii can have the a family name Murphy, doesn't mean he's Samoan, or Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacekeeper 1234 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peacekeeper 1234. Maybe more research could uncover that her father was born in Ukraine; but for me she is not interesting enough to make time to so shush research. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Moreover the family name is hardly a (reliable) way to determine direct ancestry nevermind citizenship.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Did any information actually exchange hands?

One thing missing in all the coverage of Chapman: aside from the charges of conspiracy, is she known to have - or has she been accused of - actually exchanging any secret information? Or was she caught before she allegedly began doing anything? Of course WP:BLP applies, along with "innocent till proven guilty" - but if she hasn't been accused of actually exchanging information this might be worth noting as that would make this case a lot different than the Rosenbergs. If the US hasn't revealed what, if any, information changed hands, then that's a legitimate piece of information to include, too. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kinda weird that no indication has been given to what she actually spied on. But from what I gathered it was super low level (basically public domain) financial info. A good indication of her worth and the other 9 spies was when they were traded, people within in the CIA (anonymously obviously) said the trade was way in favor of the US because of the spies we traded for actually did get good info. But who knows. 99.72.53.109 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs rewriting

This article really needs to be organized and rewritten. Information is all over the place and it is very hard to read as is. --97.81.50.48 (talk) 01:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Criminal status" is wrong: deportation is not criminal, nor are there assertions of any removal orders

The infobox is wrong and should be changed immediately: Anna Chapman has no criminal status. Wiktionary gives the phrase "deported", used widely in traditional media, in a generic sense as being evicted from a country. Under US law, deportation is "The formal removal of an alien from the United States when the alien has been found removable for violating the immigration laws. Deportation is ordered by an immigration judge without any punishment being imposed or contemplated. ... Now called Removal ..." There is no evidence, however, this was under a formal removal (deportation) order; it may have been, and was likely, merely a voluntary exit from the country, known as "voluntary departure" in legal lingo, but considered as being "deported" colloquially (and hence the use of the phrase in the media.) She may have even been offered a "deferred prosecution" on the condition she "get the hell out of dodge." No one said what happened, and only a few used the common and non-legal phrase "deported".

In any event, even a formal removal order (of which there is no evidence) is not a criminal sentence (nor can it even be ordered by any criminal court as I understand.) It therefore cannot affect her "criminal status" in any way. She is not a criminal under United States law until she is convicted of a crime, and there is no such evidence she has been. Thus the "criminal status" info in the infobox must be removed immediately. Int21h (talk) 08:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)