Most of the material in this article has no cited source. From the editing history, most contributions have been made by single purpose accounts or anonymous ips, apparently Russians, who have used information from Russian sources. It would be helpful if they could identify those sources. Fred Bauder 15:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Age: In one place it says he was 94, in another 92 years old. I calculate 93 years old at time of death from the DOB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.225.136.60 (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why does it mention that his brother was a champion tractor driver in the early life section? The information is uncited and seemingly irrelevant to Koval's early life. --~TPW 13:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
- So is irrelevant to Koval's life the restatement that he did not find himself in Gulag when he was more old. - 91.122.13.129 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Perhaps you can explain more clearly how it is irrelevant? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- The first is a fact about his brother, not himself. The second... say, for example, when you are an encyclopaedic person and you happen to work as a builder, the statement that you are a builder is surely relevant for describing your life. But if you do not work as a builder, then the statement, that you are not one, would not be relevant in an encyclopaedic article that describes you. The same for Gulags. Both are literary details rather than relevant pieces of fact. - 91.122.5.138 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
- Your comparison doesn't exactly work. The point of the line is that Koval described himself as lucky, despite never really being recognized for his work; many other former spies were disposed of, rather than allowed to retire or move on to other professions. It's directly relevant. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted the recent additions as I think they create undue weight issues. The facts that the Russian government claimed Koval did xyz are not in dispute; the question of what he actually did is definitely less clear, and hence why the article currently mentions two views that contrast with the official government position (if not disputing it wholesale, than offering up additional shading.) I reverted the additions because they felt like they were excessively privileging a "dissent" view beyond that supported by the sourcing and the length of the article overall. In addition, the use of a 1994 book raises concerns about potential out-of-date scholarship or original research. As the article itself says, Delmar's role was only significantly covered in the years after that book, so using it in a section downplaying Delmar's efforts seems like it's ignoring more recent scholarship that has the benefit of larger context. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
- All the arguments from the 1994 article are as relevant now as they were then, although I will try to look up a newer source. No one below Kurchatov (who was a manager rather than a scientist or a designer) was cleared to know about the intelligence information, if you have a more recent source stating otherwise, please provide it. BTW, quoting anonymous "Russian military officials" as a reliable source is a total lunacy, IMHO. No amount of Putin's political spinning of this intelligence success seven decades years ago can change the well-established fact that Soviet nuclear bomb was indigenous. Ain92 (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
