Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reports of Novichok gel and intercepted messages to Moscow

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5590067/Nerve-agent-used-poison-Russian-spy-designed-4-hours-work-allow-culprits-flee.html, https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/942903/Sergei-Skripal-russian-spy-poisoning-russian-message-intercepted. Interesting?--Chianti (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Not allowed to use Daily Mail as a source, I believe. Shtove (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If Daily Star, Russia Today and Sputniknews are used as sources, then Daily Mail can't be forbidden.--Chianti (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Daily Mail is specifically considered unreliable and generally not to be used. looking at WP:PUS, RT/Russia Today and Sputnik are also to be questioned. MartinezMD (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

From the Daily Mail article: "According to the Sunday Express, intelligence ‘insiders’ revealed two messages sent from Syria to Moscow were intercepted at an RAF listening post in Cyprus on March 3 and 4." The Sunday Express, you say... Firebrace (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

If we are talking about the claim that "nerve agent was delivered in the form of a gel - rather than powder or gas - that transferred to the skin of the Skripals, delaying the effects of the poisoning for several hours", then it was published by many sources, such as this, so we can include the claim to the page. Speaking about the message "the package was delivered" that was also published in other sources, such as here. So, yes it can be included as a claim by an anonymous intelligence source, if I understand correctly. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Per The Times, "according to a report in the Sunday Express". There is still only one source, and it's not WP:RS. Firebrace (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The cited source is "The Times". It is typical that RS cite presumably "unreliable sources" - from WP standpoint, along with other more reliable sources. For example, a NYT article can say something like "According to Kavkaz Center...". Yes, we can use the NYT article for sourcing, even though we would rather not use "Kavkaz center" by itself. This is very common situation. My very best wishes (talk) 00:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The sources, even if reliable, are being admittedly speculative. I would suggest it be left out of the article for now until the investigation is clearer on an actual delivery method, even if that method is ultimately considered undetermined. As I recall, they were sure it was powder in the BMW, now it's gel in luggage, before that they were saying the household door. See my point? MartinezMD (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, it is only now that the investigation finally did come to understanding (or decided to publish) that the poison was used as a gel, that it was used on the front door of their house [1], and they even give a more or less precise timing when it was done. So yes, this absolutely must be included on the page per multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Well if we're not using the Daily Mail or The Express, the only other source mentioned in this discussion is The Telegraph. And that source doesn't sound like it's providing someone's conclusive report "experts believe the Novichok agent must have been delivered in gel form because it took time to kick in." That doesn't sound like "a gel containing the Novichok agent has been recovered" or something to that effect. Is there a better source to which we can refer? MartinezMD (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Right now there is no any questions that Novichock was planed as gel on the front door of their house. Lots of sources: NYT, WP, Reuters, whatever. According to NYT, "For an assassin to leave poison on Mr. Skripal’s door handle would require considerable knowledge of the underlying chemistry, said Richard Guthrie, an independent chemical weapons expert and editor of CBW Events. The nerve agent would have to be designed so that it would remain on the door handle, and then reliably be transferred to the target’s hand, he said. “It’s a huge implication, if it was the door handle, because it means someone had to be in the U.K. with the material,” Mr. Guthrie said. “" My very best wishes (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Not trying to be pedantic, but none of those 3 sources says anything about a gel. I'm asking about a reliable source that says it is a gel. That is the title of this discussion section, no?.MartinezMD (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

See here, for example. "Delivery via an aerosol spray or through ingestion would have almost certainly killed them, according to one UK security official. But police believe the Skripals came into contact with the nerve agent through a gel smeared on the handle of the front door to Mr Skripal’s house." This is good RS. My very best wishes (talk) 00:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, goes back to my point, it is speculation on their part. They haven't said they found a gel. They say they *think* it's a gel (kind of like when they thought it was a powder in the car). So if it's in the article it should be said it's their speculation ("investigators believe..."), but my opinion is that until they are conclusive, I would not add it. MartinezMD (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Also side note, in this edit you pulled the reference from another line too. MartinezMD (talk)

Not sure if such details matters that much. According to NYT (above), "British and American officials say they are struck by the symbolism of the attack on Mr. Skripal, as well as its effectiveness. There were many ways the former spy could have been killed: He could have been shot, or killed in a staged accident. But the assassins knew the nerve agent would be identified, and knew it would be linked to Russia, the officials said. That was meant to send a chilling message to others who would think of defecting to, or informing, the West.". Just like Litvinenko. There will be more of this. My very best wishes (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Then why include them? Accurate or don't add them to the article, right? MartinezMD (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we link to official UK government statements on the nature and delivery of the poisons? I notice in the 9/11 articles there are many links to US government documents. Keith McClary (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

At least we are consistent - we include "Reliable Source" speculations about luggage and car vents. Keith McClary (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's a reliable source I have no objection. My point has been and remains that in *this* discussion, no one has linked a reliable source saying they found a gel. If a RS says the investigators *believe* it's a gel, I'm okay with that too. Simply put, the source has to be reliable, and this article must be reliably consistent - gel if it says gel found, believed to be gel if they are speculating, not certain if they don't know, etc. MartinezMD (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Russian response dates for Hungary and for NATO in the table

Why there are Russian response dates for Hungary and for NATO in the table, but no response action? Was there any? --90.191.1g6.98 (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I added one for Hungary. Maybe you can look for NATO. MartinezMD (talk) 07:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Can't edit the article: "This page is currently semi-protected so that only established registered users can edit it", and it seems, that I am not well established enough for this edit (although I'm a registered user). I still think, that this date for NATO should be removed, because there is no evidence, that there was any Russian response to NATO at that date. The date is probably wrong, like it was wrong for Hungary. --90.191.1g6.98 (talk) 10:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@90.191.1g6.98: As well as being a registered account, to edit semi-protected pages you have to wait until your account is autoconfirmed, ie more than four days old and having made at least 10 edits. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

My account is several months old. I'm not interested in editing protected or semiprotected articles, just delete this misleading date from the table, please! --90.191.1g6.98 (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Ready for the latest influx of Russian propaganda?

[2] The Russians are already disseminating this conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.228.15.146 (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It tells: "The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said.". However, Swiss state Spiez lab said they never claimed such a thing [3]. My very best wishes (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

This section has nothing to do with editing the article. Nominated for deletion. Shtove (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate for the talk page. It is certainly possible, maybe likely, someone will want to add something about BZ to the article, and having the follow up already here would be helpful. MartinezMD (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like the lab that did the analysis for the OPCW is confirming Novichok but is keeping quiet/no comment about BZ, referring to the upcoming 18 April meeting of the OPCW executive council. https://twitter.com/SpiezLab/status/985243574123057152 MartinezMD (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Also note changes like this (reverted just before I got to it, thanks). I'm not against including such claims, clearly labelled as claims made by Lavrov, but as yet the lab concerned has not confirmed them and this is a highly politicised comment. Especially when, as for Russia Today, they repeat the BZ claim and ignore the Novichok confirmation (which even Lavrov allowed). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Russian agency The Insider [4] and Swiss NZZ [5] have published detailed analysis of Lavrov's fake and I have deleted the BZ information accordingly. Firstly, Spiez Lab has confirmed British findings per the official Twitter message cited above (this is further confirmed by named experts interviewed by NZZ). Secondly, per Insider article, Lavrov did mention detection of BZ and Novichok together, a fact that was conveniently skipped by RT and all other Russian media used as sources in the recent edits here. Cloud200 (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

OPCW 18 April meeting page to monitor [6] Cloud200 (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that was described in multiple RS as an obvious fabrication. Removed. My very best wishes (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

This explains everything and exposes Lavrov's lie quite clearly: ""There was no other chemical that was identified by the Labs. The precursor of BZ that is referred to in the public statements, commonly known as 3Q, was contained in the control sample prepared by the OPCW Lab in accordance with the existing quality control procedures. Otherwise it has nothing to do with the samples collected by the OPCW Team in Salisbury." [7] Cloud200 (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian has a piece on today's rebuttal of Lavrov by the OPCW. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/18/opcw-rejects-russian-claims-of-second-salisbury-nerve-agent?CMP=share_btn_tw Clearly the BZ precursor was lab-inserted into the positive control samples as a check and had nothing to do with the actual Salisbury samples. https://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/M-59/en/ecm59dg01_e_.pdf In case anyone doesn't know, when the OPCW ask an accredited lab for a second opinion -- and they will never confirm or deny whether Spiez was consulted, because that information is never made available to the suspect state -- they follow the usual scientific procedure and send the 'live' samples, the positive controls and the negative controls. The receiving lab is not told which are which; the samples are just identified by letters and/or numbers. If the people at the receiving lab correctly identify the negative controls as blank, that rules out lab contamination. If they correctly identify the known agent in the positive controls, they are clearly doing their job properly. This tends to prove that their identification of the 'live' sample is reliable. According to the OPCW, the 'live' Salisbury samples did indeed contain the agent identified by Porton Down.

Also, this. https://twitter.com/SpiezLab/status/986607830508752896 Among other things the Swiss are complaining about, they would never have supplied confidential information to Russia and they would never have made the false claim that Russia did not possess BZ, since in fact Russia manufactured and stocked a large tonnage of it under the name 'Substance 78', as Vil Mirzayanov has previously mentioned. (At the time of the disastrous Moscow Theatre Siege, Mirzayanov suggested that the authorities might have used BZ, since he knew there were large stocks of that agent available, though in fact they used a Fentanyl derivative.)

Also, this. https://twitter.com/NZZ/status/981957110928945154 https://www.nzz.ch/international/kein-zweifel-am-nowitschok-resultat-ld.1374775 Pretty obviously, the Russian government latched on to the rather unwise interview given to the Neue Zurcher Zeitung by Stefan Mogl, director of chemistry at Spiez, on 5 April and Russian hackers targeted Spiez and stole the confidential report, and the Russian foreign minister then misrepresented its contents by conflating the control samples with the Salisbury samples. The Russians just didn't like Mogl saying there was 'no doubt' ('Kein Zweifel') about Porton Down's findings. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

BZ aka "substance 78" is 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate if I understand correctly. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

BBC as a source

The BBC is generally known for a high standard of journalism. However it is state funded and controlled by members of the British establishment appointed by the UK government. Not surprisingly, on certain subjects the quality of the reporting can wane: during important conflicts such as the miners' strike the BBC can produce straight out fake news [8]. Recently the official Parliamentary opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, (who questions the government's position on this article's subject) was portrayed, falsely as wearing a Russian hat on "Newsnight", the BBC's flagship serious news show. [9] They admit that this was achieved by covert image manipulation though do not seem to think this counts as falsehood.

On certain issues (official government position), both UK and Russian state media are reasonable sources. Otherwise, more neutral news organizations (eg Al Jazeera or CNN) would be better.--Simon Speed (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If you've got an issue with the BBC as a reliable source, raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Neil S. Walker (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What rot. The Beeb is not "controlled" by the gov't - they are often extremely critical of UK foreign policy. Al Jazeera - please. Very bad example.50.111.3.17 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliability can be very issue specific. It's an accepted fact that a reporter has to be careful when reporting on the paper's owner: there's some footage somewhere of a Fox presenter rejecting the possibility of handling a Rupert Murdoch story. The 2 sources I linked to about BBC faking are reliable and relevant:- one related to a union busting campaign that was very important to the British state (the BBC claimed a "mistake" but only corrected years later) the other was faking on the subject of this article. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

If you have an issue with any of the BBC reports used in this article, raise them at RS/N. Otherwise, you're just mud slinging. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but the BBC, being owned by the UK government, clearly shows a conflict of interest between both. The same caution applies as if Wikipedia wrote on Vladimir Putin's skating or fishing prowess using a Russia Beyond article as a source. Wakari07 (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope. The BBC can be very caustic toward "the government" and is hardly biased. They are free to report as they see fit. Besides, they report what the involved parties say and report, they don't do the investigation themselves. 50.111.3.17 (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe if you talk about the rain in Wales and the fog in Scotland, but I'll never trust it to be objective on British foreign issues. Remember, it's a primary source owned by the UK government and as such is treated as other government sources, whether you like them or not. Wakari07 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's an article about the BBC's former "vetting" (exclusion) of "subversives" (socialists). [10] It's by the BBC !!! and is of course about the bad old days not now :-) . However, please note 2 things made clear about the nature of the BBC (& presumably still true):- 1) The BBC functions as an organ of the British state 2) The BBC will lie when national security is at stake. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Clean up

Quote: "The BBC reported experts said the nerve agent does not evaporate or disappear over time. Intense cleaning with caustic chemicals is required to get rid of it". Are the experts being advised by a homeopathy practioner? The original dose would have been very small so the number of molecules remaining on surfaces in Salisbury would be about as many as in homeopathic dilutions. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Quote: "Residents were told the Bourne Hill building, home to Salisbury's police station and Wiltshire council's offices, will close for up to eight weeks from Friday".[11] It's a bit late, isn't it? Why didn't they do it six weeks ago? A resident did ask a question about this at a local meeting but the answer from the council official was vague. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The dose required to harm/kill is quite small. However, in order to ensure a target actually makes contact requires a much larger amount. Otherwise, how could the assassin ensure their target touches the one little dot? I posted a link previously about trace amounts found in the pizza restaurant. Investigators found more in the car. The police officer got some as well. So the actual amount applied seems to be a fair bit. I would suspect it was liberally applied on surfaces. MartinezMD (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I still find the current explanation unsatisfactory. If I went out of my house and got an oily liquid on my hand from the door handle, I wouldn't just ignore it. I would clean the door handle and wash my hands. After washing, the quantity of oily liquid (whatever it was) remaining on my hand would be tiny, so how could I spread detectable amounts of it in numerous locations? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We do not know at this point, and as neutral editors, we cannot speculate in the article. We can only include what is reported in reliable sources. More will become revealed to the public with time, and we can include what becomes available. MartinezMD (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

If Skripal had not survived the attack, there would have been a public inquest into his death, revealing more facts. Now we are unlikely ever to know the full story as there is simply no reason for that information to be made public. Firebrace (talk) 12:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

What about the public interest? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Is someone proposing an edit or addition to the article or is this becoming a forum? MartinezMD (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Lack of evidence

I pointed to the lack of evidence here. [12] A German politician has now done the same [13] but he has been censored. I repeat that there is an NPOV issue here. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Many politicians have opinions on this case, but unless Laschet's officially represents his government as a whole, i.e. on a national/federal level, I do not see his inclusion as being warranted. MartinezMD (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

RFE/RL and 3RR violation

This edit. Since then RFE/RL is treated as an unreliable source? Also user Dralgos just violated 3RR rule on this page... My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for all the edit reverting. RFE doesn't appear on the unreliable list, although Daily Record Mirror does (sorry, my error, same issue regardless). WP:PUS MartinezMD (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the Daily Record considered non-RS? It's several miles away from the Mail or Sun. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I made an error above somehow mixing up Daily Mirror with Daily Record. They are both red-top tabloid and part of the Trinity Mirror group which include the Mail and Sun, properties that make them both suspect regardless. More importantly, if a perpetrator is suspected/identified, why have none of the more mainstream news organizations reported on it? That alone would be enough to raise concern about its accuracy. MartinezMD (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to say that the Trinity Mirror group does not include the Mail and the Sun! There seems to be nothing on the RSN that says Mirror/Record are not generally RS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Timely report published today that I just added to the article. UK states they have not identified a suspect. MartinezMD (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

That's probably relevant to the article if reliably sourced, but claim of named suspect is too if reliably sourced. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Typo in Investigation section

There is a typo in the end of Investigation section: "Notovich" instead of "Novichok". 89.255.92.169 (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Russia not the only producer known

The accusation against Russia stems from one logic: only Russia can produce Novichok. Russia said that around 20 countries can produce Novichok. An evidence that supports this claim is an interview given by Czech president. Why is this not include in the article? Here are the links.
http://www.euronews.com/2018/05/03/novichok-type-nerve-agent-produced-in-czech-republic-last-year- https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/czech-president-czechs-made-novichok-citing-spy-agency/2018/05/03/034cf488-4f0e-11e8-85c1-9326c4511033_story.html?utm_term=.fc68b60a50eb Tumsaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh no. That is not the logic. The logic is that the target was a Russian ex-spy/traitor who was killed in a very dramatic manner after other Russian traitor/spies/enemies were killed in other dramatic manners. His home country would have a far greater motivation to kill him than another country. Furthermore the article does not say that only Russia could produce the agent. Any mid-grade chemistry lab can produce the agent; it isn't a very complicated structure. MartinezMD (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the structure? I don't think it's been revealed officially. Shtove (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion with structure and synthesis pathway is found in the article here on WP. "Official" or not, much of the info was leaked in 1992. MartinezMD (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

That still doesn't answer the question. Shtove (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I've already linked for you the WP article that has the structures listed. MartinezMD (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Even today we're getting Guardian stories referring to novichok without specifying the chemical structure of the nerve agent (singular). The disinformation continues. Shtove (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Tagesschau reported that Germany has got Novichok formula from Russian scientist in the mid 1990s. Germany then passed the formula to UK and US governments who then experimented with the agent. The fact that UK clearly identified the agent of poisoning as Novichok indicates that UK clearly experimented with it previously. This is the link: https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/skripal-nowitschok-bnd-101.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumsaa (talk • contribs) 10:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Removal of extraneous header

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I've tried several times to remove a header which seems to not be needed. In the section titled "Response of Russia", there's an odd sub-section titled " UK staged poisoning". Three times now, @Dralgos: has reverted my removal of this header. One time, he claimed I used an unreliable source, which is just silly, since I didn't add any text, I just moved the paragraph to the section titled "Russian government", since the information in that section was a statement made by a Russian Government official. I tried to add it to the other section, and was similarly reverted. Can we get other editors involved in responding: Here is my question that we need consensus on:

• Does this two-sentance paragraph need its own section header, or does it deserve a separate section on its own?

Thanks for your input. --Jayron32 13:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I removed your first edit as the content was merged with an unreliable source which then appeared to be a biased attempt to change the context of the paragraph. If you are going to make an edit at least be considerate when handling other contributer's material. Either way your move to "Russian government section" justification makes no sense as you pasted my contribution infront of "mass media theories". DRALGOS ^♕ 14:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep it as a separate section

I believe it requires it's own highlight, not so far as it's own section. The whole article is based on an accusation towards Russia originating from the UK and spreading worldwide so Russia's response is definitely noteworthy and a highlight. I'm looking to reword the heading a bit better, however removing it entirely just muddies the waters. DRALGOS ^♕ 15:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Combine it with another section

1. --Jayron32 13:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
2. Stay combined in the current section. MartinezMD (talk) 14:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
3. This very small paragraph does not need its own section header. Natureium (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
4. No separate section needed for this opinion and the heading should be removed per BRD while this discussion is open. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:50, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

General discussion

• If this were Russia's only position and there were more reliable sources, I would say it needs a new section. However, as one of 20 possible alternative scenarios they've suggested, I don't think it merits an individual section. Besides it's currently only two sentences. MartinezMD (talk)

• Not sure what you're reading? There is only one scenario mentioned here. DRALGOS ^♕ 16:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

This was in the article recently and removed, but it lists twenty different theories offered by Russian officials or state media, not just that that the UK did it themselves. https://euvsdisinfo.eu/figure-of-the-week-20/ MartinezMD (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree that it does not merit a special mention: it falls under the tactic of putting forth all sorts of theories. If Russia′s prosecutor′s office brings formal charges against HM gov, or MI5/6 specifically, then it′ll be a different kettle of fish.Axxxion (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• UK has not filed any charges against Russia. UK has also presented nothing but theories. DRALGOS ^♕ 09:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

UK and other countries have EXPELLED Russian diplomats - that doesn't happen over guesses.50.111.3.17 (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• It certainly didn't happen over proof DRALGOS ^♕ 05:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chemical structure of the nerve agent

There's still no reliable source on precisely what agent has been identified by the UK. Any objection to pointing that out in the article, or would the pointing out have to rely on a reliable source? Shtove (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the article is fairly clear that it's "one of the Novichok family of agents" and only the Russian ambassador source says it's A-234. I'm not sure there is anything to add until more information is released (hopefully the OPCW report will be out soon). MartinezMD (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it's unclear. Novichok doesn't mean anything in scientific terms. The UK claims it has isolated and identified the actual agent, but hasn't revealed the chemical structure. The information about a234 is secondhand hearsay.(Edit to add that the identity of the "toxic chemical" confirmed by the OPCW seems to be classified).Shtove

"Novichok doesn't mean anything in scientific terms". This is not a science article. Firebrace (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

But identifying a chemical is a scientific process.Shtove (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Which the UK has done, and it was corroborated by the OPCW. Firebrace (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

And my point is that the article should note that the UK, and now the OPWC, have declined to reveal the result to the public. Please don't obstruct a genuine discussion of how to edit the article.Shtove

The articles now states: On 12 April the OPCW confirmed the UK's analysis of the type of nerve agent and reported is was of a "high purity".

That's backed with two reliable secondary sources, yet is plainly a distortion of the primary source OPCW summary, which only refers to a toxic chemical, the identity of which is classified information, and without confirming that it's a nerve agent. Please put me right if I'm going wrong. Suggestions? Shtove (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't a distortion, it is what the secondary sources are saying. Secondary sources synthesize information from multiple places; they have information from other places like verbal statements of government officials. The reason we use reliable secondary sources is that they are reliable in their analysis. If reliable secondary sources are reporting it, their reputation for fact-checking and reliability is why we cite them and say what they say. Yes, I agree the unclassified OPCW summary doesn't name the toxic chemical. That doesn't mean that the journalists investigating and reporting this are solely basing their information on that. We trust them to do their jobs. We don't do it for them. --Jayron32 14:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Jayron, I accept your points about reliable sources, but the distortion is plain: the sources are synthesizing the OPCW's backing of Porton Down's methods with Porton Down's assertion that the chemical is a Novichok or related substance and political assertions that the Novichok can only come from Russia. It's a conundrum for wikipedia, when reliable sources pull this kind of trick.Shtove (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Per OPCW: "The results of the analysis by the OPCW designated laboratories of environmental and biomedical samples collected by the OPCW team confirms the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical that was used in Salisbury and severely injured three people." UK identified the chemical as a Novichok agent and the OPCW has confirmed that finding.[14] Not sure what all the fuss is about... Firebrace (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You've laid out the synthesis in the reliable sources. I think it would be useful to compare what each organisation has said: OPCW's statement, Porton Down's original statement, the clarifying statement of DSTL, the statements of the UK government (May & Johnson), and the statement of the Russian ambassador about Johnson's statement to him. Then we could figure out how they nest together, if that's not original research, and edit accordingly.Shtove

'Porton Down' is a metonym for DTSL, and it is the reader's job to compare statements. Firebrace (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I would've hoped that the OPCW would be apolitical in this, but they've chosen to go the "classified" route. I added their statement to the article. MartinezMD (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Smeagol 17: Please do not change source titles, as you did in this edit earlier today. The title of the AFP article is "Watchdog confirms UK findings on nerve agent used on Russian ex-spy". We are not here to right perceived wrongs. Firebrace (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Firebrace: Sorry, I tried to change the wording in article and missed. Should we change nerve agent to toxic chemical or something in this instance to not suggest that OPCW called it that? Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is primitive, so it needs a referenced bullet-point list of the terms used to describe the chemical. The most basic is "chemical substance", used by the UK FCO today, and building from there to toxic chemical, to Novichok or a related agent, to nerve agent. I think that's the hierarchy. And finding a source for why information on the chemical structure is classified would probably help the editing.Shtove

I think Novichok or a related agent should be higher then nerve agent in this hierarchy, and under actual substance, if it will ever be declassified or reliably leaked (if it is indeed from Novichok class, whatever it is), as there is no dispute, I think that "Novichok" is a nerve agent. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with "or related agent" is that it could cover something that is not considered a nerve agent, but is, say, an organophosphate that can induce the symptoms - that's why I'd put it lower in the hierarchy. Hopefully the new claim by Russia leads to full disclosure, and our discussion can stop. Shtove (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no big mystery here, the OPCW confirmed "the findings of the United Kingdom relating to the identity of the toxic chemical". Just to clarify again: the UK identified the toxic chemical as a nerve agent, and then identified that nerve agent as one of the Novichok class. Firebrace (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course, but this passage refers to their 12 April report, where they did not mention it directly. It is a nitpick, but I did not want to leave a misleading impression with it. Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is a nitpick - the phrases used to describe whatever it is are chosen with extreme care. Shtove (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov "were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ ... citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW) ... The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states". I am aware of RT credibility/reliability, but wonder if other reliable sources will report the same claim.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Reuters and The Mirror: I think the first article referenced shows the difficulty in terminology we've been highlighting here. The wikipedia article on the BZ chemical shows a history of allegations by the UK of manufacture by Iraq and Syria.Shtove (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue with statements such as "Scientists from the Nobel Prize-winning OPCW found that "high purity" Novichok was used in the poisoning, backing the UK." is in the fact the 12 April report did not mention Novichok, we have "7. The team was briefed on the identity of the toxic chemical identified by the United Kingdom..." ... "12. The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical are contained in the full classified report of the Secretariat, available to States Parties". It doesn't make much sense to keep it classified if the UK's publicly claimed identity is the same, it makes the public wonder if UK claimed one identity in the public and another in private to OPCW. It's confusing, so yeah, we should keep the statement as neutral as possible.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is combining "material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". In our case, one of the sources has explicitly stated that a Novichok nerve agent was used in the Salisbury attack, and the second source agrees with that conclusion. What the UK has not done is identify which Novichok agent was used, and that will be the name that is classified by the OPCW. Firebrace (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The chemical structure is classified because the OPCW, unsurprisingly, do not want weapons like that proliferating. The OPCW did not provide samples to any Swiss lab and the Russian government is obviously lying, as when they claimed that Theresa May was responsible for the chemical attack in Douma. The OPCW agreed with Britain's findings, and we know what Britain's findings were: a Russian nerve agent probably only within the capability of a state actor, and only one state actor is known to possess that weapon. That's all.Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You are trolling. This is a discussion about editing the article. You should not make assertions about content. Shtove

It's not me that's trolling. And the Swiss lab has no idea what the Russians are talking about and agrees with Porton Down. https://twitter.com/SpiezLab/status/985243574123057152 'Only OPCW can comment this assertion. But we can repeat what we stated 10 days ago: We have no doubt that Porton Down has identified Novichock. PD - like Spiez - is a designated lab of the OPCW. The standards in verification are so rigid that one can trust the findings.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I put in the original text in the main article relating to Russian claims about BZ before it was sorted out. It was deleted however. Now we know these were control samples, and the Novichok agent is absolutely confirmed but we still should have a paragraph in the main article explaining this because it is still the official Russian position. I am trying to put a paragraph together about this for the Russian response section. Osterluzei (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Bulldozing chemical facility

How factual is this statement?

Shortly after the OPCW investigation confirmed presence of military-grade agent, the Russian chemical facility in Shikhany from where it allegedly originated was "bulldozed flat".

The Telegraph which is cited as source here simply says "we learned" without mentioning any source or presenting the evidence of this happening. How much should we trust this? I checked and many major media didn't report this. If there is additional source, then adding that could help to support the claim. Otherwise, depending on a single media that doesn't present any evidence is against the neutrality of Wikipedia. I suggest it should be either supported by more sources or removed. Tumsaa (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Russian media on April 27 said that the corps of the institute in Shihan was being demolished:

"Now there is a demolition of buildings, all construction debris passes through high-temperature furnaces. Burnt garbage is stored on a special landfill, all this is done to purify the territory of the institute for the subsequent development of some new production there"

But they deny the connection with the "Novice" and declare that the demolition is going on, because the program for the destruction of chemical weapons has been completed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Further details which have emerged

The skipals house is to be demolished

Several contaminated emergency vehicles will be destroyed

2 police officers were affected and admitted to hospital not just one. Regrettably one officer has lost an eye.

One of the police officers desks is quarantined at the station

Coincidentally two porton down staff members were at Salisbury hospital when the skripals were admitted, who recommended the use of an atropine antidote immediately

The skripals car will be destroyed and other sites they visited will be decontaminated or destroyed

The novichok agent used was designed to have a delayed reaction

The pub and restaurant are being decontaminated, but may be destroyed in the interest of public safety - this assessment is ongoing — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulesDonelan (talk • contribs) 19:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Links/references would be helpful. Otherwise this does not help. MartinezMD (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

As a Salisbury local, this all sounds like utter rubbish and some of it impossible, the more so without references. Low quality trolling. Richard Avery (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I googled "salisbury police officer lost eye" but got no positive result. Possibly this has been conflated with "Dog loses eye after 'despicable' catapult attack" [15] Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of RFE/RL in references

Hi, I notice that this article contains a couple of references to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. This is a US government-funded media outlet that was created during the Cold War to broadcast US anti-Communist propaganda in Europe. Does this qualify as a WP:RS? Augurar (talk) 07:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I consider Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to be an unreliable source DRALGOS ^♕ 09:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Furthermore RFE was jammed during the cold war to allow propaganda to go unchallenged. From the Wp article - "RFE/RL states that its mission is to serve as a surrogate free press in countries where a free press is banned by the government or not fully established." So I think it is likely more reliable than other sources. MartinezMD (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Factual Inadequacy Concerning Point of Exposure, Likely time of Exposure and Method of Exposure to Poison

The below paragraph should be understood as an indication of a shortcoming in the article that should be addressed (and is hence about improving the article) :

There are numerous 'factual inadequacies' (oversights) and other anomalies in the story portrayed by the article. One major issue is the fact that the theories/verfiable theories concerning the precise time, place and exposure method of the poisoning are NOT provided or indicated. This is clearly a glaring issue in the whole article, and no astute person could ignore the fact that the lack of this detail is a serious shortcoming to the article. I imagine Wikipedia doesn't do conspiracy theories BUT a list of verifiable assertions which effectively indicate the point and method of exposure to the poison would seem to be a necessity. Of course, it may be that nobody knows what the point of exposure & method of exposure was - if this is stated in a verifiable source, then the article should reflect this to indicate that even the powers that be don't know what the point (in space and time) of exposure was and the method of exposure. Of course, someone has to know, because someone is responsible for the poisoning.

There are several (perhaps even many) other issues with the article's story or what the article states (which reflect weaknesses in the article and are not a general discussion of the article's subject). In this age of smartphone cameras, etc... one would have hoped for more photographic evidence to be available (including of the blood tests and other analytical tests carried out by the UK), arguably the article should contain more pictures that are of evidential relevance (any pictures of the Skripal's being taken into the ambulance?).

There are many other critical observations of what the article states that I could make - but some indication of what is off-limits (beyond the assertion that the article is not about general discussion of the subject) might be beneficial so that I avoid irritating any other Wikipedians beyond what I already have (though, to be fair, I was just stating the obvious).

If this contribution to the Discussion Page flouts any rules, remove it BUT you must indicate which rule it flouts. ASavantDude (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is written with the information available. WP works with what can be verified, not with what information we would like to have but isn't available. That the Skripals were poisoned is considered fact based on reliable sources, even if *some* of the specific mechanics are unknown. Speculation/conspiracy theories are not used as sources. I consider your entire section distracting as it makes no specific proposal or contest a specific section of the article, and by your own statement, suggests a conspiracy without verifiable sources. I removed it once under refactoring but was overridden, so I won't remove it now. MartinezMD (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

ASavantDude stated: "One major issue is the fact that the theories/verfiable theories concerning the precise time, place and exposure method of the poisoning are NOT provided or indicated". He is clearly indicating that the article would be improved if they were provided. I accept that there are currently no reliable sources to give the missing information but I think it is quite proper to use the talk page to invite Wikipedians to search for such reliable sources and to add them when they become available. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

De même que, éventuellement, les taux d'exposition ont été bloqués. Simptomatics dans les groupes de population. Cela peut être lié à l'empoisonnement novitshok. Ainsi, par exemple un national russe. Donner un interveu émotionnel concernant un Krig en Ukraine ... Et, puisque cela souffre de pesticides doux (ou herbicides?) Empoisonnement. Un utilisateur de Wikipedia .... Et, découvert par la porte d'entrée des déversements de pétrole ...Aras Ören (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

{{BLP noticeboard}} -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Suspected perpetrators

to the suspected perpetrators should be added the british secret services, why? because both minister of foreign affairs sergei lavrov and the russian ambassador in britain accuse the british secret services of the chemical attack poisoning a russian citizen.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5553381/Russia-Britain-Prove-spies-did-not-poison-Skripal.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-novichok-nerve-agent-russia-ambassador-london-alexander-yakovenko-sergei-skripal-poisoning-a8268541.html

178.231.181.143 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No. This is just the accused trying to deflect blame. The democratic - and therefore free - investigative journalists, gov't agencies, etc., all have pointed to the Russian government (aka Putin) as the guilty party here. We can certainly - and should - mention the Russian reaction, of course. But it is sheer propaganda nonetheless.50.111.3.17 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well uk blamed russia without proof, and so does russia blame uk without proof, so we really have 2 equal accusations, and both suspects should be named, but i see that wikipedia is biased and weaponised against russia too as part of operation beluga 84.241.209.116 (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Theresa may claimed there is no alternative explanation for the alledged poisoning of skripal This video shows there is an alternative explanation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLI-gXJ7T5E that points to british secret services. 84.241.209.116 (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

There is another perfectly plausible explanation. This is that Russian enemies of Putin committed the crime, knowing that the west would blame Putin. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree british secret services should be listed as suspected perpetrators. UK's reaction without a proper investigation was highly questionable, and it's unlikely the fell for some third party trickster as Mock wursel soup suggested. DRALGOS ^♕ 09:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

No, please follow WP:GEVAL. My very best wishes (talk) 12:06, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've added British intelligence to the suspected perps list as their are 3 in favour and 2 against and in the article there is an official statement inciting fabrication. DRALGOS ^♕ 14:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Russia does not participate in the investigation and, as far as I know, did not initiate its own criminal investigation either. I think it's impossible to talk about "suspected perpetrators" in this situation. Accusations against the special services of the US and UK are just Russian rhetoric on duty.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Russia tried to participate in the investigation but this was blocked by the OPCW.[16] If we are talking about "suspected perpetrators", it is relevant to ask: "Suspected by whom?" Obviously, no country is going to suspect itself. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was, so it has no materials of investigation. And its own investigation wasn't open, despite Julia is a Russian, not Britain citizen.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The reason Russia has no materials to investigate is that the British refuse to give them samples.[17] Mock wurzel soup (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

And with whom do you argue now?--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm responding to your strange statement: "Yes, it was, so it has no materials of investigation". Mock wurzel soup (talk) 09:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

And how does your statement prove that Russia has access to the investigation data?--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that Russia does have access to the investigation data, I'm claiming that it doesn't. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, maybe we just do not understand each other. My point of view is that the British did not allow Russia to access to the investigation data. Also, Russia did not implement its own official investigation. So Russia's statements about the suspects have to be ignored. These are political statements, not based on anything essential.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Not found any of the participants in the poisoning?

Department of Punishment can continue to work quietly? And London and Brussels?WikiUser786645332 (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It's impossible (as seen above) to establish anything from an event which contains a vast amount of conjecture. I decided it would make most sense to remove the section all together as it falls under nothing but POV. DRALGOS ^♕ 09:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

How is the suspicion of a head of state (May) not sensible to put in the suspected perpetrator section? Russia consistently appears to be the main focus of suspicion. MartinezMD (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

May is not an investigator. You have used the word suspicious twice because that's all it is. If you wish to add Mays suspicion then you cannot object to the addition of Russia suspicion of it being the British intelligence behind the poisoning. DRALGOS ^♕ 10:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I used the word suspected because that's the section of the infobox we're talking about - suspected perpetrator. Perhaps we should get a neutral outside mediator since we have persistent opposite views on this. MartinezMD (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty straight forward, if the suspected section is kept we must agree that all suspects are listed Russia,British and US intelligence. If you only choose to list Russia then it's POV and will be removed. DRALGOS ^♕ 10:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Putin personally publically accused the British. He has denied Russia did it, and he and others in Russia's government have given *several* alternate theories, including Britain, the US, Ukraine, Sweden, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, several non-state actors. For that reason, I don't think it's credible and listing the others as suspects is inappropriate. So lets go ahead and get a mediator. MartinezMD (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it would give undue weight to list others as suspected perpetrators, so I have submitted this discussion for mediation. MartinezMD (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou. DRALGOS ^♕ 15:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Of course conspiracy theories might be briefly mentioned on the page (if there is consensus to include them), but they must be treated per WP:FRINGE. I fixed the box. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we need to use or are using this particular article. However, we can use it personally to look at the list of different theories that have been reported. It's useful for its list. MartinezMD (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I would rather not include such theories at all. Speaking about your edit [18], I think it could be OK in terms of sourcing, but it adds no new info, and one absolutely must tell about the 2018 Amesbury poisonings there, which actually contradicts the statement you included. My very best wishes (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The statement was accurate at the time it was made (in regards to the ~40 people). There was a degree of public concern (i.e. hysteria) and the local hospital emergency department saw several people who thought they were, or could have been, poisoned when they in fact were not. The statement goes to the explanation that, although there were several "patients" (as reported in other news stories), only the 3 were actually poisoned. MartinezMD (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

This case obviously has a high level of state politics behind it which is backed by the respective medias. Just because 10 western media outlets are reporting the same thing doesn't mean fringe can be applied without discretion. There are still a number of conspiracy theories which should be removed as the offer nothing to the article except for entertainment. DRALGOS ^♕ 22:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Ten RS reporting the same is very definition of "majority view" per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

You've misunderstood it, re-read it. DRALGOS ^♕ 08:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I did not misunderstood anything. Please self-revert. The sources [19], explicitly named GRU people (rather than some "Russians") to be responsible, and they directly connect this case with 2018 Amesbury poisonings [20]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Why? it has been forwarded for mediation for decision. Please make you point on your allocated spot on the mediation page. DRALGOS ^♕ 09:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

"Vladimir Putin vowed to kill the Russian double agent who was poisoned on British soil."

I had added the following section :

== Connection made by the press with statements of Vladimir Putin about traitors ==

In 2010, speaking of traitors, the Russian president Vladimir Putin stated : "It was the result of treason. It always ends badly for traitors: as a rule, their end comes from drink or drugs, lying in a ditch. And for what?"

On another occasion, on 16 December 2010, Putin returned to the case of the traitors. According to a report given at the time by The Telegraph, Putin said in this speech that the Russian secret services didn't kill the traitors and he added : "As for the traitors, they will croak all by themselves."

On 7 March 2018, the same Telegraph publishes an article entitled "Traitors will kick the bucket': Vladimir Putin swore revenge on poisoned Russian spy Sergei Skripal". One reads in this article : "In a 2010 interview, Vladimir Putin [stated] that Russian double agents would pay for their 'betrayal' (...) Vladimir Putin vowed to kill the Russian double agent who was poisoned on British soil." However, in the interview present by Telegraph ("Talking to Vladimir Putin. Continuation"), Putin said that they would punish themselves and did not directly promise to kill a double agent, as stated in the article: "And as for the traitors, they themselves will kick the bucket, I assure you, because ... To hide all your life, not to be able to communicate with close people - you know, a person who chooses such a fate will regret it a thousand times more."

Dralgos deleted it with the following comment : "Does not require it's own section. Misinterpretation of whats being said WP:TE"

Where is therin a misinterpretation of what's being said ? Did I misinterpret something or did The Telegraph ? And if The Telegraph "misinterpreted" Putin's words (a very benevolent hypothesis), why should'nt it be said ? Marvoir (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed it because it doesn't warrant its own section. You need to remember from top the Russian involvement is pure conjecture. Trying to convince people by backing up the assumption using articles like the above is bias. DRALGOS ^♕ 12:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

In your edit comment, you didn't only say that it doesn't warrant its own section, you said "Misinterpretation of whats being said". I asked : "Where is therin a misinterpretation of what's being said ? Did I misinterpret something or did The Telegraph ? And if The Telegraph 'misinterpreted' Putin's words (a very benevolent hypothesis), why should'nt it be said ?" You don't answer this question. And, according to you, what am I "tryinng to convince people" of, according to you ? Marvoir (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Why are you using article sources from 2010 and trying to create a relevance for it in this article? Your contribution is distorting, sorry. DRALGOS ^♕ 13:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I speak of the connections made by the press between the Skripal affair and statements Putin made in 2010. The 2018 article of the Telegraph says explicitly that it speaks of statements from 2010. Thus the Putin statements from 2010 are exactly the matter. And could you please answer my question : "Where is therin a misinterpretation of what's being said ? Did I misinterpret something or did The Telegraph ? And if The Telegraph 'misinterpreted' Putin's words (a very benevolent hypothesis), why should'nt it be said ?" Marvoir (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Placing that piece in this article insinuates Russia/Putin may be behind the poisoning. Yet to this day there is NO proof of Russian involvement. So by placing this piece in this article you have created grounds for misinterpretation and further conjecture. As for the telegraph, it's clearly a puff piece dug out from 2010. Do you understand? DRALGOS ^♕ 14:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Of course, I understand. As you say it, the Telegraph 2018 article is clearly a puff piece, I would say a blatant lie. It is the reason why I find it necessary to show to the reader how unscrupulous some media are in their anti-Putin propaganda. Do you understand ? Marvoir (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you arguing that you placed it to push a POV? That would be a reason for deleting it. Hzh (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It should remain deleted. DRALGOS ^♕ 09:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

If there are no further objections to this section are we all ok to archive it for house keeping? DRALGOS ^♕ 18:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I object. Marvoir made valid point here, but one should be careful how exactly this should be framed on the page. I will be back later to look at the issues. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

POV had no valid point. DRALGOS ^♕ 09:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

OffGuardian propaganda pic twisting the words of Dr Stephen Davies, repeated verbatim here

[21] [22] (My justification for removing Dr Stephen Davies's letter from 'Notes'.) -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

His quote is accurate, but the Guardian (or the Times, don't recall which) has it behind a pay wall. The source used in this WP article, I believe, was just to get it for free for the article (in spite of the conspiracy theorist's attempt to twist his words). MartinezMD (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify please? I don’t have access to the original of the letter. You state that his words as quoted are accurate. However, you also state his words were twisted. Can you explain how both can be true. The letter is quoted to clarify the preceding statement about people affected. It appears to be relevant to the issue and the letter writer appears to be someone who has specialist knowledge of what had occurred. Regarding the “getting it for free” part of your comment, can you expand on this as I don’t understand the point you are making. Burrobert 22:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

See for yourself. Click on the first link. It quotes the physician. He was responding to the report that there were 40 additional people poisoned. The problem is that he was a bit inarticulate, and at one point wrote "no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve poisoning" when from context any reasonable person would understand he meant none of the other 40 patients. The conspiracy website took the statement to say the Skripals were in fact not poisoned with the nerve agent. MartinezMD (talk) 01:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the inclusion in the note of the statement “there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning” makes his meaning clear here. Burrobert 03:49, 22 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

The logic of his letter is that only three people were poisoned, and none of them was poisoned with nerve agent. Shtove (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No, Dr Davies' letter specifically refers to 'the agent involved.' He just meant that none of the 'worried well' members of the public who went to A&E, thinking they might have been poisoned, had in fact been poisoned. He was correcting erroneous press reports which suggested that all those people really did need treatment. As an A&E doctor he wasn't of course involved in the treatment of the Skripals in the ICU. Mark Urban, reporting for Newsnight on BBC2 on 29 May, interviewed six of those who were involved: Dr Duncan Murray, Clinical Director of Surgery; Dr Stephen Jukes, Intensive Care Consultant; Sarah Clark, senior sister, Intensive Care Unit; Lorna Wilkinson, Director of Nursing; Dr Christine Blanshard, Medical Director, Salisbury NHS Trust; Cara Charles-Banks, Chief Executive, Salisbury NHS Trust. The 18-minute TV report is here:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwhR6wqNEis - and a copy is also on the BBC website. Mark Urban's written report is here:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44278609 As the medical staff make clear, there is no doubt at all that the Skripals and DS Bailey were suffering from cholinesterase inhibition due to nerve-agent poisoning, or that the nerve agent was identified by Porton Down and later the OPCW as a Novichok type developed by Russia. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of Non-English sources as per WP:NOENG

There are a number of Non-English (Russian) sources provided on this page and most do not have an english translation. As per WP:NOENG I propose removal and substitution of Non-English sources as all editors of this page are English literate buy may not be Russian literate. I for one am not Russian literate. DRALGOS ^♕ 16:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-English sources are permitted on English Wikipedia, even if English-language sources are preferred. Please do not remove any references. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If there is an English source, that one is used over a foreign language. If there are no English sources, we can use the foreign language source. That's the policy in a nutshell and is pretty logical if you look at it. MartinezMD (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've re-read the policy, and actually that isn't what it says. It doesn't matter especially which language the sources are in, though English-language sources are obviously preferred, and it's best to have English-language sources to accompany foreign language sources. You can use as many references as you like—NOENG doesn't imply that we should substitute references. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance" (emphasis added) - I think that is what I was saying. MartinezMD (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

For clarity I was asking for removal and substitution of source from someone who is Russian literate. Citations in Russian are lost in translation so for this reason I ask they be substituted using English ones, which being a UK based incident I'm certain are available. DRALGOS ^♕ 11:37, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Removal of poorly sourced

I had remove the following content due to the given reason but it was restored by editor Endymion.12. I suggest the following be removed due to

Content

"On 6 March 2018 Andrey Lugovoy, deputy of Russia′s State Duma (the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia) and alleged killer of Alexander Litvinenko, in his interview with the Echo of Moscow said: "Something constantly happens to Russian citizens who either run away from Russian justice, or for some reason choose for themselves a way of life they call a change of their Motherland. So the more Britain accepts on its territory every good-for-nothing, every scum from all over the world, the more problems they will have."

Reason

(WP:RS) Poorly sourced I can only identify the daily beast as the source which is a POV source (WP:povsource). Overall it offers very little to the article beside more conjecture. DRALGOS ^♕ 19:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Content

A former KGB and FSB officer, Boris Karpichkov, who operated in Latvia in the 1990s and fled to the UK in 1998,[154] told ITV's Good Morning Britain that on 12 February 2018, three weeks before the Salisbury attack and exactly on his birthday, he received a message over the burner phone from "a very reliable source" in the FSB telling Karpichkov that "something bad [wa]s going to happen with [him] and seven other people, including Mr. Skripal", whom he then knew nothing about.[155] Karpichkov said he disregarded the message at the time, thinking it was not serious, as he had previously received such messages.[155] According to Karpichkov, the FSB′s list includes the names of Oleg Gordievsky and William Browder.

Reason

(WP:povsource) In terms of an ex spy who wrote a book. Most of his story seemed fictitious.

I support your edits on these. I was not satisfied with Karpichkov's reliability, calling it heresay at best, if you check the talk page archives. MartinezMD (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but if the content is reliably sourced, there is nothing in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines that permits users to remove cited content based on their own opinion of whether story "seemed ficticious", or whether or not a quoted person is reliable. That's for users to determine. If you have reason to disagree with the Karpichkov story, perhaps you could add some critical commentary on it. As for the Daily Beast, it's a perfectly reliable source for that quotation, even if, in your opinion, it is a "POV source". Endymion.12 (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

You also removed other cited content (Press Association) not mentioned above, and neglected to mention that the LDPR quotation was also cited with a link to the Echo of Moscow as well as the Daily Beast, so to my eyes this just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT behaviour. Endymion.12 (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• First of all, it was well sourced. Important here is not the place of the publication, but the author (that is Amy Knight- see the ref). In addition, there were references to the Echo of Moscow and BBC in this edit. This is also directly relevant to the subject, including the claims by Karpichkov. My very best wishes (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Endymion.12 I'm quoting you here "there is nothing in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines that permits users to remove cited content based on their own opinion of whether story "seemed ficticious" Really? that's the whole point please read WP:BIASEDSOURCES. There is critical commentary, infact from 2 users, myself and MartinezMD. The Daily Beast article is bias, the second source I cannot read. DRALGOS ^♕ 16:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Just realised I missed that section. Thankyou.DRALGOS ^♕ 15:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:INTERVIEW, "Interviews are generally reliable for the fact that the interviewee said something, but not necessarily for the accuracy of what was said.", and there is further policy. The bottom line is that the citation may reliably report what Karpichkov said, but not that it is necessarily true. In this regard it is a primary source all day and heresay. The new agency did not verify what he told. Furthermore "No matter how highly respected a publication is, it does not present interviewee responses as having been checked for accuracy. In this sense, interviews should be treated like self-published material." So I think the Karpichkov section should be minimized and the reader can chose to read the source article if they want to read more. I think until his statements can be corroborated by an unrelated source, it's more of a primary source no matter who reports it. MartinezMD (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Content

On 19 July the Press Association reported that police believed they had identified "several Russians" as the suspected perpetrators of the attack. They had been identified through CCTV, cross-checked with border entry data.

Reason

All guessing and finger pointing in this story, nothing concrete and has seemed to disappear. DRALGOS ^♕ 15:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a Press Association report about a statement by UK police. What exactly does "guessing and finger pointing" have to do with this? Who is "guessing and finger pointing"? Endymion.12 (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Well if you read the article its opening line is "Police are believed to have identified the suspected perpetrators.Detectives think". It's pure conjecture with out a single fact. DRALGOS ^♕ 16:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It isn't "pure conjecture"—ostensibly it's information from a source "with knowledge of the investigation" published by a reputable outlet. It's cited, relevant coverage, and you have no basis in the policies or guidelines for removing it. I'm not sure that you know what 'conjecture' means. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

my feeling is that it would be more prudent to hold off including the statement for the moment and to wait to see if there is an official announcement. The report does not seem to be an official announcement and seems too speculative to appear in an encyclopaedia at least until some dust has settled. Newspapers have different standards. For that reason, I don’t think everything that appears in a newspaper, even if it is a RS, should be uncritically included in Wikipedia.

Burrobert 16:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

@Dralgos: Please do not remove cited content without a consensus, thanks. Endymion.12 (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Once again, the removal of publication by Amy Knight was completely unjustified. She 'is' a reliable source on the subject as a historian who specializes in the history of KGB operations.

@Endymion.12: Please do not restore disputed content as per WP:CON. Please read talk page archives @MartinezMD: notes. The content has been disputed from the beginning and you do not have the consensus to restore it. DRALGOS ^♕ 15:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? Could you please provide a link to the relevant discussion on talk page of this article? My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@Dralgos: You are the user removing cited content/making changes, and therefore you should provide policy-based justifications for this, not me. Please follow WP:BRD. It would help if you could clearly state, with reference to policy, why you want remove this content. Your comments so far have been rather vague ("poorly sourced"), or have been statements of opinion about the story. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge with 2018 Amesbury poisonings

This is now the same criminal case investigated by British police [23]. It tells: "The investigation [of poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal] became a murder inquiry earlier this month when Ms Sturgess, 44, a mother of three died after she was accidentally poisoned by Novichok." My very best wishes (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge primarily for sake of clarity. The UK investigation has unveiled nothing to this date so until this investigation is complete I suggest we do not merge. Also there is mention and link of it in this article. DRALGOS ^♕ 15:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It may or may not be merged, but the the content about investigation of this event (Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal), including the death of Ms Sturgess, must be properly described on this page - per sources like the one cited above, and Ms Sturgess must be included in the victims in the infobox of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:15, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Bogus. The events were two separate events DRALGOS ^♕ 15:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

If the pages were to be merged, the page ought to be renamed. Endymion.12 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Any your suggestions about renaming are welcome, but I do not really see any good alternative name. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Remain seperate. They are related incidents but not part of a single combined action. Richard Avery (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note this has already been discussed, a bit more extensively than above, at the other Talk page Talk:2018 Amesbury poisonings#Merge. My not-very-strong opinion is to leave them separate for the time being because: a) so easier to follow the more recent incident, b) looks quite tricky to fit into article as the timeline with respect to the Responses/Expulsion of diplomats would become awkward, c) the article would need to be renamed. Rwendland (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I would definitely prefer to merge, but there is nothing really wrong with keeping both pages - agree. But I think that "Amesbury poisonings" should be more prominently described on this page as the same criminal case. My very best wishes (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I support merging the articles. It might be best to wait until the police investigation is finished to avoid endless discussion generated by people who will inevitably insist these may be unrelated incidents. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I have the same opinion. Can't envision how they aren't related, but would wait for the investigation.MartinezMD (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Suspected perpetrators, again

Per my edit summary, I wasn't aware that the arbitration closed yesterday. The closing statement reads as follows:

This appears to be a one-against-many dispute with one or two editors insisting, against all other reliable sources, that we can't say that there is strong evidence that the Russians did it.

The closing summary also suggests that those editors who are still unhappy with the parameter file an WP:RfC. I would therefore suggest that User:Mock wurzel soup cease continuing to war over the infobox parameter, which would probably be considered disruptive, and instead do as suggested at WP:DNR. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

You now seem to be accusing me of being a vandal or a troll. All I am trying to do is to enforce Wikipedia:SPECULATION. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

My advice is to open an WP:RfC or to leave it alone. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. MartinezMD (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Latvian connection

This reference [24] which is claimed to implicate Russia, could equally well be used to implicate Latvia. Quote: "Trained KGB killer Boris Karpichkov today said he was ordered to poison Gordon for betraying one of the FSB’s networks to the Latvian security service". This implies that "Gordon" (the alleged Salisbury poisoner) was a double agent working for Latvia. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It does to me. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

US sanctions

Not sure if this gets a new section of if we add it to existing areas or even wait until the specifics are released.

• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-hit-russia-new-sanctions-skripal-poisoning-n898856
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/new-russia-sanctions-will-likely-target-oligarchs-close-putin-n862996

MartinezMD (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Who do you mean?

I see "suspected perpetrators" has now been linked to FSB. Does this mean Federal Security Service (Russia) or Bolivian Socialist Falange or Trade Union Social Citizens List (Denmark)? The list of suspects is widening. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it - it no longer links to the disambiguation page. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: What “says FSB”? Endymion.12 (talk) 10:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Endymion.12: If you are referring to this edit, you should ping Volunteer Marek. And yes, which of the 195 citations in this article says FSB? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I pinged the wrong user. Endymion.12 (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

The one being discussed below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's this one.[25] Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That one was floated back in April. Handsome devil! Shtove (talk) 12:23, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

After three weeks

It appears that note 4 only supports that, at some non-specified day, Yulia regained consciousness and was able to speak. The claim that that time occurred “after three weeks” is not supported – even by the links in the citation. I'm new at this, but isn't this a "verification needed" case? Bob the Moore boy (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

if you were correct, you'd be correct. One of the two sources, dated 5 April, says "I woke up over a week ago now and am glad to say my strength is growing daily,", which would be about 3 weeks after the poisoning. MartinezMD (talk) 03:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. A more specific reference would now be the Reuters posting of May 23 where Yulia is quoted as saying, "After 20 days in a coma, I woke to the news that we had both been poisoned." It's url is https://www.reuters.com/article/britain-russia-skripal-yulia/text-yulia-skripal-daughter-of-poisoned-russian-spy-in-her-own-words-idUSL5N1SU4TZ Bob the Moore boy (talk) 02:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it as an additional citation. If you're new, the practice will come in handy ;) MartinezMD (talk) 03:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I would like to add it at some time. I will study more on how to do it. It is too daunting now.Bob the Moore boy (talk) 02:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Here, copy this into the article and fill in the sections. If you make an error, one of us will correct it for you. Don't feel intimidated. Just don't use the "nowiki" (you will see it when you edit this page) that I added to let you see this as plain text. MartinezMD (talk) 03:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC) <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author=<!--Not stated--> |date= |website= |publisher= |access-date= |quote=}}</ref>

I filled in the sections but I don't know how to copy the results into the article.Bob the Moore boy (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Towards the top of the article, is the "edit" tab/button. If you click it, the article will open up with all the code and markup showing. It is no different than how you write on this page now. Just find the section you're looking for; then add the portion you want. You can also look here for a little more help. MartinezMD (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

ThanksBob the Moore boy (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome and well done. Your source also says her date of discharge was 9 April, so I edited the article to that effect. MartinezMD (talk) 03:33, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

On Guy Verhofstadt's relevance in this article

I fail to see what Guy Verhofstadt's reaction has to do with this article. He may be the European Parliament "chief Brexit liaison", but what is the relation with Brexit in this article on something totally different? Also, this function of his is unsourced here. I clearly explained this in my edit summaries. If his reaction is relevant, it should at least be for a function of his, which would in my opinion be that of Member of the European Parliament. Lastly, I don't think mentioning him is relevant here. Wakari07 (talk) 21:10, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Restored per my edit summary. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Wakari07 (talk) 21:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected perpetrators parameter RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

What should appear against the "suspected perpetrators" parameter? Endymion.12 (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Change from Agents of Russian GRU to Russian state. I can't find any references in the article which specifically allege that the attack was carried out by agents of the GRU. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Leave out "suspected perpetrators" until suspects have been named by the Police. The suspicions of Sajid Javid and Boris Johnson are no more than speculation. It is up to the Police to decide who the suspects are. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We've just gone through this. Go to RFC for persistent disagreement. May, the PM, accuses the Russians, not just a division of the UK government. This is an issue of undue weight and reliable sources, not every possible scenario. MartinezMD (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think Russian state is fine. I had at one point linked to Government of Russia, but anything to that effect I'm in agreement. MartinezMD (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. All RS like here, tell that were GRU assassins, and I did not see any sources telling FSB. My very best wishes (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep (invited by the bot) This is obviously referring to who was behind it, not the hit man. I'm skeptical about feeling a need to fill out info box parameters....each is a statement subject to wp:ver. But it's sourced that this suspicion is widespread. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. There seem to be sufficient reliable sources to suggest that Russia are widely suspected by non-fringe groups to be behind this, and the parameter doesn't specify "suspects named by the police". Any further nuance can be (and is) covered in the text of the article. Anaxial (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
• Keep [26], [27], [28] say police *are believed* to have identified "two Russian" suspects through "cross-checking CCTV footage with records of people entering the country around the time of the attack". Wakari07 (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
• Put back to Agents of Russian GRU now that Charges have been announced along with PM announcement that it was GRU.RonaldDuncan (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tabloid gossip

This is, in my opinion, tabloid-sourced gossip. Also, the (Sunday) Times has been condemned previously for spreading slander. Wakari07 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it's correctly defined as "gossip", but an anonymous source, discussing an uncorroborated "package" that is not clearly identified is just not reliable information. I've removed it. MartinezMD (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You're probably right that the word 'gossip' is inaccurate, but I found no better term. Thanks for your reaction. Wakari07 (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, I believe that it was worth mentioning, since this information appeared in the leading news media, such as "The Times", and no matter how accurate this information is. But since there is a consensus against, I will not argue.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The impossible photo

Craig Murray has pointed out that the two suspects were photographed separately at Gatwick Airport in the same place at the same time to the exact second.[29] I also notice that, in this BBC report [30], the two men have auras when photographed in Salisbury, making it look as though their photos were pasted on. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we might need to know about the "PAUSE" function on the equipment that the Met were using to examine that CCTV there. Or is that definitely raw footage? If those were the only two photos, that might look a bit suspicious. But taken together with all the other CCTV footage? Was Salisbury particularly popular for Russian male couples this year? Maybe Craig's got a holiday let in Amesbury at reasonable rates? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't be any simpler.See response from Firebrace below. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Those are two identical corridors in Gatwick airport. The camera angles are different, there is a black thing in the top-left corner of the first image which is absent from the second, and the barrier to Petrov's left is parallel with the railings, while the barrier to Boshirov's left is not. Firebrace (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

My question is, why aren't there any other passengers in the photos? Are there two corridors for Novichok suspects and another corridor for everybody else? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Your question should be directed to the Met Police who issued the stills and not to a Wikipedia talk page. You can find the email address at http://news.met.police.uk/news/counter-terrorism-police-release-images-of-two-suspects-in-connection-with-salisbury-attack-320534. Firebrace (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think those corridors are quite narrow. But in any case, passengers filter through with gaps between them? Your question might be better directed to UK Border Agency or the management of Gatwick Airport? But Firebrace is right, this Talk page may not be the best place. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The reason I put it on the talk page was to find out whether there was any interest in putting it in the article. The answer appears to be no. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Craig Murray's blog is not a WP:reliable source, and even if it was, he's wrong. Look at CCTV stills on the Met Police website (not the cropped versions on his blog), and you can see a red sign in the bottom-right corner of one image (link) and a red stripe on the other (link), further proving they are different passageways. Firebrace (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Found more information. There are several passageways but they all have the same red notice so it is the camera angle that makes the red bits look different.[31] Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

So we are all now agreed:

1. They are two different photographs.
2. They are from cameras in two different passageways.
3. They are of two different men.
4. They were, coincidentally, taken at exactly the same time (to the nearest second).

Yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

OK. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

There's a row of six 'non-return gates' separating airside from groundside at Gatwick International Arrivals North Terminal. They open automatically as you approach and then close behind you to keep the airside zone secure. Two people walking side by side will just continue walking side by side through the gates with only a glass partition between them for a few feet. Each gate has a camera at the groundside end to record each passenger face-on. Two people walking side by side through the gates will naturally present each camera with its best shot at the same second. Khamba Tendal (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Which Novichok?

Six months on, still the question: which member of the "Novichok" family of agents? Russia said it could have been A-234. Why doesn't the UK say something? The OPCW today said [32] [33] that the the Amesbury and this Salisbury poisonings were "of the same kind" but that it was unable to determine whether "from the same batch". Wakari07 (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

We don't know, and the UK government isn't saying. So regardless of the reason, this will remain unanswered for now. MartinezMD (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

At least the OPCW seems make the nuance between 'kind' and 'instance' of molecule. Wakari07 (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Another statement of the OPCW is even more specific, saying "It is also the same toxic chemical that was found in the biomedical and environmental samples relating to the poisoning of Mr Sergei Skripal...", the same. These extremely sensitive political events with chemical poisonings or other assassination methods clearly have motivations throughout all of history that are kept from the public. The exact reasons, agents involved, etc may never be known. All we can do is write what it reliably published. MartinezMD (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You write 'another statement of the OPCW'. I was not aware of several/different OPCW statements on 4 September on this article's subject. Wakari07 (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The misunderstanding appears clearly after I read the summary page [34] and the 2-page OPCW report. [35] According to the OPCW, Amesbury and Salisbury indeed are the "same (...) chemical". But "the impurity profiles of the samples available to the OPCW do not make it possible to draw conclusions as to whether the samples are from the same synthesis batch." So that's settled. In its last point: "The name and structure of the identified toxic chemical are contained in the full classified report of the Secretariat, available to all States Parties," it confirms that the formula is classified. But why? Since Russia is also a "States Party" and it has always said it's supposed to be A-234. So why play it stupid? What does it help the UK to play (instance/class) word games with this? Wakari07 (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

We're still up against the same brick wall, as debated here in March and April. The real issue is why our reliable sources aren't pursuing this information. Shtove (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, at least we can identify it as a brick wall, that helps my headache ;-) Wakari07 (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What difference does it make? Firebrace (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Novichok is a term for a class of nerve agents, each with its own distinct chemical formula and structure. The UK and OPCW claim to have identified which agent was used, but refuse to reveal that information. If they presented their case in court and refused to make that revelation, the case would be dismissed. That's the difference. Novichok is a useful term for TV spy dramas and propaganda campaigns. Shtove (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You say "refuse" like you have some kind of right to know. The government has decided that it's not in the public interest to reveal that information. If the case ever goes to trial then the government will give its evidence in a closed session to protect national security. Firebrace (talk) 17:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

So the UK would be proud of that kind of 'system'? Did you see the current state of 'justice' in Egypt in Saturday's current events? That's after five years of 'investigations'. I certainly want to be a citizen in a country where I have the right to know. Wakari07 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Then move to a country where you have the right to know those kind of details. Oh wait, there are none. Firebrace (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The talk page is to discuss edits to the article. Can we keep the off-topic comments to another forum? MartinezMD (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The point at hand is: why not determine which Novichok? That should be explained to the reader. Wakari07 (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Who says it wasn't determined? Perhaps it was, perhaps it wasn't. All we know is that the specific agent, identified or not, has not been released and no reliable source has given a reason. Anything else would be speculation. MartinezMD (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course it was determined. Nobody ever said the contrary. Wakari07 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Timings

Off topic. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are some problems with the timings. According to the Police [36] "Image three shows the suspects at 16.11 on Saturday, 3 March at Salisbury train station about to catch a train back to London. Image four captures the suspects at 11.48 on Sunday 4 March having returned to Salisbury. Here they are seen exiting Salisbury railway station. Image five shows the suspects ten minutes later - at 11.58 - on Wilton Road, Salisbury, we say, moments before the attack". Are the police now retracting the "poison on the door handle" theory? According to the Wikipedia article, the Skripals left their house before 9.15 am on the Sunday so the suspects, arriving in Salisbury at 11.48 am, would have been too late to put the poison on the door handle. This means either that they poisoned the door handle on the Saturday before 16.11 or that the poison was administered in some other way on the Sunday, after 11.48 am. Comments please. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Aside, I was just wondering which flights the two took. I wasn't immediately able to book a direct flight from Moscow to Gatwick, so to say. Wakari07 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC) It happened six months ago. Maybe Aeroflot no longer flies to Gatwick. I know it's crazy... Firebrace (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC) The suspects arrived on Aeroflot SU2588 Sheremetyevo-Gatwick at 3pm Friday 3 March. That flight has not operated since 24 March. They left on Aeroflot SU2585 Heathrow-Sheremetyevo at 10.30pm Sunday 5 March. That flight still operates. Khamba Tendal (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC) I have the answer. The Skripals went out twice on the Sunday, the second time about 13.30.[37] Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2018 (UTC) So the poisoning of the door handle was done in broad daylight between about 12 noon and 13.30. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC) So it seems. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC) People do brandish perfume bottles in broad daylight, don't they? Even some male couples? I guess they could have posed as gay Jehovah's Witnesses? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Quite possibly. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC) I know, they posed as travelling perfume salesmen. The Skripals didn't buy any so they smeared it on the door handle instead. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC) ...lacking copies of The Watchtower, but with Russian accents and beanie hats. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC) I think we'll be told off for misusing talk pages if this goes on. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC) In the timeline in the Wikipedia article, we have nothing between 9.15 and 13.30 on Sunday. It now seems almost certain that the Skripals returned to their house after the morning visit to the cemetery but I can find no sources to support this. Can anyone else find one? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC) There is an alternative timeline here.[38] I'm sure WP won't accept this blog as a reliable source but there may be other sources. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Yes, theblogmire.com. Well it seems to concentrate on the order in which the Skripals visited The Mill and Zizzi's. It says very little about "the duck feed" and nothing at all about the missing 4 hours? I note that one of the sources quoted is The Daily Mail. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC) More about the duck feed here.[39] Mock wurzel soup (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC) So how does the blogger suggest that D.S. Bailey became contaminated, if not from the door handle? Not that we should be discussing sources that have no chance of being used in the article, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2018 (UTC) Perhaps they smeared the door handle first, then realized they were too late because the Skripals had already gone out. They then went into the town centre, found the Skripals, and poisoned them there. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC) If that were so, I assume we would have already seen CCTV images of the two suspects in the vicinity of the restaurant or pub, and an adjusted timeline to match. So that seems extremely unlikely to me. I guess the police may well have CCTV images of the Skripals that they have not made public. But this is all speculation. I think we'll be told off for misusing talk pages if this goes on. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you guys are wasting a lot of time and space here. Truly no offense is intended, but you're trying to be detectives when this is an encyclopedia. Our roles aren't even that of an investigative reporter. I think this discussion would be better suited in a different forum. MartinezMD (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. Feel free to hat if you think that will deter others. Although it's not that much space. Nor time. We've not yet quite got to the level of "Conspiracy theories surrounding the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal". But there are certainly still gaps in the story. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have created a redirect: Conspiracy theories surrounding the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that would be a good solution if there is enough notability for an article. I have similar (although not quite to the same degree) thoughts about "The impossible photo" and "Which Novichok" sections on the talk page. MartinezMD (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I have expanded the hat. Endymion.12 (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The addition of that new section at List of conspiracy theories has been made in perfectly good faith and might be useful in alerting readers to this article. But as it stands, I think it may be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, as it relies wholly on the primary source - Craig Murray's own blog. Don't we'd need a secondary RS source that describes Murray's views as a "conspiracy theory"? I'm not sure that even Murray himself uses the work "conspiracy". Of course there might be others that could be similarly added. There's another blogsite here, but the blogger is not notable, it seems.Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: You seem to have linked to someone else's blog. Craig Murray's site is at https://www.craigmurray.org.uk. Craig has actually accepted that the photos are plausible given the design of the gates. He has added this to his initial article: "I am prepared to acknowledge that, given the gate design, they could have passed through different gates in exact synchronicity and this may be a red herring. I am leaving this post up here as it is good to acknowledge mistakes". Burrobert 12:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burrobert (talk • contribs)

Thanks. I have now corrected that. So yes, by his own admission, Murray's "conspiracy theory" has now somewhat evaporated? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a big deal, there will be many more. You just need not pay attention to it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

If I don't need to pay attention to it, why does the reader need to see it in a Wikipedia article? I'm not really sure why there would be any more, let alone "many more." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

My point is that all these "conspiracy theories" are not needed in Wikipedia. They will be evaporated, but Russia will ensure the influx of more and more, we have seen this repeatedly.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I obviously disagree. We need to maintain WP:NPOV. For instance, since there is an "other party" in this article, its point of view should get a fair representation—as in "right to a fair trial", you know? Wakari07 (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should represent the viewpoint (one) of the "other party", rather than the entire range of short-term conspiracy theories that it fabricates.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The article says quite plainly that "... the poisoning has been officially declared to be a fabrication and a "grotesque provocation rudely staged by the British and U.S. intelligence agencies" to undermine Russia." But I don't see "the influx of more and more" conspiracy theories. Russia seems to me to have now given up with their comments. Or are you suggesting that the two bloggers, who have so far been mentioned, are covertly working on behalf of the Russian government? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

My word, whatever was I thinking. Even the most inventive blogger couldn't manage anything as extraordinary as the Salisbury Cathedral tourist narrative. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The article says quite plainly - and I think that this is quite enough. There is no need to supplement this viewpoint with ever new conspiracy theories from ever new bloggers.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The BBC meanwhile has a well-sourced report on the Russian disinformation campaign which is such a notable feature of the case and is the source of the conspiracy theories. (Clearly there was a conspiracy, but equally clearly it was a conspiracy by Russian state actors, who are therefore inclined to blow smoke.) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45454142

Quotes:'A loosely-defined network of Russian state actors, state-controlled media, and armies of social media bots and trolls is said to work in unison to spread and amplify multiple narratives and conspiracies around cases like the Skripal poisoning. The goal is no longer to deny or disprove an official version of events, it is to flood the zone with so many competing versions that nothing seems to make sense.

"What is really striking is that you no longer see the Russian machine pushing a single message, it pushes dozens of messages," said Ben Nimmo, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council who studies Russian disinformation. "The idea is to confuse people." '

And: '"MH-17 is really the classic example," said Samantha Bradshaw, a researcher on computational propaganda at the University of Oxford.

"You saw a whole series of different conspiracies and competing narratives emerge, attached to various hashtags and social media campaigns. The goal was to confuse people, to polarise them, to push them further and further away from reality."

The technique expanded and evolved in the years after the MH-17 attack, with Russia linked to disinformation campaigns around its actions in Syria, the 2016 US election, the murder of Boris Nemtsov, and a UK inquiry into the murder of former Russian intelligence officer Alexander Litvinenko in London.' Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova certainly jumped on the internet bandwagon there. And yes, it seems that the BBC has decided that Murray is a "pro-Russia conspiracy theorist" and those who spread his suggestion used "suspected troll accounts". But Russian has given no alternative account of these these too men were? MI6 stooges, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC) p.s. but I doubt we'd want to mention MH17 in this article.

The BBC article doesn't mention Murray, as it happens, though his comments on Syria and other matters are always pro-Russian, perhaps for personal contrarian reasons of his own: he doesn't like the British government, which sacked him from a plum job. The Russians have said they don't know who the Skripal suspects are. British sources have told journalists that they do know who they are, but aren't publicly giving their real names for fear of a tit-for-tat 'naming war'. In any case the Russians do of course know who they are and Russia, like France, refuses to extradite its own citizens, so there's nothing to be gained. 'MI6 stooges' is an odd thing to say. They're clearly claimed to be GRU officers. I'd only point out that omitting the definite or indefinite article ('a,' 'an' or 'the'), as in your phrase, 'Murray is "pro-Russia conspiracy theorist",' tends to carry certain implications in regard to the speaker's or writer's origin. Native English speakers almost never omit the article, even as a typo, but Russians, however well schooled in English, often do, simply because the Russian language has no articles, the use of articles doesn't come naturally to Russians and it's the easiest thing to overlook. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Not wishing to appear like a Russian speaker, I have quickly corrected my grammar error, hoping no-one with notice. Vlad the Fragrant Impaler 123 (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Photos of suspected perpetrators

And what about the photos of the suspects from the Metropolitan Police? Can anyone add them to the article?--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

What is their copyright status? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not know much about copyright issues.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I suspect we'd have to ask Inspector Knacker of the Yard to create his own account at Commons and upload them himself, with the EXIF data, and together with the appropriate free license declaration. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And what about an option to upload a photo not on Commons, but in en-wiki?--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are the licence details [40] but I don't understand them. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I see what you mean. "© All rights reserved (allow download) (?)" looks like a particularly homemade licence to me. I'm also surprised if the police claimed ownership of these images. Surely the CTTV systems at Gatwick Airport are not run by the police? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

You can always make a Fair Use argument, but I don't think unproven suspect photos would hold enough weight at this stage. MartinezMD (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

And why? The fact is that in addition to deliberately fictitious names, there is simply nothing to say about suspects, only photos. There are an incredibly large number of "Alexandrov Petrov"s in Russia, and they have already begun to take some Alexander Petrov and claim that he could not be in London at that moment: [41]--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You'd also have to give regard to WP:BLPCRIME which says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material ... that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." I'm doubtful that showing photos of suspects would be compatible with that, even though this is high profile. Rwendland (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

They have been convicted by the British Government without a trial. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

For WP:BALANCE we might add a nice picture of a bare-breasted Vladimir Putin? Wakari07 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we can guess the sort of image you have in mind. But it might be considered anti-horse. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Mmmm, are you suggesting the hobbits of Al-Qaedada did it? Wakari07 (talk) 02:56, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

For relatively unknown people... - I think, here is another case. The level of discussion of these persons and the attention to them are extremely high.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC):

I think you are right. But it this case, is it clear who owns copyright and what that copyright statement means? Or does it not matter? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't know. Copyright laws make me crazy. It seems to me that the copyright belongs to the Metropolitan Police ([42]), but photos can be published under Fair Use.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't say © Metropolitan Police, it just says copyright, which they are – with or without a copyright notice. Firebrace (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)