Jump to content

Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Suspects and attack timeline

There's not much of a timeline in this section. Also, nobody has tried to explain how the Skripals were poisoned by the door handle at 9.15am when the poison wasn't put on the door handle until after 11.48am. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

This is the same discussion you initiated above—we're not going to explain any of this, or suggest that it is unexplained. We report reliable third-party coverage. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The timeline, such that it is, is in the Poisoning section. But 9:15 says "... the car of Sergei Skripal was seen in the area of London Road, Churchill Way North and Wilton Road at Salisbury." Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Seriously enough. You're bordering on disruptive. MartinezMD (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Is that a threat? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Like I'm going to take your lunch? really? Use common sense. MartinezMD (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that we should at least ask the question "How can you be poisoned by a door handle before it has been contaminated", even if we can't answer it. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Sergei and Yulia didn't leave the house to go to Zizzi until about 13.40. CCTV shows the suspects on the way back from their presumed visit to the house by 13.05. Sergei and Yulia were at Zizzi from about 14.20 to 15.35 and were found collapsed on a park bench near the Maltings, resulting in a 999 ambulance call about 16.15. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/05/novichok-poisoning-what-we-know-so-far And dermal absorption of nerve agents is slow, and prompt medical intervention (particularly but not exclusively the administration of atropine) is known to be effective. http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/04/06/myth-busting-why-didn-t-the-skripals-die-on-the-spot (The author of that article is a former US Army officer and US Secret Service agent specialised in chemical-warfare defence.) Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Park benches in Salisbury aren't very well-known for their stocks of atropine. But thanks for telling us. If the suspects were on their way back by 13.05, they could not have have poisoned the Skripals after that time, yes? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Have you been to Salisbury? I bet a good proportion of the population (certainly the older blokes) could quote Survive To Fight from memory. There are still two pubs in the centre where 70 year old mercs drink in one or the other, but not both. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The hospital had stocks of atropine. And making fart noises with your armpit isn't particularly clever. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

How do the stocks of atropine at the hospital fit with the "suspects and attack timeline" exactly? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Per User: MartinezMD's comment in the section above which closed the prior discussion on this exact same topic, can we please stop discussing things which are not related to the building of the encyclopedia. This talk page isn't a forum for discussing whether we believe the official narrative is credible. If there has been significant commentary of this issue in the press/WP:RS (there hasn't) it can be mentioned, but in such a way that the article only states what these various commentators have said, and doesn't imply that there is some kind of unanswered difficulty in the official narrative. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I consult an encyclopedia to learn something useful, not to be brainwashed again by official narrative. There is a too serious risk of collusion between reliable source and official narrative. Wakari07 (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
There are two official narratives, and both are given due weight in this article. Firebrace (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Brainwashing, official narratives, reasons for reading WP, regardless of any of that, the article can only get what is reliably sourced. So, someone make an appropriate proposal for an edit (something reliably sourced that does not add undue weight) or simply stop the distraction please. I will disengage for a while as I find having to read all these threads wasteful of my time. I'll check in at another time. MartinezMD (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
MartinezMD out, Boshirov and Petrov in. They appear on RT (not RS of course, but still) to deny all charges and claim an 'extraordinary, fatal coincidence'. (TASS) Wakari07 (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, too bad they couldn't battle their way through all that snow and slush to visit the Cathedral on the first day. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Pf-pf-pf. According to their words (by the way, everyone who talks about their "lies" and "unreliability" should have worked hard and found the full text of the interview instead of the propaganda summaries of the BBC), they tried to visit Stonehenge on March 3, but could not get there because the roads were blocked, and returned to London, spending no more than an hour in Salisbury. They again came to Salisbury on March 4 and visited the cathedral and Old Sarum. But "there at lunchtime began such a downpour of snow, that they left ahead of time." Of course, people in Russia treat their words with some distrust, but not because they are supposed agents of the GRU (by the way, now there is no organization with such a name), but because their business seems to be on the verge of fraud. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 05:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian has a piece on the suspects' interview and some of the problems with it. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/13/skripal-suspects-account-of-salisbury-trip-does-not-add-up For instance, the suspects claimed they couldn't reach the cathedral on Saturday because of the snow in the streets, but local newspaper photos show people were going about as normal. (I would add that the cathedral, with its famous 123-metre spire, is clearly visible in front of you, at just 1200 yards' distance, as you step out of the station. It's about 12 minutes' walk and was perfectly doable that Saturday. Also the Stonehenge Tour Bus, departing every 30 minutes, parks directly outside the station and is fairly unmissable, and the bus company has tweeted that services were indeed running on both Saturday and Sunday despite the snow, and Stonehenge was open to visitors, as the management's Twitter feed confirms. Stonehenge is a unique World Heritage Site, on everyone's bucket list. Even President Obama asked to be helicoptered there after a NATO summit and was delighted to have 'knocked this off my bucket list.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-29083959 You don't fly all the way to England from Russia, and then traipse from London to Salisbury, to see Stonehenge, and then not bother because it's a bit snowy, even though the bus is right there and you're Russian and have lived half your life in snow.) The suspects claim they did visit the cathedral on the Sunday, and one of them mentioned correctly that there's really nothing else to see in Salisbury, yet CCTV shows them walking on Wilton Road, in the opposite direction -- the way to Sergei Skripal's house, not the cathedral. The RT interviewer failed to ask the suspects if they have wives or girlfriends, or why it was a boys-only outing. The BBC has a summary including No.10's 'insult to the public's intelligence' quote and a timeline. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45509697 Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for telling us about Barack's bucket list helicopter. There were quite a few questions that the RT interviewer "chose not to ask", weren't there. The BBC news report on TV tonight said that there was no CCTV record of the two anywhere near the Cathedral (although it didn't actually explain if the Cathedral itself has CCTV coverage). I think the two also claimed to have "taken some pictures" (also not shown in the interview, I believe). Martinevans123 (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
The cathedral does have CCTV, yes. And the bishop has said there is nothing to connect those men to the cathedral. And their story of being unable to reach the cathedral on Saturday is clearly false -- the cathedral's only a little over half a mile from the station, it's visible from the station forecourt and of course you could walk it that day -- and their story of being unable to reach Stonehenge on Sunday is also false. The roads were still quite bad on Saturday and English Heritage tweeted that Stonehenge and Old Sarum were closed, but by Sunday the thaw was well underway, the mercury hit 9C, the buses were running and Stonehenge was open from 10am to 5pm, last tickets at 3pm, and EH sold about 1,200 tickets to the monument, averaging four a minute, so cars and buses were arriving pretty steadily. Yet the two sports nutritionists went to all the trouble of slogging from Bow to Waterloo, a not insignificant trip in itself, then from Waterloo to Salisbury, a 90-minute rail journey, for a second time, and they still didn't bother to visit Stonehenge, the supposed object of the odyssey, and instead went to see a modern suburban housing development in Salisbury's northwestern outskirts, a visit for which they have no explanation, and then went back to London and caught a plane from Heathrow, wasting the alternate return tickets to Moscow on the Monday which they'd bought and paid for. For some reason. And they clearly can't explain why the Metropolitan Police found traces of Novichok in their Bow hotel room, which is why RT didn't ask them about that. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Khamba Tendal, do you have a source for that statement by Nick Holtam? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, yeah. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/14/salisbury-reaction-it-would-be-comical-but-for-the-fact-someone-died And https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-uk/the-russian-fitness-instructors-who-wanted-to-see-salisbury-cathedral-but-ended-up-poisoning-sergei-skripal And https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/ten-questions-over-skripal-attack-suspects-account-of-visit-to-salisbury-a3935756.html And https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/salisbury-cathedral-bishop-russian-attack-novichok-story/ (The bishop's words to Radio 4's Today programme, concerning the sports nutritionists' spire-high story, were, 'It doesn't really add up, does it?' and 'There's nothing to link [them with] the cathedral that we have got, or I think that anyone has got.') Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

And the trip from Moscow to Salisbury is worth it also to "scout for nutrition products"?? What international cachet exactly does Salisbury have to offer in the way of "nutrition products", one wonders. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC) ... ah yes. it all fits... first deadly nerve agent and now mercury, you say.
Well, they said they were on holiday (a weirdly rushed and unrelaxed holiday) rather than sourcing bodybuilding supplements, Salisbury not being a known centre of that industry. (But then their pseudonyms do not appear in the Russian database of company directors and executives, not in pharmaceuticals or any other field.) They did mention they'd been to Switzerland recently, where Russian intelligence has expressed an interest in the Spiez laboratory for Salisbury and Syria-related OPCW reasons. The Dutch seem to think they're not the same Russian spies expelled for trying to hack into Spiez, though there are reports of a connection between that attack, the Salisbury attack and the Russian attempt to penetrate the anti-doping agency WADA.

https://twitter.com/JPZanders/status/1040858790126673920

https://twitter.com/XSovietNews/status/1040861072020910080

Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes, "there are reports of a connection". And some Twitter posts. I think we might be heading back into the WP:OR realms of conspiracy theories there. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Prezzo incident

I added the following:

On 16 September, fears of Novichok contamination flared up again after two people fell ill at the Prezzo restaurant, 300m from the Zizzi location where the Skripals had eaten before collapsing. The restaurant, a nearby pub, and surrounding streets have been cordoned off, with some patrons under observation or unable to leave the area.[1]

  1. ^ Associated Press. "Roads shut after 2 fall ill in UK city where ex-spy poisoned". CBS8 News.

Minutes afterward, it was reverted, with the unsourced claim that it was a "probable hoax". Whether that means the UK cops and cordons and stories linking them to this incident are also a hoax I don't know. I was told to "re-write it" (how? well, in any way that wastes my time, I presume) and to "put it in the appropriate section" (but due to the unclear merge/split status of this article, there is none except in the lead). Wnt (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is to be included, we should steer well clear of both UK tabloids the Daily Mirror and The Sun. But it was featured on the national BBC News at Ten tonight. BBC News item is here. May be it is a hoax, or at least not yet properly explained, but still seems rather notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
According to The Telegraph, it was two people and their symptoms were consistent with Novichok poisoning.[1] This could be another hit, designed to make us believe that the real killer is still out there, and take the heat off Petrov and Boshirov and the GRU. Firebrace (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I just put it back in under Aftermath. I sorry I did not read the talk page first. I did not think it so controversial. In fact, it is kinda expected. They cordoned off the area, so it is not a hoax or the press trying to be sensational. I also do not find the prose as written by Wnt needs any re-writing. I am sure the readers of this article will understand that it could just be a false alarm. I imagine people living in the area are a bit on edge. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

This morning the BBC says there is no link, so I think it needs to be trimmed radically or removed entirely. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I think the placement in "Aftermath" with the statement there is no link is adequate. Just because it was a false alarm doesn't mean it is unimportant -- to the contrary, it shows that citizens of the town are, long term, left with the fear of the poison and of the police response to it. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I quite agree. Thank you for originally adding it. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I also agree, but sans the tabloids. --John (talk) 09:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Should this be included here?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/15/documents-show-novichok-salisbury-suspects-alexander-petrov-ruslan-boshirov-links-defence

Firebrace (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that article covers it quite well. Bellingcat, working with Fontanka and Novaya Gazeta, found that the two men's passports, with serial numbers only three digits apart, were issued simultaneously in 2009 under 'VIP' proceedings and that those identities had no previous existence -- no passports or internal passports (essential Russian ID documents) were issued for those identities before that time. And the 'No information to be given' stamp on Petrov's application carries the GRU headquarters phone number. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/14/skripal-poisoning-suspects-passport-data-shows-link-security-services/
People have called the number, and the people at the other end confirm it's a defence ministry number, and if you mention the sports nutritionists' names they hang up, like the RT person hung up on Kirsty Wark. Mark Urban of the BBC suggests that, in this open-source world, someone who knows either of those pseudonymous sports nutritionists in real life is going to say something, and their futures don't look great.
https://twitter.com/MarkUrban01/status/1040980362372022272 Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/09/15/russian-secret-services-crisis-fallout-botched-salisbury-attack. Firebrace (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Any concern about a reliable source quoting an unreliable source? Shtove (talk) 13:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Reliable sources appear confident that Bellingcat is reliable:
And the Kremlin has taken it seriously enough to issue a denial:
Firebrace (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Don't know what reliable English-language sources will do with it, but Proekt Media in Russia discovered the 'Boshirov' passport file as well, and it's under the same VIP proceeding and carries the same GRU 'Information not to be given' stamp, with the GRU's phone number, as the 'Petrov' file. https://twitter.com/AricToler/status/1041051177863938048 As Eliot Higgins of Bellingcat observes, the Russian Foreign Ministry's Twitter account has demanded to know whether these documents were hacked or bought from someone with access to the database -- thereby confirming that the documents are indeed genuine. https://twitter.com/EliotHiggins/status/1041261301044072448 It was always likely that Mrs May made the factual claim that the two men were GRU officers because she had sound intelligence to that effect. And the British have chosen to 'burn' them publicly. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Do they cite the same sources as Bellingcat? Are they considered reliable on Russian Wikipedia?
The Skripal case is effectively a trial by media. No legal procedure, only gossip and rumors. Why? And now we in the Wikipedia are writing the Skripal case with unreliable "media" like Bellingcat / The Insider / Proekt? Why?
TASS (http://tass.com/politics/1021728) : According to Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, Bellingcat’s experts failed to provide evidence that Petrov and Boshirov were linked to the Salisbury poisoning case ... "Moreover, it is most likely that this is a special agency, which is leaking misinformation under the cover of investigations." → Disinformation. --87.170.202.250 (talk) 10:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Why is there "no legal procedure"? Because Russia refuses to extradite there is no extradition treaty beteeen UK and Russia, through which the two only suspects to face trial in the UK (or anywhere else?). Martinevans123 (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Because the British don't want. The UK and Russia do not have any agreement about the exchange of wanted people! And Sue Hemming of the Crown Prosecution Service did not even apply to Russia for the extradition of Petrov and Boshirov. The British decision not to even seek extradition of Petrov and Boshirov signals case-closed so far as London is concerned. What has taken six months to publish these images!? The Russians repeatedly asked for a joint police investigation. It's the British who are refusing. Neil Basu, National Lead for Counter Terrorism Policing, was asked at his press conference if he had any evidence that the two men in the images were Russian State operatives, he answered simply, "No". --87.170.199.20 (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Have adjusted my comment above. I guess most of the world has seen a lot of the evidence of the involvement of the two men, in terms of the CCTV. You're saying that the British are stubbornly standing in the way of a joint police investigation, yes? Is that offer from Russia still on the table? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: Russia's law prevents the extradition of Russian citizens.[2] Firebrace (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Perhaps I've missed that in the article. As I have adjusted above, there's no treaty. Not a helpful law in the days of international terrorism and crime? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
No legal procedure, only gossip and rumors Petrov and Boshirov have been charged in their absence with attempted murder. As you should know, Russian law prohibits Russian authorities from extraditing the two suspects to face trial in the UK. However, they could fly back to the UK voluntarily, hand themselves in and go through the formal legal procedures... Firebrace (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
In fact, Julia Skripal is a Russian citizen. So, there are two people in Russia who, very likely, committed an assassination attempt on a Russian citizen. Russian officials can bring a criminal case, conduct formal interrogations, find out real names and all that. Instead, we observe a cover operation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they could fly back and hand themselves in. If they can prove their alibis they have nothing to fear. But I guess they could easily claim they'd never get a fair trial as most people have seen the prime evidence and think they are guilty. I guess the British government decided that the remote possibility of a conviction did not outweigh the value of releasing the evidence to the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Are you saying Russia could put two Russian citizens on trial for a crime that took place outside of their jurisdiction? I don't see how that is possible, and for security reasons the UK would be unable to hand over all its evidence to Russia. Firebrace (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it could. Article 12 of the Criminal Code speaks about this quite clearly.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:02, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
They also have been charged with attempted murder of Sergei Skripal and Nick Bailey. Bailey is not a Russian citizen, and I doubt that Skripal would wish to visit Russia and give evidence in the trial. Firebrace (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Is that offer from Russia still on the table? It's no an offer. It's a demand. The demand of a joint police investigation was renewed September 6, 2018 by Russia's ambassador to the United Nations Vassily Nebenzia in U.N. Security Council Meeting on Nerve Agent Attack Investigation. Nebenzia quoted treaties from 1965 and 1959.
Do we remember in April Britain called the Russian proposal for a joint OPCW investigation ([3]) » ... a “perverse” attempt to escape blame ...«?--87.170.199.20 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Russia is the prime suspect; do you really expect them to show no bias in any such investigation? Anyway, this part of the discussion has run its course. Firebrace (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Has it? Regarding extradition, the article just says: "On 6 August 2018, it was reported that the British government was "poised to submit an extradition request to Moscow for two Russians suspected of carrying out the Salisbury nerve agent attack"." We're all happy to leave it just like that are we? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
It clearly has not. Sue Hemming of the Crown Prosecution Service on 5 September 2018: “It is of course for a jury to decide whether the evidence is enough for them to be sure of the suspects’ guilt. “We will not be applying to Russia for the extradition of these men as the Russian constitution does not permit extradition of its own nationals. Russia has made this clear following requests for extradition in other cases. Should this position change then an extradition request would be made. Ref.: [4] .--87.170.200.131 (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Russia doesn't permit the extradition of Russian nationals. (France doesn't permit the extradition of French nationals either, which is why Roman Polanski is still at large.) In addition, Russian law explicitly permits the murder on foreign soil of anyone deemed to have disrespected Vladimir Putin -- seriously; that is an actual Russian law -- so any extradition attempt would fail the test of 'bi-criminality', that is an act recognised as criminal in both countries. For this reason, and because of Russia's behaviour in re Lugovoy and Kovtun, Britain decided to burn the two GRU goons publicly instead of just miming futile extradition procedures. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no such law.Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Then what's all this about?

In July [2006], the upper chamber of the Russian parliament - the Federation Council - approved a law which permits the Russian president to use the country's armed forces and special services outside Russia's borders to combat terrorism and extremism. At the same time, amendments to several other laws, governing the security services, mass media and communications, were adopted.

The overall result was to dramatically expand those defined as terrorist or extremist. Along with those seeking to overthrow the Russian government, the term is also applied to "those causing mass disturbances, committing hooliganism or acts of vandalism". Much more controversially, the law also defines "those slandering the individual occupying the post of president of the Russian Federation" as extremists.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6188658.stm
Firebrace (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
The definition of extremism in Russian law includes public slander of goverment officials, not "disrespect". How this relates to Scripal?.Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about Russia but in UK law slander is any statement which "lowers the reputation of the victim in the estimation of right thinking members of society" and includes expressions of hatred, ridicule or contempt. It is broad enough to include photographs, illustrations, and bodily gestures. In any case, the 2006 Russian law does not even require the accused to be found guilty of slander in a court before he or she is targeted by assassins. The president can just decide on a whim that he feels slandered and order his security services to carry out an extra-judicial killing on foreign soil. Firebrace (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Like I said, public slander, this means publishing known false claims. It does not in context of the extremism law has to be about president. It can be about any official. But, again, how is it related to Skripal. If the president ordered his poisoning, he sure as hell didn't use this law by saying he (or anyone else) was slandered by Skripal. Skripal, as far as I know, never made public statements. Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid you do not know how widely the concept of "Extremism" is interpreted now. "Only six months in Russia on the so-called extremist rules condemned 323 people. The crime of most of them was the publication on the Internet of pictures or records, which in law enforcement bodies were considered extremist. At the same time, there is still no clear legal definition of the word "extremism" in Russia, and often policemen call criminal any critical remarks against authorities, and the courts agree with them" Several years in prison for repost images - this is a new norm for Russia.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I do know. There is something done now to co curb repost prosecution, thankfully. Like I said, through. Skripal never made public statements or even reposts. And, more importantly, to think that an assasination of an intelliegence community member on foreign soil is related to some vagueness in extremism laws is the height of naivete about how such things work. Or do you think the poisoning was some bureaucratic mistake because he reposted an image with a swastika? Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
There is something done now to co curb repost prosecution, thankfully - Long live the gracious tsar-batyushka! But the poisoning happened some time ago, not "now". And you can not claim to have completely controlled all of Skripal's activities on the network. He could be cautious and wrote anonymously somewhere on a friends-only board.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, yes. But do you really think this case is related to such laws? Or any written laws at all, for that matter? Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
As a formal justification, this law is no worse than the other ones.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Formal justification? To whom? And even if it was needed to fill some secret form, do you think there wold in reason space be that Skripal "has disrespected Vladimir Putin" "anonymously somewhere on a friends-only board" and not, say, that he "is a threat to intelligence operations abroad"? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
"has disrespected Vladimir Putin" "anonymously somewhere on a friends-only board" - I think not. There would be something like "undermining the security of the Russian Federation" or "the incitement of social discord connected with violence or calls for violence." or "Other assistance in planning, organizing and preparing forcible change of the foundations of the constitutional system and violation of the integrity of the Russian Federation".--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Whatever way it is worded, writing "anonymously somewhere on a friends-only board" can not be the reason, even formal one (and why would you need a formal reason for a secret operation, anyway?). No one even sugested something like that. Or do you think Skripal frequented some secret GRU telegramm-channel and someone from there, who disliked which football club he cheered for, told Putin that Skripal called him "a worm, yes a footless, yellow earthworm" to have him assasinated? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
So, let's stop, this is not a forum. My point of view: The law allows to fight extremism abroad. Extremism can be considered any harsh statement about the current political situation. The rest is useless guesses.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok. This is more or less true. This is also, IMHO, irrelevant (all I was trying to say). Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Petrov UK visits

(Note: not any of these). BBC radio reported today that Petrov had visited UK on two previous occasions, for unknown reasons. But I don't see any mention of this in print. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That'll be Bellingcat's report, which the BBC took an interest in. 'Petrov' visited London on 23 September 2016 and 28 February 2017. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/20/skripal-suspects-confirmed-gru-operatives-prior-european-operations-disclosed/ Khamba Tendal (talk)
Well, seems he's not an actor. Bellingcat and the Insider say that 'Boshirov' is in fact GRU Colonel Anatoliy Vladimirovich Chepiga, b. Amur 1979, former Spetsnaz, holder of the order of Hero of the Russian Federation, awarded December 2014 under secret citation for 'a peacekeeping mission.' At that time Russian forces were only engaged in Eastern Ukraine. Just a handful of such orders are awarded each year and they are personally conferred by the president, so when Putin claimed that the Salisbury suspects were 'civilians', he was apparently stating something he knew to be untrue. Colonel Chepiga is married with one child and is therefore not half of a gay couple, any more than he is a sports nutritionist. It is extraordinary that an officer of his rank and distinction should have been assigned to the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal, which suggests, according to Russian sources, that the order must have come from very high up.
https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/09/26/skripal-suspect-boshirov-identified-gru-colonel-anatoliy-chepiga/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45656004
The Telegraph also has the story, but it's paywalled, so of limited use.
In other news, Jeremy Corbyn, in his Labour conference address today, called the Salisbury attack 'reckless' and said, 'the evidence painstakingly assembled by the police now points clearly at the Russian state.'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GOvedzNFbI
This may well cause Kremlin apologists like George Galloway and Craig Murray to go a bit quiet. Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
They are not gay as guests at the cheap hotel they staid complained to staff about the two men smoking cannabis and 'entertaining' a female prostitute in their room which kept many awake all night because “noisy sex” before the assassination attempt against Sergei Skripal:
So we already knew, they are probably not gay. Maybe bi? I know little about the psychology of cold-blooded assassins, but judging by their behaviour − "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark..." I need a better narrative. I will look up what Galloway and Murray are saying. That candidate is pretty right: "Britain’s relationship with the rest of the world, our foreign policy is no longer sustainable either." Thanks for sharing a video from RT UK ;-) --87.170.193.38 (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The video did not originate with RT. RT are just the people who posted that shareable clip on YouTube. And it doesn't matter what kind of 'narrative' you claim to 'need'. Nobody gives one. And if you're that unfamiliar with Jeremy Corbyn, and can only refer to him as 'that candidate', you're probably from somewhere considerably east of your supposed Bavarian IP address. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Who knew that Hamlet smoked weed and enjoyed noisy sex romps in cheap London hotels. (Or was possibly a bisexual lover of English church architecture.) But I’m not sure any of the above can be used to improve the article. All the material seems to be sourced back to either the unreliable Daily Mail (banned at Wikipedia) or to the scummy tabloid Sun on Sunday? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Given names" should be changed to stated names to avoid bias

The following line involved:- On 5 September 2018, British authorities identified two Russian nationals, using the names Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov, as suspected of the Skripals' poisoning,[1] and alleged that they were active officers in Russian military intelligence. Sounds very biased in it writing. "Using the names" sounds like it has been written from the UK government point of view and not a neutral one. Using the name sounds like a misnomer, like there is more to it and that its been already proven. It should be made clear about what statements have been made by whom without siding to one or the other. The statement from the UK government stating what they think in their real names are should not be included as a given fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:888D:7200:C5CA:8413:39F6:E602 (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

That might have been a fair comment yesterday. But "Ruslan Boshirov" now seems to have been the alias for Anatoliy Chepiga. It now also seems quite likely that "Alexander Petrov" was also an alias for another real name, yet to be uncovered. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Related style question. Is "colonel" part of "real name"? Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It can be regarded as a real rank, at least according to Bellingcat and the other agencies, anyway. If he is still a serving officer, then it is part of his current name? Not sure what the convention is for Russian ex-service personnel. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean in english, do you write colonel when specifically writing someones "real name", or does it look weird? Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It's a title, so has a capital letter Colonel, and is usually abbreviated to "Col.". It looks no more weird than Mr., or Rev. or Sir. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so do you think we should abbreviate in this case. I don't like abreviations in wikipedia, but if it is the same as mr... Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
His rank has received some comment, so it might be better to keep the whole word. I'd be interested if anyone could confirm that the appropriate piped link is to Polkovnik. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I mean specifically in the "acused" parameter, where it is with words "real name". The blue colonel word does not bother me in other places in the article. Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
I would keep it there, but no strong view either way. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Quote " It now also seems quite likely that "Alexander Petrov" was also an alias for another real name, yet to be uncovered. "
This is a opinion, not a fact. Your opinion is based on another opinion from the British Government. The "give names" suggests a bias already to the opinion of the UK gov. It should be changed to "stated names" to inform the facts which we know which are the 2 suspects said these names from their mouth. Being a alias or not is a opinion from one side, seeing as the UK have given their opinion and the Russian government have disagreed.
Even there when you state "yet to be uncovered" whatever the uncovering says, the fact is that there are two parties involved, one agrees, one disagrees, "given names" suggests there is more to the story and suggests a bias towards the UK govs opinion, Stated names is neither a opinion and neither bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcramarcram (talk • contribs) 18:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The article just says what the reliable sources say. But, as the crime occurred in British jurisdiction, and as the Russian state is the suspect party, and as the Russian state controls much of the Russian media, Russian commentary is not equal to British commentary. The British foreign secretary has today given the Russian foreign minister Lavrov a bit of a talking-to. The Russians don't have any credible response except to sulk. https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-hunt-warns-russia-the-price-will-always-be-too-high-11510451 Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
It is my opinion. I suspect it is shared by very many. I really don't see such a big gulf of meaning between "given names" and "stated names". The article says "using the names" which is a simple fact, wholly free of any bias. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

"Scumbag"

President Putin, often described by naifs as 'laughing at us,' doesn't seem very amused at all and has just irritably described Sergei Skripal as a 'traitor' and a 'scumbag' ('podonok' in Russian, which, due to mass immigration from Eastern Europe to the US, may be related to the obscure American English insult 'pudknocker', a term Tom Wolfe puts in the mouth of Chuck Yeager in The Right Stuff). https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/03/vladimir-putin-calls-sergei-skripal-a-scumbag-and-traitor https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45732221 Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but I suspect Tom Wolfe, Chuck Yeager and The Right Stuff probably won't get a footnote here. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

"Petrov"

Bellingcat has identified the second Salisbury suspect, 'Petrov', as Dr Alexander Yevgeniyevich Mishkin, b.Loyga, Archangelsk 1979, a military-trained doctor formerly in naval service, recruited by the GRU in 2010. They have spoken to people who know him. He has operated in Ukraine, where his colleague Chepiga is believed to have won the Hero of the Russian Federation award for the exfiltration of Yanukovych. Further details to be released tomorrow, Tuesday 9 October.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/08/website-names-second-suspect-in-skripal-poisoning-case

https://twitter.com/bellingcat/status/1049366470881398785

Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The Telegraph has independently established the same via their Moscow correspondent Alec Luhn, which prompted Bellingcat to publish early ahead of Tuesday's Parliamentary hearing. Mishkin used his real first name, patronymic and birthdate on his false passport application.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/08/identity-second-salisbury-spy-revealed-embarrassment-russias/

https://twitter.com/ASLuhn/status/1049367470606376962

Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If this name has now been published by both The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph, why are we waiting until tomorrow? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems Elliot Higgins had arranged with Bob Seely MBE MP to make a presentation on College Green, and the report wasn't ready till the day before anyway, but the Telegraph, whose Moscow man Alec Luhn has good sources of his own, came up with similar information, so Bellingcat had to publish the essentials and held back only on the details of how the job was done. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe worth a mention at Bob Seely? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Now all over BBC News. So am not sure why we're still waiting to add with good sources. This has been widely reported by very many secondary sources, not just by Bellingcat. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps because sensible people realise Bellingcat is funded by the Atlantic Council, which is funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Plus Bellingcat's forgeries are not very good. ') Shtove (talk) 13:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting both that Bellingcat is just a mouthpiece for the anti-Russian propaganda of the Atlantic Council and that mainstream UK news media, including the BBC, have all been duped by a forgery, which official sources have chosen not to challenge in any way? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: I think it's reasonable for educated editors to acknowledge partisanship in sources, especially in the context of a "new Cold War" that has dominated US media coverage for years now, and is hot in some places, like Syria. On the other hand @Shtove: this has been widely reported in the media — enough so that any BLP concerns would seem to be obsolete — and in any event sources don't need to be "neutral" to be used here. It would seem obvious that the solution is to report the claim and attribute it to Bellingcat. -Darouet (talk) 15:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, of course, Darouet. But it does no harm to point out Wikipedia's weakness in the face of bad journalism - not just partisanship - and co-ordinated editing on wikipedia. Shtove (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The disclosure of the identity of "Petrov" was a joint project "Bellingcat" and "The Insider", and the "Conflict Intelligence Team" came to the same conclusions independently. --Nicoljaus (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Really? Do you have a "reliable source" for that? Shtove (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Huilly. Yes, I have.--Nicoljaus (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Am I allowed to consider myself both "sensible" and "educated" but still believe what the BBC and many other mainstream sources have reported today are, in fact, simple facts? Bellingcat may be a very biased and partisan organisation. But I'd guess that many people in Western Europe are very glad that it carries out the kind of investigations that it does. Re "Bellingcat's forgeries are not very good", do you mean that it's easy to tell on those occasions when Bellingcat has made something up, and that this case is not one of them? Martinevans123 (talk)
You know full well the BBC and other reliable sources are using Bellingcat to put themselves at arm's length from responsibility for these daft fabrications. Shtove (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't work for either organisation and I know nothing of the sort. But perhaps I'm just silly and uneducated. BBC correspondents travelling in person to Mishkin's home village of Loyga doesn't look exactly like "arms length" to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Apologies - I shouldn't have made it personal. Frustration - I had enthusiasm for wikipedia, but now see it being used to spread psychological warfare. Shtove (talk) 21:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
quote has no background or training in weapons and is entirely self-taught, saying that "Before the Arab spring I knew no more about weapons than the average Xbox owner. I had no knowledge beyond what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger top gum and Rambo."[2] Higgins does not speak or read Arabic ...
Has it come to this, that a classic '80s weepie about an old gamer coming to terms with the loss of his teeth qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia? The humanity. Shtove (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
No need to apologise, but thank you anyway. No worries. We all get a bit "over-motivated" sometimes, I'm sure. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: I will always consider you sensible and well-educated. But I reiterate my point that it's reasonable (not required) for educated editors to acknowledge bias in otherwise sturdy national media sources in the context of national conflict. I listen to the BBC every day and consider it one of the best news sources on earth.
Here, the crucial issue is ensuring that information provided by Bellingcat, "The Insider," or any other small investigative group is attributed to them on Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the BBC also attributes this information to Bellingcat, and is a fine source to cite in this context. -Darouet (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Shtove: as far as coordinated editing is concerned, that's a serious allegation that will derail discussion about fact and sources, and should not be made without very detailed and convincing proof. -Darouet (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
@Shtove: Ok, two points: All sources are biased (even the BBC, which is biased towards the UK government), and since you are so keen on reliable sources, do you have one that says that Bellingcat forges documents? Firebrace (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional information

CI Team in Moscow report that Chepiga sold his Mercedes GL-Class to Mishkin, which is of some interest.

https://citeam.org/whats-in-a-number-how-love-for-expensive-cars-and-number-plates-revealed-the-second-skripal-suspects-indentity/

Bellingcat, The Insider, the BBC and others report that residents of Mishkin's home village say his grandmother has a photo of Putin awarding him the order of Hero of the Russian Federation (conferred at the same time as Chepiga's award, therefore probably for the same operation, the exfiltration of Yanukovych). So, when President Putin said they were just ordinary civilians, it must have slipped his mind that he had personally given them the country's highest decoration.

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and-europe/2018/10/09/full-report-skripal-poisoning-suspect-dr-alexander-mishkin-hero-russia/

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/09/putin-allegedly-gave-skripal-poisoning-suspect-heros-award

Seemingly Nina Mishkina, the 90-year-old grandmother, also a doctor, vanished from the village of Loyga three days ago as rumour spread that Mishkin's identity was about to be revealed.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/10/09/russian-hitmans-grandmother-vanishes-telling-friends-putin-gave/

Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

All of this might usefully be added at Alexander Mishkin, which is still a rather stubby stub? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Alexandr or Alexander? Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems to be now Aleksandr Mishkin, doesn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Both Bellingcat and BBC name him Alexander--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The funny thing is that his article claims that he entered UK under name Alexander, but his own is Aleksandr. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
It must be fixed, no?--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
What is written in his passport? Smeagol 17 (talk) 20:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Мишкин Александр Евгеньевич is written in his passport. Александр is Alexander in English. See Alexander Suvorov for example. All sources name Mishkin as Alexander.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
You might want to consider a move, or making the suggestion of a move, at Aleksandr Mishkin? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I think his name through en-wiki must be Aleksander Mishkin, according to the sources. Aleksandr Mishkin may remain as a redirect. Any objections?--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No objections, but you need to ask over there. Thank. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I do not understand where and what to ask.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
No worries I will open a thread at Talk:Aleksandr Mishkin. As it's only a minor spelling change, a formal Request to Move might not be required. Please add comments in support if appropriate. But your claim here that "All sources name Mishkin as Alexander" seems a bit strong. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:27, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, as i see, Russia Today name him Aleksandr [5]. But this is not reliable source in this situation, I think.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I meant how is Александр transcribed in Alexander Petrov travel passport? (In English) Do we know that? Probably Alexander. Then we should write Aleksander Mishkin, I think, if we have media support, and if not comment on this. Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, Metropolitan Police had the access to his traavel passport and it named it Alexander Petrov: [6]--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
Please comment at Talk:Aleksandr Mishkin. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Dean Haydon's citation

@Smeagol 17: if you have any arguments in favor of your reverts, except for trolling, submit these arguments here. Otherwise, please stop deciding in RS stead, what information is relevant and what is not.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nicoljaus:: RS? Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:RS--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
We take from (reliable) sources what we need for our articles. They do not write the articles for us. They decide what is relevant for their articles, and we decide what is relevant for ours. Do you think there is no difference between news articles and encyclopedic articles? Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I understood your position. If the source reads "Citizen A shot Citizen B and injured him, after which Citizen B shot Citizen A and killed him" then you think you can throw out the first part and leave only "Citizen B shot Citizen A and killed him". No, that doesn't work. While presenting one or another episode we give it various aspects the same attention that cited sources give. Dean Haydon specifically mentioned "smiling" while presenting this CCTV, and BBC also chose this moment as the most important to mention.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It dosn't work? So, tell me. Do we add to our articles all the information from the cited sources? And about your exampe. You would choose to add the first part, if you thougt it was relevant. It would be your responsibility, not the source's. As was mine in deliting it. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
If do not reduce to an absurdity, then "yes". Determining which information is important and which one can be thrown away should be based on the secondary source (BBC in this case), not on your personal favors. Because other editors may have other preferences.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Really? Then we are in agreement in this specific case, because to add in this article that Dean Haydon thinks the suspects are "smiling" and "looking pleased with themselves" would be the height of absurdity. This is not an article about police bias, after all. Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
If the source describing the event contains 100 sentences, the requirement to include information from the whole hundred in the article is absurd. If there are only two sentences in the source cited, it is absurd to remove half of the information, as you have done. If you think, that this information is only "police bias", you should try to find sources, where the chepigas in this CCTV are described in another way. Such information may be placed in an article with appropriate attribution, unless this opinion is marginal.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I understand your logic in dealing with short sources (at least, BBC ones)). But is it not only your personal aproach based on your "common sense"? My "common sense" guides me differently. Also, why should I find different description of suspects to not include this one. As I said, this is an article about the poisoning, not about public relations of the British police. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I think this is your case: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Your information was not biased. It is just irrelevant for this article. Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop, but there were your words about "police bias". Now you have said "It is just irrelevant for this article." But is it not only your personal approach based on your "common sense"? When two “general senses” collide, the outcome is determined by the WEIGHT - if the source pays enough attention to something, it also does a Wikipedia article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Police bias, not your or article bias. You just cited the police. Citing biased opinions does not make an article biased by itself. It is like citing international reactions, only this "opinion" is irrelevant. I mentioned relevance the first time I deleted this. About second part - citation needed. Smeagol 17 (talk) 06:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Citation: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Now it's your turn - citation, please, why this opinion "is irrelevant".--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Proportional? So, do you think if we will give this Dean Haydon thought reading session the same proportional amount of text in this article it is given "in the body of reliable, published material on the subject" compared to other aspects of the poisoning, it will merit even one word? Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
As you can see, even in the shortest takeaway made by the BBC about new CCTV, there was a place for Dean Haydon, chief co-ordinator. From you no "citation" confirming your right to throw out an information at the slightest desire, I have not achieved.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
This BBC article is not "the body of reliable, published material on the subject". Even the need to add any content from it is in question, in my opinion. This Wikipedia article is also not about the use of CCTV in the Scripal case (or police bias in this case or in general). And I have close to the same right to remove it as you to add it. Also see WP:IRRELEVANT and IAR Smeagol 17. (talk) 16:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Whether it is necessary to mention this event in the article is another question. If you think we don’t need it, you can argue for it. I see a noticeable reaction, well reflected in well sources, such as BBC. But if we decide to leave the episode in the article, we describe it in the same way as sources describe it, and we do not leave only what suits us, throwing out everything else as “irrelevant”.
How the suspects behaved on the day of the poisoning is directly related to the article "Poisoning of somebody", and especially to the part "Suspects and attack timeline". So the reference to the rule WP:IRRELEVANT is illegal, it is not “light bulbs” in the “tiger” article, in any way. If you decide to Ignore all rules on such a petty occasion, then this is a slippery road, which can end badly.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I have left "How the suspects behaved" in the article. It is just more footage of them walking in Salisbury (not a new information, not from a new source), but all right. We can reword this to make it fit better. But the other part is the impression of one man (who is not a psychology expert, is he?) of their mood. It tells much more about him than about the case at hand. It is just trivia at best. Smeagol 17 (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This is not "one man" with his private impressions, this is senior national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism policing. At the moment there is no more "relevant opinion" at all. But if you think this is "just more footage" and chepigas look something different on it, find the sources that share your opinion. With a reputable psychology expert, yes. Then it can be added to the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Is part of the official duties of senior national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism policing to interpret mood of suspects from camera footage? Or is he citing experts? Or is he notable by himself? Even National Counter Terrorism Policing Network#Senior National Coordinator for Counter Terrorism does not mention him (outdated, perhaps). Also, how do we even find "more relevant" opinion, if the subject itself (preception of the suspects mood from camera footage) is irrelevant. Also, I do not "think" it is just more footage - it is. Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Listen, if you do not able to make a simple query in Google, then I strongly doubt that your opinion about the relevance of Dean may have some value. Try your link again.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit. But what about the rest? Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The rest questions are irrelevant, once you have verified who made this statement. If you declare that the Met has no experience in processing CCTV, then my reserves of AGF will be exhausted--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I did know who he was. It is just very doubtfull this part is an official statement of Met, and not his personal opinion. And whoever statement it is, it is irrelevant to the case by it's very nature. Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Use the google, Luke. Yes, it was an official release of the Police. With a call for possible eyewitnesses, who had seen these smiling chepigas in Salisbury that day.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can see, this is the official Met release. Does not mention smiling. Also, chepigas? Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
See the third video on your link, Haydon had said about it in Panorama, and as I have understood, his words were cited in Metropolitan Police report, but in shortened version ("Dean Haydon said...). So, it wasn't a private opinion, but official release of an information to the public.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
For me to search for the "look of being pleased with themselves" in the third video would be original research). If Met cut Haydon's words about smiles in their release, they probably thougt about them similarly to me (or at least thougt about what would be appopriate in a TV comment as oposed to something more ... serious / what they have to stand behind). Smeagol 17 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, you do not need to do this original research, BBC have already done it. Since the BBC is a reliable source, Haidon’s words, with the attribution, can be added to the article. This phrase was not included in the Police Report, because, indeed, it falls out in style. However, it is suitable for the BBC, and therefore for us.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The BBC also did not. They just cited Heydon words (wich were judged at least somewhat inappropriate by the Met, as you seemingly agree). And I ask again, do you think that newspaper/TV style (it is not just wording style, but whatever) is the same as encyclopedic style? Smeagol 17 (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The style, of course, is different. But we, unlike Met, do not conduct an original investigation and therefore cannot discard some of the information that we consider unnecessary for this investigation. If you think that the BBC is not an appropriate source because it provides too much non-encyclopedic information (half of it, as you claim), you can send a request to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It would probably be the best way to end this circle.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Reliable = encyclopedic, in your opinion? Also, although it has no relation to this case, even a reliable source can be not only 50%, but 100% wrong in a specific instance. Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I did not say that. My real words are above. BBC is a good source to write encilopedia, including in order to decide which information from the primary source is worth to mention. Whereas a personal taste is a bad source for this purpose. If you think that the source is mistaken and chepigas go around the Salisbury with lean faces and can barely restrain harsh men's tears, you need to find a source that agrees with you.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
One imagines they were "looking pleased with themselves" after being able to finally come all the way to Salisbury to see the wonderful Cathedral spire and the fascinating ancient astronomical clock. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Highly likely. We can move it to an aricle Tourism in Salisbury, when we have one). Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
May be, may be... And what is your proposal?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
But then again, maybe they were "looking pleased with themselves" after enjoying s night of smoking dope and partying with prostitutes in a cheap London hotel? I guess we'll never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
And so what?--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
And so it may be difficult to argue that this particular detail adds much explanation to the narrative? But then I always thought looking smug was a national trait. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want to say that one should not draw far-reaching conclusions from their "looking", then I agree, therefore no one makes them. But, nevertheless, it enriches the narrative. Perhaps not as good as we would like, but we have what we have.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Ideally that image would appear in the article, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The video on the ref is not enough? I have a problem with adding images. When I try to figure out what's up with copyrights there, I'm losing my mind.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe it is enough. Wikipedia seems to have a bit of a phobia for moving images. But I think your experience is a common one. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Endymion.12: do you have any arguments for your revert ([7]) besides those that have already been debunked in the above discussion?--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

How about you respect the fact that no one else thinks this information is appropriate in the article? It's redundant, as I explained in my edit summary, even if you happen to think it implies there is something amiss with the police investigation. Endymion.12 (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Stop, but why do think that I think that "there is something amiss with the police investigation"? Do you think BBC have cited Haydon to show that "there is something amiss with the police investigation"? What I really think is that you have a lack of AGF towards me. I have stated my real point of view many times - you cannot delete content just because you don’t like it. WP:RMV does not have words about "extraneous information removal".--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we are writing an encyclopedia entry which means that we must be discriminating in selecting material for inclusion based on its importance and relevance. We don't restate every detail reported in the press here. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Let readers follow the link to the video. There is no need for this detail in the prose. It's also the cause of some controversy here, another good reason to omit it. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

February 2019 Russian flag?

Should the brief appearance of the Russian flag be mentioned, e.g. BBC? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Unless theres something more interesting than appears on the surface of this story I don't see how it is important at all. Dan the Plumber (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation needed in lede

Here we're at it again. Someone wrote that, somehow, UK official sources and the OPCW said it was A-234 after all. I don't read that in sources. Wakari07 (talk) 10:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Russian MoD expert

On 25 March 2018, Igor Rybalchenko, the head of the laboratory for chemical and analytical control at the Russian defense ministry said the Russian side could not make any conclusions as it still hadn't received the samples from the U.K. that Moscow had previously requested. He affirmed that the A-234 nerve agent substance exactly corresponds to the formula published by Vil Mirzayanov: "The chemical name of this substance is A-234 and was named 'Novichok' by Boris Johnson, as a substance available in the Porton Down laboratory." He said a member of the U.S. Army Armament Research and Development Center had added the organophosphorus compound to the U.S. National Bureau of Standards spectral database as it was in 1998, but that the entry subsequently disappeared: "The most interesting detail in this story is in the following versions of the database, which usually only expand, they are constantly replenished, more and more substances, we did not find this record. And I can't explain where is it now."[1]

References

  1. ^ "Russian MoD Says A234 Nerve Agent Allegedly Used Against Skripal Developed in US". Sputnik News. 25 March 2018. Retrieved 27 March 2018.

Wakari07 (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Staged event

New leaked documents shows whole incident was likely staged [8], [9] Elk Salmon (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"Likely", yes? Gosh I wonder what the source is for this. RIP Dawn Sturges... what was that, a nasty head cold? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove it until necessary conditions has been reached. And absolute majority of other side sources are also only assumptions. They do not provide any real evidence and proofs. Elk Salmon (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
RIP Dawn Sturgess indeed. So many questions left to answer. Wakari07 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Russia Today? Really? You don't have a source from somewhere credible, like the WP:DAILYMAIL? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Please see WP:OTHER. WP:RSP states that the Daily Mail is generally unreliable, whereas Russia Today, like RIA Novosti previously, "is generally considered usable for official government statements and positions". Of course notwithstanding the WP:systemic bias of an underlying argument like "we are good, Russia is bad." Wakari07 (talk) 11:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Back on topic, this AP via WDUN source says "Sergei Naryshkin, director of Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service, said the poisoning was a 'grotesque provocation rudely staged by the British and U.S. intelligence agencies.'" But that is already well-referenced. Question is if the bit needs development in the article? These are allegations of psyops by an Integrity Initiative "created in 2015" by the "NATO-affiliated, UK-funded" Institute for Statecraft. Wakari07 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Recovery Money

The Recovery Money section seems incorrect. The numbers don't add up properly 66.183.158.218 (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure nothing in this daft saga adds up.
Tried to fix it by re-reading the source. £7,338,974 spent or pledged + half a million "in the pipeline" is almost the £7,851,233 sum that I count. Wakari07 (talk) 12:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Lacuna

So, the Skripal's doorknob was likely contaminated on 4th March. Dawn Sturges boyfriend found the perfume bottle in a litter/rubbish bin 25th? June. That's 16 weeks. Where had it been in those 16 weeks? Does Salisbury Council only empty it's litter bins every 4 months? Something doesn't add up. 86.187.168.76 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The unused spare applicator was discarded in some inconspicuous place. It was found there, much later, either by Charlie Rowley (who cannot remember where he found it), or by someone else who then put it in the bin where Charlie found it. That may not have been a litter bin. It may have been the 'charity bin' -- for unwanted items which could be sold for charity -- which stood behind a parade of shops in the centre of town. The applicator may have been a candidate for the charity bin because it appeared to be of a famous brand and was pristine in its sealed cellophane wrapper. It would have caught Charlie's eye for the same reasons. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Russian guilt

Look we all know it was Russia that poisoned the Skripals. With the greatest of respects, if Her Majesty's government pronounce that someone is a culprit, it is through fine fact-checking and advanced intelligence. I mean why didn't they accuse France? Or Italy? The Russians had the motive because the father was exposing the corruption of the Putin regime. What more does one need? --Fake News Extinguisher (talk) 01:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

All we need are facts filtered through to Wikipedia by newspapers funded by the intelligence services. Shtove 18:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
The British intelligence services don't have the money to fund newspapers. The Mail, Times, Sun and Telegraph titles are all owned by offshore billionaires. Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

New title

Maybe a different title for the page. To reflect the fact that five people were poisoned rather than just two. The late Dawn Sturgess, her partner and the police officer are obviously less high profile than the intended targets of the assassination, however the other victims suffered too, especially Dawn Sturgess.

The forthcoming TV series about it is called The Salisbury Poisonings. Perhaps that would make a good title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.171.180.178 (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Poisonings happen all the time and not always accidental. To call this "The Salisbury Poisonings" implies that this was the only poisoning there. Really we should look at a title that has "Attempted murder" or "Assassination attempt" in the title to call this what it is. Perhaps "Assassination attempt of Sergei and Yulia Skripal". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Previous discussion:Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal/Archive 1#Name of this fork Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
That might be fine if there were any charges outstanding, but curiously the article doesn't seem to cite any source stating that anyone was charged with any offence. Shtove (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I see your point, however a murder is a murder regardless if anyone is charged and unsolved murders are still titled murders on Wikipedia. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
A death is a death, and for sure Dawn Sturgess is no longer alive. But even there the inquest has not been held. The authorities involved talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk. I remain unconvinced, but that's neither here nor there. The article fails to source its assertion on crimimal charges, and there's insufficient information to label this even as a poisoning - I propose the article be retitled the Curious Incident of the Deadly Nerve Agent that Didn't Kill Anyone in the Night.Shtove (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Czech Republic arms depot explosion

Alexander Mishkin and Anatoliy Chepiga have now been linked to an explosion at an arms depot in the Czech Republic four years earlier: BBC. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal/Archive_3&oldid=1249034312"