Talk:Alexander Litvinenko/Archive 1

message: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=Alexander+Litvinenko
This is a very big deal - to call Mr Litvinenko non-notable even without the possible poisoning is laughable, IMHO, but with the poisoning it could have very dramatic repercussions on foreign relations with Britain and Russia.  This is a major news story, he is a major critic, and this is a big deal internationally.  Tuviya 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course he is a notable, even famous person. We must have this article in Wikipedia. Biophys 19:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, this story is all over the news front pages - obvious notability due to references from multiple independent reputable sources. DWaterson 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys can stop agreeing now, it's not up for deletion any more. W guice 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd edit: {{tl|db-bio}}

message: I think we should pay close attention to the fate of famous Russian journalist
Yuri Schekochikhin (Юрий Щекочихин) from Novaya Gazeta who died from a poisoning with very similar symptoms a few years ago (if I remember correctly). See and . Like Litvineko, 
Yuri Schekochikhin investigated Russian apartment bombings and wrote
a book about domestic KGB/FSB activities "Slaves of KGB" ("Raby GB", Russian).
He was a member of Kovalev comission, together with
Sergei Yushenkov who was also assassinated  .Biophys 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are mistaken about Georgi Markov. Markov was indeed assassinated, but he was poisoned with ricin. It was defector Nikolai Khokhlov (Хохлов) who was poisoned by tallium derivatives. See the article (Russian) where Nikolai Khokhlov described how he was poisoned in the same Novaya Gazeta  .Biophys 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps accidently, the journalist who prepared the interview with Nikolay Khokhlov was  Anna Politkovskaya ! Biophys 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I included some relevant information about this in articles about Anna Politkovskaya and Nikolay Khokhlov.  Biophys 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Like Yuri Schekochikhin and Nikolai Khokhlov?

message: The lead in this article says "in October 2006 became a British citizen", but no source is provided for this claim, and BBC News say only that he is "believed to have taken British citizenship this year, although this has not been confirmed by the Home Office." Especially given that uncertainty, a firm statement of fact as in this article must be referenced. 86.136.252.196 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Guardian states "The defector, who has been granted asylum and citizenship in Britain...". While Guardian can usually be classified as "reliable source", I think there is a lot of assumptions and mis-information floating about that I wouldn't put that down as a fact until more reliable sources agree.nordstar 22:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: El Tiempo say that he was arrested by Russian security services in 1999, and in 2000 he abandoned Russia with his family and set in the Uk, when he obtain his citizenzhip, but they dont say the exact date or anything specific.--ometzit<col> 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British citizen? 

message: I changed the bit about Skuratov's sex tape. I know next to nothing about this. But from my searches, it appears the women in the sex tape were women possibly prostitutes, definitely not his wife but still seemingly of age. See here for my change
To me anyway, saying he was with young girls implies that they were underage, possibly even prepubsecent children which they don't appear to have been. Bear in mind Skuratov is very likely a living person so BLP applies... N.B. One reference which may be helpful .] Nil Einne 14:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BLP most definitely applies. I have shortened the passage appropriately. Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yury Skuratov 

message: Disscontinuity: a person can be promoted in ranks, but not in the reverse order. So he can't be first a colonel and then become a lieutenant-colonel.
:Not saying that's the case here, but a military personal can be demoted in rank. -- KTC 01:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh?  Any person can be demoted in rank in any field - civil service, military or private company - so he can.  Anyway, each rank was in a different service so that may also explain it. 86.17.247.135 01:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks 

message: Following a deterioration of his condition on 20 November, Litvinenko was moved into intensive care. On 23 November, an X-ray was said to have revealed three small objects in his intestines, almost certainly due to Prussian blue, the treatment he had been given for thallium poisoning.[14] 
What?  The three small objects were caused by Prussian blue?  This paragraph makes no sense. -Rolypolyman 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the three small 'objects' visible in the X-rays were the prussian blue given to treat thallium poisoning. Nil Einne 13:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does not make sense 

message: The impression I'm getting from the BBC etc is that the doctors that were treating him now think it unlikely thallium or radiation is the primary cause. It may be multiple agents or we just don't know. However the way it's currently written doesn't quite convey that to me. I don't have sources and I'lm lazy to track them down but hopefully someone else can add this Nil Einne 13:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took care of it, sourcing it to the Guardian.--Wehwalt 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although interestingly radiation was the cause it appears. Actually now that I recall, it wasn't just thallium but any heavy metal that they said unlikely. I believe also radiation Nil Einne 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poisoning 

message: The paragraph with the link on Romano Prodi beeing a KGB officier seems at least "original", and create a feeling that "everything is possible", helping to hide the true and creating further disturb in the public opinion.
:The above comment will be removed in five days if it is not signed. In the meantime the link will go back in and stay in untill a consensus has been reached amongst all editors. Chavatshimshon 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: are you quite sure you're allowed to just remove comments like that? W guice 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romano Prodi 

message: The date of Litvinenko's death is stated as November 23rd in the heading and the Death section and as November 24th in the Suspected thallium poisoning section.  Which is it?  (I believe the former is correct) DES 15:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ITN had it last night around 11, the former is indeed correct. I removed the details from the "Suspected thallium poisoning" section anyway, as i felt they were amply covered in the following "Death" section. W guice 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of death 

message: It is likely the guy was a British citizen see here so British spelling should be used. TerriersFan 01:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: "The Russian state TV's reaction was that if Litvinenko knew any important secrets he would already have made them public during his 6-year-long stay in the United Kingdom."
is that serious enough to make it into an encyclopedia? it's obvious even if there were no secrets "left" and nothing to be revealed, it would be a good motive for discouraging others doing the same. --Leladax 02:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  This entire paragraph does not provide anything new that could be interesting for a reader.  I do not think we should cite every propaganda report, like this one prepared by Trubetskoy.Biophys 03:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It's quite a substanially point. Would Putin/whoever bother to risk the problems associated with assasinating such a high profile target make it worthwhile? Obviously you could discourage others (indeed arguably more so since he was so high profile and it had been so long (where ever you are, however long it's been we'll get to you eventually) and you would obviously get revenge (the Operation Wrath of God FA does make one think). On the other hand, it is a rather risky move. However in the end, I think it's a valid and important counter-point whether you agree with it or not Nil Einne 15:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rationale 

message: No, I lied. However, MI5 believes that Russian intelligence services were responsible for the assassination, yet there is no mention of this in the article. Wikipedians have no problem closing the case on "Bush's 9/11 plot," but even when obvious means, motive, and guilty reactions point straight at the Russians, it gets a blind eye. Great job CCCPedians --Haizum 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: we're an enyclopedia, not a jury. these things are not for us to judge. also, it's a collaborative project, so instead of thinking of "witty" tags for other editors, why not find a source for MI5 saying that and add it to the article yourself? just a thought. W guice 02:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sourcing is so pervasive that I thought it trite to even mention one.  Security sources said MI5 believes the Russian intelligence services assassinated Mr Litvinenko. --Haizum 02:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jury like an OJ jury. --Haizum 02:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm glad that it has been added - problem solved - onward and upward.-- Haizum 07:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell does CCCPedians mean?  Tuviya 08:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling us communists. 203.109.221.19 10:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. --Haizum 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CCCP is cyrillic letters for USSR : ) 82.93.133.130 15:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush's Fault 

message: There should be  a link to Viktor Yushchenko who is also suspected to be a victim of poisining by the russians.
--Doom Child 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Already linked in the article. Harald88 14:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also See: 

message: Please stop adding the quote by Sally Lievesley (a risk consultant in the UK) where she claims "Those who administered the poison were apparently experts in the subject, as precisely the right amount was used to cause a prolonged death; too great a dosage would have resulted in immediate convulsions and death, and too light a dosage would have resulted in a possible recovery though with a good likelihood of subsequent long-term health problems.". She is obviously speculating based on the same information everyone else has on the subject at this point and has no particular expertise in the area of radotoxicity. To add her statements here as if they are some kind of conclusive proof that Litvinenko was poisoned in a particular way is irresposible and unsupported by fact. In addition, her claim that "a large dosage would have resulted in immediate convulsions" belies an obvious lack of understanding of the mechanism of radioisotpe contamination poisoning. The quote MIGHT belong in the media speculation section but certainly nowhere else. --Deglr6328 07:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sally Lievesley

message: Dunno if this is worth mentioning, but:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Anti-democracy+A+letter+from+Russia/1135223214214
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.234.5.137 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A tip

message: Has there been anyone suggesting anything about the posibility of another political body (ie. not russia) being involved in the poisoning in order to discredit russia? Considering Litvinenko's critisism of russia for this kind of thing being one of the main reasons russia's being blamed, it would be quite ironic if that turned out to be the case. --87.112.35.77 20:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we should call the article 2006 false-flag assassination theory and include it in :Category:Conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists will of course include the assassinations of Anna Politkovskaya, Pierre Amine Gemayel, Rafik Hariri and the attempt on Viktor Yushchenko in the same plot. -- Petri Krohn 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the main article: "...I think that we are witnessing a well-rehearsed plan of the consistent discrediting of the Russian Federation and its chief...". Title change away :o) But yeah, I was hoping someone citable would mention something like that. --87.113.8.161 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possibly not one for the main article but...

message: The ITAR-TASS article incorrectly spells cui bono as "qui bono", and the misspelling is faithfully reproduced here.  Whether and how it ought to be corrected here is a question I'll leave to someone else. Sylvar 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "sic" is probably best. i'll have a look W guice 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Typo in source article

message: If we do, then his allegations could appear in article about Vladimir Putin. I am not sure.Biophys 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not these allegations are true, I think you can still insert that bit into the Vladimir Putin article. Just say that Litvinenko made the allegations, but the veracity of those allegations is not known. Nishkid64 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we consider Litvinenko a reliable source?

message: I could not trace the original source where Litvinenko tells that Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained in Dagestan. Is that correct?  My impression was that Ayman al-Zawahiri could visit the Dagestan, but training?  Who would train him and with what purpose?   Biophys 01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was the reference for that bit in the article.  These are allegations Litvinenko made; we're not sure if he is such a reliable source. Nishkid64 02:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayman al-Zawahiri

message: Okay I heard that the stuff he was poisned with was EXTREMELY dangerous, and the people who did it had to be in this big ass nuclear plant thing.....It's insane.....the fact that you guys don't include this is why Wikipedia is biased towards the USA. Zabrak 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? Grundler1 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Err... yes, well... the BBC have mentioned (somewhere...) that the technology needed to produce polonium-210 is known as "state-technology" in certain circles. As for the USA, see my post above about other political bodies being involved. I believe the correct response is "include it in Category:Conspiracy theories". All I can find is  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6181688.stm, right at the bottom: "Professor Dudley Goodhead, Medical Research Council Radiation and Genome Stability Unit, said: "To poison someone much larger amounts are required and this would have to be man-made, perhaps from particle accelerator or a nuclear reactor."" --87.112.35.77 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: User Zabrak appears to be nothing more than a vandal. Move along. --Haizum 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ** poisoned with the WOST type of poisoning ever?? ** 

message: The first paragraph opens with a long sentence. Furthermore there is no flow in the several sentences there. This is a poor style. The first paragraph is very important for an article in this category. We must come a consensus on the essential details that will and will not feature in this paragraph. Please do not revert several times, without discussing in accords to the three revert rule. Below please propose what should be in and out and we will come to a consensus - Chavatshimshon 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's all a bunch of random what-not. I split the first setnence into two, and I'm currently trying to revise the introduction of the article. Nishkid64 00:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Age Issue Why is it that several people insist that Litvinenko was '43' when 2006-1962=44 and Nov 23 is AFTER Aug 30.  Please explain.  Either use '44' or change "1962" to "1963." - 68.219.235.65 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get August 30th from? He was born on December 4, 1962 and died on November 23, 2006. That means he's 43 years old, and about two weeks shy of his 44th birthday. Nishkid64 00:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the August 30 figure somewhere in my head as well, i think it was misinformation that was in the lead para a few days ago until it was changed. don't quote me on that tho W guice 00:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it was changed by Jpeob earlier today. See  . Nishkid64 02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I added the brief remarks re. Litvinenko's accusations as to the cause of his death.  Frankly, I find it more than just a little bit bizarre and disturbing that the article's introduction survived so long without any mention of this. --72.183.125.111 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Paragraph

message: In the Polonium page, it says that he was a former FSB agent. But in this article and on news reports, he was in the KGB. Was he both, or one? --ASDFGHJKL 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When he first joined, it was KGB.  That may be why the Po article uses the term.  82.93.133.130 16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When he was born there surely was KGB. But when he had joined FSB there was only FSB.Alexandre Koriakine 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FSB Or KGB?

message: See my changes here. Tell me what you guys think, and feel free to expand or subtract stuff from it. Nishkid64 18:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also would like a few comments regarding my additions to the "See Also" section. Are all of those links appropriate for this article? My only concern is the Georgi Markov link. Nishkid64 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, your statement sounds a bit awkward. "Litvinenko publicly attributed his death"...while he was still alive. Nishkid64 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded introduction  

message: Timeline:
Press conference - November 18, 1998;
Criminal case initiated - December 2, 1998;
Arrest - March 25, 1999;
Court acquittal - November 26, 1999;
Arrest with new charges (in the courtroom) - November 26, 1999;
Release on bail - one month later;
Criminal case closed due to lack of evident - April 21, 2000;
Criminal case with new charges (left on bail) - April 21, 2000 (the same day);
Left Russia and arrived to London - November 1, 2000;
Timeline is based only on an interview with Litvinenko and requires verification.
--Ovc 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal charges in Russia timeline 

message: Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment