Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal/Archive 1

Name of this fork
Why is it callled “Poisoning of Sergei Skripal”? Does Yulia Skripal not count? Suggest a move to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Fish +Karate 09:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See move comment on Sergei's page. MartinezMD (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @ we go with what people will be looking for in article names. Most people don't even know his daughter's name and she is not independently notable. People will be looking for Sergei Skripal. This needs to be moved back as this name is not in accord with WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree there. Common name is if she were known by another name, not if she is notable or not. We have numerous articles about police shootings, for example, where the victim was never notable and only their killing was notable.MartinezMD (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The basic approach in naming convention is that we use what people are most likely to search for presuming its basic accuracy. This name doesn't work since the news coverage is overwhelmingly about him as he was the target. She appears to have been what is rather coldly referred to as "collateral damage." People searching for information will not be typing in her name anymore than they will be looking for the first responder who was also hospitalized. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't know how it happened yet or what the motives were so we should perhaps name it something more neutral and something closer to the common names used in the media. How about "Salisbury nerve agent poisoning", or similar? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) - That's why we have redirects.  Poisoning of Sergei Skripal redirects, appropriately, to the new article name.  Yulia Skripal being "collateral damage" is speculation at this point.  I'd have no objection to it being moved to DeFacto's suggestion, or indeed to 2018 Salisbury poisoning incident or suchlike.  Fish +Karate  14:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it needs to retain one or both of Skirpal's name in the title. This was not a random event. You wouldn't call JFK's assassination the Grassy knoll incident for example. I'd say the officer was the unfortunate collateral victim, but Yulia's targeting is still unknown (incidental, sending a message, vs some unknown). I didn't know either of their names until this happened, so I don't think someone searching for it will be confused by the title. Regardless, I don't have a dog in this fight other than wanting things to be clear. So I won't oppose a majority. MartinezMD (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are speculating now, we shouldn't do that. If such motives are determined later, then we can rename again. For now we should follow the common name principle and stick to Salisbury nerve agent incident, or similar. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No objections. The only name I don't want is the previous one, that implied either only Sergei Skripal was poisoned, or that a woman was as well but she didn't matter as much. Fish +Karate  14:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Good move. This is more appropriate title. More informally speaking, the deaths of Yulia and his son were not an accident, but intentional murder. This is something generally known (even emphasized in the recent British movie McMafia): Mafia always kills members of the family to punish the "traitor". This was also done by Stalin (see Family members of traitors to the Motherland) and more recently in Chechnya. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They're not dead (yet)
 * Sergei and his daughter, or Yulia and her father Fish +Karate 15:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's hope for the miracle. Generally speaking, this is organophosphate poisoning. The compound is probably an irreversible inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase, see Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. My very best wishes (talk)

I created a redirect from Salisbury poisoning to Skripal's article on Sunday, as that's the name the BBC News website were using at the time. I think it would be a better title, since others have been affected by it. I'd support DeFacto's suggestion of Salisbury nerve agent incident or Salisbury nerve agent poisoning. This is Paul (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"outgoing US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson"?
Tillerson wasn't an "outgoing" US Secretary of state at the time he made the statement. If anything, he got ousted AFTER he said that "Russia was likely responsible for the nerve agent attack".--31.176.206.36 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed - fixed. Are you telling that's why he was fired? Maybe not, but it certainly looks this way. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought that originally, which was why I removed it. According to the White House Tillerson was asked to step down Friday. I've cut down the Tillerson firing to plain facts now, and re-added "outgoing" (although his announcement was before he was officially fired).  Widefox ; talk 17:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Natureium The details seem to be more clear now...so according to Tillerson was told to look for a tweet on Friday (no indication about what), but was only told by Trump 3 hours after the tweet. So "outgoing" seems premature, I don't know what our protocol is, but according to that timeline Tillerson speaking about this poisoning wouldn't have known he was being fired, thus "outgoing" is premature and slightly WP:SYN so agree with its removal.  Widefox ; talk 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of affected
This WaPo article says "One British policeman fell gravely ill after being exposed to the Skripals; 12 others were hospitalized; hundreds of others have been warned as well.", but other articles say that 1 or 3 were hospitalized. Is there a most authoritative source? Natureium (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought the policeman never even met the Skripals but got exposed in their home or somewhere? 178.255.168.77 (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


 * BBC has 3 serious + 35 seen in hospital (1 outpatient + 34 discharged). With this in mind, the cat Mass poisoning is warranted (mass shooting is 4 or more), so I've re-added the category. Ping User:DeFacto User:Fish and karate. Widefox ; talk 20:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We don't know how many of those going to hospital had been poisoned and how many were just precautionary visits. To justify the use of the "mass poisoning" catagory we need reliably sourced prose to support it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We know 3 + 1, plus have you not seen the news? "hundreds" may 500 told to wash . We don't need a citation for the sky is blue.  Widefox ; talk 20:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having - per WP:CATDEF. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Mass hysteria is not the same as mass poisoning. The source mentioned above states is speculation ("hundreds of people could be at risk"), followed by the further inclusion of another expert who says there's "no evidence to support the suggestion that short-term exposure to trace quantities" would affect people's health. So unless a reliable source says a mass number were actually poisoned... MartinezMD (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Hospitalized" generally means they were admitted to hospital, so where is the discrepancy in numbers coming from? Natureium (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * DeFacto This is common sense - a WMD being released in the centre of an English town has known poisonings + a hundreds of potential ones. Don't think there's a cat for that, so technically I'd agree with you.
 * Any speculation on long-term affects would be just that - it hasn't been released which agent it was, let alone if anyone has studied that exact agent, let alone long term affects. One source claims permanent damage, but any medical claim here would be far short of MEDRS as they're agents designed and kept in secret to evade detection etc. Widefox ; talk 20:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Wait until the facts emerge and until the reliable sources document it. Then use that to shape the article. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * We know it's 3 + 1 + more exposed or treated. Those are the facts per WP:RS. Widefox ; talk 20:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually I think 3 + 1 + more exposed and treated, possibly exposed and monitored, or the unexposed just seeking medical advice/reassurance. In the Tokyo subway sarin attack, admittedly a much larger situation, 80% of those who went to hospital were the "worried well". We cannot assume that those seeking medical attention were in fact exposed. Rwendland (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MartinezMD The only thing I disagree with is that these numbers are somehow related to hysteria. Where do you get that from? Those numbers are the numbers of people being told to take practical measures by the authorities. I don't mind if we leave the cat off, but if hundreds had been told to take measures for water poisoning or some other poisoning, we'd consider this wider than just poisoning of a couple of people, by common sense. Widefox ; talk 22:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * they are only the facts we currently know, we don't know what we don't know. How was it administered? Where was it administered? How much was administered? Who administered it? Where was it made? How was it transported? We certainly don't know enough to say it was a "mass poisoning". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, that conflates method with result. The method is irrelevant for the outcome. The outcome is 4+. Moving this forward, it's a well known fact that a dirty bomb has limited direct casualties, but mass panic. This is similar in that a WMD is used not as designed for mass casualties but in a limited manner. Still, let's not overlook the casualty numbers, and the facts are clear it's more than the title suggests. Widefox ; talk 22:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Common sense is common sense. If they aren't sick they aren't sick. Reliable sources are NOT reporting hundreds sick or even verified exposed, or even anyone other than the initial victims and the responders. This a common response when the public worries. The only people apparently targeted was the former spy and unknown if the daughter was targeted or an incidental victim. The responders were exposed from their contact with the initial victims, not randomly. That's it. We have no other reliable reports. If actual random people in the public become ill, I will support any appropriate change.MartinezMD (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Precautionary principle applies. Do you have a source that makes the claim that even low level exposure to this exact nerve agent doesn't have cumulative or long-term affects? It's an impossible claim, as nobody has - the agent name has not been released, and there's no research on it to WP:MEDRS. If it was a carcinogen, would that not worry you now, despite giving no symptoms? Widefox ; talk 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that you can't prove a negative. No one has reported *actual* exposure besides what is noted already. Get reliable sources, and I'll back you up completely. MartinezMD (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we disagree, but this has gone round in circles, I quote the source above 500 told they may be at risk . Common sense says in the centre of an English town with the public walking in and around the several sites sourced as contaminated, exposure is more than 4. That justifies "mass" but I'm happy to leave off as it's OR with sources not using the term. It really is that simple. Widefox ; talk 23:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * According to WP:RS, Skripal and his daughter were poisoned using a Novichok nerve agent. Leaving this out of the article would be WP:OR by omission. The UK spied on USSR and will have detailed information about its chemical weapons, which has no doubt been used to manufacture the nerve agents at Porton Down to develop ways of detecting them and to analyze the long-term effects on animals. Firebrace (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "OR by omission"? That's a real reach. Natureium (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread the comment. On first reading, it seemed that Widefox was speculating that the UK government was speculating that a Novichok agent was used in the attack. I hope you agree that removing all mention of Novichok from the article would be OR by omission. Firebrace (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It would not be OR, but it would be irresponsible/negligent.MartinezMD (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (This unrelated issue of anyone reckless enough to suggest dropping "Novichok" from the article is offtopic anyway in this section about numbers.)
 * To clarify my comments above, "WMD" -> "WMD agent". Widefox ; talk 12:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Police appear to be concerned about the family of DS Bailey, in case he carried traces of the poison home, and have treated his home and car as a potential CW attack site.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/15/salisbury-poisoning-nerve-agent-feared-have-spread-police-officer/

Vil Mirzayanov, now in the US, who worked on the development of the agent, has said hundreds could be at risk for years to come due to the slightest exposure.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/russian-spy-attack-cure-nerve-agent-salisbury-poisoning-sergei-skripal-infection-risk-year-a8253771.html

Khamba Tendal (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The reliable sources were mistaken; it has been confirmed that only three people required hospital treatment. Deputy chief constable of Wiltshire, Paul Mills, said: "46 people have attended [hospital] expressing concern. Each has been assessed but other than the three patients you are aware of no other persons have required hospital admission". Even the Daily Mail was more nuanced than ABC News: "Salisbury NHS Trust chief Ms Charles-Barks also said 48 other people sought advice from the hospital after the nerve agent attack and have been assessed and given advice". Firebrace (talk) 00:03, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * truly I understand your point, and I very much understand the worried well, but there is a difference between being worried and not having direct exposure (hysteria) and having a low-dose effect but not being sick enough to warrant a hospital admission. Are we defining requiring an admission as the standard? I don't know if that's correct. I am certainly open to discussion on this. MartinezMD (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is the full open letter to the The Times by Stephen Davies of Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust:
 * ""Sir, Further to your report ("Poison exposure leaves almost 40 needing treatment", Mar 14), may I clarify that no patients have experienced symptoms of nerve agent poisoning in Salisbury and there have only ever been three patients with significant poisoning. Several people have attended the emergency department concerned that they may have been exposed. None has had symptoms of poisoning and none has needed treatment. Any blood tests performed have shown no abnormality. No member of the public has been contaminated by the agent involved.""


 * Firebrace (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that is a crucial piece of information. Can you find a direct link? This one is a bit inflammatory. MartinezMD (talk) 00:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I found it in here, behind this pay wall. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russia-salisbury-poison-fears-allayed-by-doctor-vf9v0zg0m. MartinezMD (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No other source has published the letter in full, and it's behind a paywall on the newspaper's website. We could reference Stephen Davies, The Times (London), Letters to the Editor, 16 March 2018. Firebrace (talk) 00:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We could use the link regardless and maybe just put those 2 or 3 sentences in the quote section of the citation? MartinezMD (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That does make sense, yes. Firebrace (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've made the addition. See what you think. MartinezMD (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018
In the first line it states the poisoning was by novichok, yet the quoted source does not state this, it just states a "nerve agent" which the police "did not disclose". this of course is relevant as novichok may be seen to strongly suggest Russian guilt whereas "nerve agent" does not. Either the reference to novichok should be removed or the source should be updated to one which credibly establishes the stated claim. TCDA86 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly Novichok is a line of nerve agents not one in particular. Secondly, for several days it hadn't been released as the name of the nerve agent, which is why older sources don't use it. Please follow the instructions - either provide the exact wording of what change you propose or suggest we close this. Widefox ; talk 20:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence refers to novichok. I think he was looking to support that, so I just added the source from the other section of the paragraph that has it.MartinezMD (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Chinese statement
I understand the inclusion of US, British, Russian, and European statements/opinions. Why is there a Chinese statement, especially when it essentially says nothing? We could include a couple hundred uninformative or non-reactionary government statements. MartinezMD (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I've removed it. Fish +Karate 11:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For that matter, why is there a US statement? Is the US involved somehow? Natureium (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are they in NATO? Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The US statement is obviously relevant. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You didn't even try to provide a reason... Natureium (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There are 29 NATO countries. Do we need statements from all of them? Natureium (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * US got him out of Russia. See the Illegals Program link in the body of the article. MartinezMD (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah. Thank you for an actual explanation. Natureium (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * US statements are relevant and noteworthy anyway, for reasons I don't have to elaborate. Do we have to justify the inclusion of comments from the EU and EU member-state governments to you too? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no need to be uncivil. He asked a fair question. MartinezMD (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the best example of Wikipedia's low trustworthy. Because of such users who can't even make their statements reasonable. Saying that "for reasons I don't have to elaborate" is the same as saying "Superman is better than Batman just because everyone knows it". So, Wikipedia, are you really plunged so low? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.87.35 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Vil Mirzayanov
We now have the expert opinion of Vil Mirzayanov, a former Soviet Union scientist who developed the Novichok nerve agents and knows more about the subject than Prof. Robert Stockman. He confirmed that Sergei and Yulia Skripal will be disabled for life by the nerve agent if they survive and that water is insufficient to remove all traces of the chemical. However, the paragraph was deleted by User:Axxxion because "there is no credible Information on this person′s role and expertise: he left Russia 25 yrs ago, is 80 odd and can hardly speak", which is an odd thing to say, given that Mirzayanov spoke perfectly when he was interviewed by Sky News last Tuesday. I have reinstated his commentary to the article per WP:BRD. Thoughts? Firebrace (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Given his unique knowledge and significance of his publications on the subject of Novichok, his opinion definitely belongs here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * His opinion is highly appropriate as an expert (on the assumption his credentials are accurate). However that same report has an opinion from Paul Cosford, the director of Public Health England, tempering the doom and gloom prognosis. He made several statements such as "In contrast, the general public who were in the Mill Pub or Zizzi’s restaurant could only have been exposed to extremely small traces, if any. There will have been a huge difference between the dose those requiring treatment received, and any received by the public." which I think is appropriate to include as well. MartinezMD (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is about residual effects of the contamination by Novichok. If there were any scientific studies on this, they could be only conducted in the SU/Russia. This is something only Mirzayanov could know. What exactly he knows? It would be great to elaborate on this issue based on other RS if they are available. From what I read it appears that a Russian scientist died several years after a contamination. Therefore, simply telling, "no that was probably safe" without knowing the dose, simply because there are no immediate effects on someone (as this British doctor does), would be a hearsay. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Source of the nerve agent
The Guardian is reporting that some experts have doubts over the UK's claim of Russian state involvement. It highlights a 1995 case in which a Russian banker was killed by poison that "came from an employee at the state chemical facility who sold it through intermediaries to help reduce his debts", and explains that "the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall were chaotic, with chemical weapons laboratories and storage sites across the Soviet Union abandoned by staff who were no longer being paid. Security was almost non-existent, leaving the sites at the mercy of criminal gangs or disenchanted staff looking to supplement their income". Firebrace (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The Porton Down laboratory declares in a public document from 2016 that they produce small amounts of "chemical agents" to develop countermeasures. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-truth-about-porton-down. Zero conclusions from my side, just contributing this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.187.81 (talk) 01:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Chemical Weapons Convention allows signatories to produce small quantities of chemical agents. Firebrace (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually 1 tonne per year of CWC Schedule 1 chemicals (includes the well-known nerve agents & precursors) can be produced at a “Single small-scale facility” (eg Porton Down) for "research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective purposes". Also restricted to a total stock at any time of 1 tonne; that is not really a small amount. As Novichok is not listed in the CWC Schedules it is not restricted to 1 tonne per year, but the I think the catch-all important caveat applies that the lab production must be "for purposes not prohibited by the Convention in amounts justifiable for those [non-weapon] purposes". Also any lab that produces less than 100 grams/year of CWC chemicals, enough to kill hundreds, does not even have to be declared to the OPCW.  The CWC is often misunderstood – it is intended to get rid of the many tens of thousands of tonnes of stockpiled weapon chemicals in the 1990s, not control terrorist level amounts. Rwendland (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that any country may legally produce "chemical agents" – Porton Down is not alone in doing this. Firebrace (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Renominated for In The News (Main Page)
Given recent developments this article has been renominated to be featured on the main page under In the News. The discussion may found at WP:ITNC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Corbyn
Should the coverage of the UK political reaction to events cover the Labour Party's response and the row that has blown up over comments by Jeremy Corbyn and Seamus Milne? See, , etc. Bondegezou (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I think so. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

EconoTimes commentary piece
I object to the introduction of this text for a variety of reasons:


 * 1) It is cited to an unsigned piece clearly marked "commentary" and is therefore not generally usable for statements of fact.
 * 2) The cited source ("EconTimes") is quite obscure and there website gives major reasons to be skeptical: i.e., this "contributor" page which solicits members of the public to write for them. This casts doubt on whether they have actual editorial controls.
 * 3) The "About Us" page indicates that they are a "non-traditional" publication focusing on market information (link)
 * 4) The text itself is basically a long, self-serving quote from a Russian diplomat that gives no context.

I see that someone already removed it, which I agree with. It ought not to be restored without getting consensus. Neutralitytalk 02:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018
Update for USA response to appear at the end of the "USA government" section. 172.3.142.18 (talk) 03:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Nikki Haley, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, said: “Let me make one thing clear from the very beginning: the United States stands in absolute solidarity with Great Britain. The United States believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent"
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Totally inaccurate image
Please see note on main image. Richard Avery (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * He is talking about the note he placed on File talk:Sergei Skripal nerve agent poisoning bench.jpg, where he wrote "This image is not of the bench where the two individuals were found in a distressed state. This tent is about 100 metres away from the actual bench which it visually occludes. From personal knowledge I don't think there is even a bench under the tent. The actual tent covering the bench can be seen in this picture between Amber Rudd and the police officer. It is white and yellow. Behind it is Salisbury City Library and immediately behind the tent can be seen the cupola of the charity "Wishing Well". On the left of the image are a number of shop facades. The tent is about opposite to Superdrug. I suggest this image be removed." --Guy Macon (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Richard Avery, do you have any sources for the above claim? See WP:V and WP:OR.
 * See Neil's confirmation below. I live in Salisbury, have been though that area a thousand times and have been watching the news and local newspapers. subsequent photos indicate my point. Best. Richard Avery (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Pinging User:Firebrace, who uploaded the image. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't know about the white and yellow tent. However, I think we should still use the blue tent image, as the white and yellow tent is obscured by a wishing well and a fence and is therefore of less value. Firebrace (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard is correct that the image is captioned incorrectly. The bench, and its protective tent, is hidden from view between this tent and the row of shops in the background. Their positions are clearer in this image. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The photographer who uploaded the image to Flickr made no mention of the bench, using the description: "Interview taking place in the Maltings following the attempted assassination". Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Photographer (Peter Curbishley) had also uploaded a photo of the covered bench on a CC-by license. I've uploaded that to Commons and switched them. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The white and yellow tent can hardly be seen. Suggest changing back to the blue tent image with an accurate caption. Firebrace (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It can be seen nevertheless; also it shows the close proximity and position of the bench relative to the shopfronts. The previous image showed neither. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So why is the blue tent there? What is it covering? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speculation: It's an admin type thing. A temporary store for gear. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Bias against Corbyn for asking for proof
Currently in the article, we frame Jeremy Corbyn's view of the situation with an extreme bias, something we do not do for the Tory statements.

"The Leader of the Opposition Jeremy Corbyn's parliamentary response to May's statement, in which he cast doubt about apportioning blame for the attack on Russia prior to the results of an independent investigation, provoked criticism from some MPs, including members of his own party"

Any political statement ever by anybody is going to "provoke criticism from some MPs". That is the nature of politics, so it is completely redundant to mention that not everybody agrees.

And without naming the specific Labour MPs this may not be important enough to mention either. There are some what are politely refered to as Blairite MPs within Labour, but more honestly Thatcherite, who oppose literally everything Corbyn says or does because they oppose even mild social democracy. So if this sentence remains it may be advisable to name and shame the MPs in the article to see if they are recognised as part of the Tory fifth column. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is that it is not one or two mps, but a large number, if not a majority of the mps of his party. More specifically the criticism is mentioned because it was a news story in its own right and received significant coverage in the media. --DSBennie (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Also remember to read . --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Pizza restaurant
Traces of the agent found at the restaurant. 192.77.126.20 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/russian-spy-poisoning-nerve-agent-traces-found-at-pizza-restaurant-report-1.711855

Fails verification?
I just looked at the article, and the lead says "On 4 March 2018, Sergei Skripal, a former Russian intelligence officer and double agent, and his daughter Yulia, visiting him from Moscow, were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent in Salisbury, England.[1][2]"

I could not verify the "poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent" part in the two references cited. One quotes Theresa May saying


 * "'Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down, our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so, Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations, and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations, the government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal,' she said. The prime minister said that left just two plausible explanations 'Either this was a direct act by the Russian state against our country, or the Russian government lost control of this potentially catastrophically damaging nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others.'

And the other source says


 * "Scotland Yard assistant chief commissioner Mark Rowley [...] said scientists had identified the substance used. He refused to reveal what the specific poison was. [...] Although further details are awaited, the suspicion in Downing Street will be that the Kremlin has attempted another brazen assassination operation on British soil."

So why are we reporting that they were "poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent" as if it was an established fact? Should we not either be reporting the conclusion of these unnamed world-leading experts at Porton Down with a citation or reporting what various politicians have said along with who said it and when?

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you asking for? The part of the quote containing the word "novichok"? "It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part of a group of nerve agents known as 'Novichok. Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down; our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so; Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations; the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal." Neil S. Walker (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * And the truncated quote from The Guardian is prefaced with: "Ministers on the national security council were told that the nerve agent used was from a family of substances known as Novichok." Neil S. Walker (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the concern is that none of the sources identify the agent - only the class of agent. Seems odd.Shtove (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, that information was suggested by the Russian ambassador in London to the BBC in a sort of cyclic redundancy check. Wakari07 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The current version of the lede qualifies this statement by adding on "say British authorities", which I think rectifies the situation. "Novichok", as a term, appears to be a kind of nickname, therefore the Russ officials are technically correct when they say such substance was never developed: Mirzayanov himself says exactly this in his recent Russian-language interview to BBC: Би-би-си: Почему это вещество назвали "Новичок"?

В.М.: Ну, видите, просто захотелось вот так. Это новое - "Новичок". Так же как была большая программа по постановлению ЦК КПСС и Совета министров по всем отравляющим веществам нервно-паралитического действия, которая называлась "Фолиант". Почему "Фолиант"? А кто его знает! "Фолиант, Ф"! И значит во всех документах, во всех наших отчетах мы писали: "Совсекретно, серия Ф, Фолиант".

Би-би-си: И "совсекретно, серия Н, Новичок"?

В.М.: Нет, он все-таки был "Фолиант". Здесь нет, вообще защищали "Новичок" всеми силами и никаких там послаблений или уловок не могло быть, чтобы отдельно выделить...

BTW, it is necessary to exercise caution when reading his statements: the man is old and speaks very incoherently, even in Russian. His English-language interviews are heavily edited, whereas this one (Вил Мирзаянов: "Новичок" можно синтезировать или украсть, но применить его смогут немногие BBC, 16 March) contains obvious factual errors, which the BBC corrects in brackets.Axxxion (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the circumstantial evidence and their trust in the UK government, France, Germany and the US also believe that Sergei an Yulia Skripal were poisoned with a Novichok agent by Russia. Anyway, experts from Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are collecting samples from the UK on Monday, and "these will then be dispatched to highly-reputable international laboratories selected by the OPCW for testing with results expected to take a minimum of two weeks". Hopefully, the results of those tests will put the matter to bed. Firebrace (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming that they confirm what the various governments are claiming, if we say "experts from Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons confirmed that they were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent" then it will be put to bed. If the article reverts to "they were poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent" without telling the reader who says so we will have the same problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It becomes a fact if the OPCW confirms that Novichok was used in the attack. Firebrace (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down" How is this unreliable? And why do we have to qualify the statement? According to this logic no matter who says it is Novichok (even OPCW) we have to leave it as "reportedly", no? So I reverted back to original phrasing. If someone wants to know what is the source they can click on the link. MartinezMD (talk) 04:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Porton Down is run by the MoD and biased towards the UK government, whereas the OPCW is independent. Firebrace (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this happened in the US, and our FBI said it was a Novichok agent, we would still accept it as reliable, even though that is a government agency. Unless a credible source introduces a doubt, my understanding of WP guidelines is that we accept it on face value. MartinezMD (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A fact is a fact, simply because of "government says so"? I beg you to think further: it's still important for an encyclopedia to mention sources (here not the Guardian, but who says Novichok), so that the reader can do an own independent thinking and research. Otherwise we end up with only the "validated" thoughts of any government. There are several possible sources for the poisoning, not only the Russian government is capable of doing this. There are mostly two parties potentially interested in eliminating any known double spy. Note also that the EU additionally "welcomed the commitment" of the UK to "work closely" with the OPCW. A German politician close to Merkel, Norbert Röttgen, essentially said Britain is to put its house in order. Next there is the logical fallacy of designating a culprit before justice has spoken. Finally, Johnson just used the reductio ad Hitlerum. A summary extracted from the Euronews article: "Skripal and his daughter Yulia were found slumped and unresponsive on a bench in Salisbury on 4 March. Tests later revealed they had been poisoned by a 'military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia,' according to British Prime Minister Theresa May." Euronews shows how correct attribution works. Wakari07 (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this happened in Russia, and Vladimir Putin said it was a chemical weapon made in the UK, would we accept that as reliable? You may have blind faith in your government, but I don't. (Remember Iraq?) Firebrace (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a reliable source WP:RS. Otherwise we would have to include this qualifier on EVERY statement using your logic - reportedly she is his daughter, reportedly he is Russian, reportedly etc. Please stop edit warring since it appears you're the only one who wants the "reportedly" added. MartinezMD (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have addressed the wrong user. The edit war is with User:Wakari07. Personally, I don't like the word "reportedly"; it's a WP:WEASEL word. If you're saying the UK government is a reliable source, then we'd have to accept that all governments are reliable sources, including Russia. What, exactly, makes the MoD or FBI more WP:RS than the FSB? You know they lie too, right? The OPCW was invited to the UK precisely because the government does not expect everyone to take them at face value. Firebrace (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wrong editor, my apologies. It's not so much a weasel word as it is a redundant qualifier. Like I've mentioned previously, everything is "reported". In this case, no credible source has disputed the claim. That's probably the biggest reason it isn't needed. *If* we were to be discussing Russian role-reversal, there are already plenty of credible concerns that they are poisoning/murdering their critics and former spies. Same issue applies to allegedly or any other qualifier (see WP:ALLEGED). We have a credible report and no credible dispute. So I'm going to revert the edit under WP:BRD and unless we have consensus to added "reportedly" or other, we will keep it out. MartinezMD (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

My apologies too, not at all meaning to edit war here. Just noting that an unverified amalgamated claim by the UK government conglomerate is stated as a fact. This shows bias. In my experience, the UK gov is only a reliable source of confusion. Wakari07 (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with those who advocate a qualifier for statements by the Uk gov officials concerning both identification of the agent and attribution; but not "reportedly", rather "according to" or suchlike. We are dealing with a crime here, and words such as "allege" are appropriate in such cases as per WP:ALLEGED (″alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined″).Axxxion (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll not belabor the point after this. The allegation of poisoning is being made towards Russia. Qualifying their role as inconclusive or disputed is wholly appropriate. The identification of the toxin is another matter imo. In that regard Russia is saying they haven't had any since 1992, not that it wasn't used in the poisoning (their government has suggested that a rogue character or another nation, even the UK itself, could have been responsible). So I stand by my prior statement that the identification of the Novichok is not being disputed by a credible source, however, the nation accused of using it is. MartinezMD (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on a minute. It wasn't until a few hours ago that a judge made a Court of Protection ruling allowing the NHS Foundation Trust to take blood samples from the Skripals without consent (I believe that they are both still in a catatonic state) and send it to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for testing. Per WP:V we have to find a credible source that has conducted a lab test and published a conclusion about whether they were poisoned and by what agent. We don't simply take the word of political sources, no matter how credible, who cannot reference an actual laboratory test. Simple solution: just say who it was who says that they were poisoned with Novichok. That's probably what the lab will come back with, but we should not get ahead of verifiable facts. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, blood samples had already been taken without consent. The Court of Protection ruled that "doctors could pass fresh blood samples from the victims to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) alongside their medical records … The samples will be used to identify the nerve agent used to poison the pair and for DNA analysis confirming the origin of blood originally tested by the British military". Firebrace (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the "He announced his decision on Thursday" bit in your cite? As I write this, it is 2 in the morning on Friday in the UK. Next comes the taking of the samples (no source says that this has been done yet) then comes the analysis by OPCW (not done yet) and then and only then can we say that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichok. Until then, all we are allowed to do is report what the UK government (which has not analyzed a sample of the Skripals blood) claims. That's the way Wikipedia works. BTW, I didn't bother checking, but do we even have an actual lab report on the substance the UK police collected at the site? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comment? You're wrong, the UK have analysed a sample of the Skripals' blood, which is how they determined that Novichok was used in the attack. I'll make it easier for you with a different source: "The court also confirmed that blood samples from the Skripals had been analysed by experts at Porton Down, with findings indicating exposure to novichok or a closely related nerve agent." Firebrace (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming that the UK government did a blood analysis. Still, you are relying on what the UK government claims, which is fine, but this article should make it clear who made the claim, just as we do with the claims made by the Russian government.

The judge himself made it clear that he was not endorsing or disputing the claims, but rather reporting what the unnamed witnesses from the UK government testified in secret testimony:

"The evidence establishes that the OPCW is an independent organisation with the support of 192 nation States and one of whose primary tasks is providing technical assistance in relation to chemical weapons issues. Their procedures appear to be rigorous and robust – as would be expected given the subject matter of their work. Their enquiry can be expected to be entirely objective and independent. The results of their enquiry will likely hold very considerable weight in any forum. Their enquiry is therefore likely to produce the most robust, objective, independent and reliable material which will inform any determination of what happened to Mr Skripal and Ms Skripal. That might simply confirm the current conclusions, it might elaborate or clarify them, it might reach a different conclusion. Although the Secretary of State does not believe the latter prospect to be likely given her confidence in Porton Down’s findings I do not think the possibility can be ignored – and in particular I do not think an individual faced with supporting or not supporting such an inquiry would ignore that possibility at this stage." --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like we will have an answer from the OPCW soon.

Category:Assassination attempts
I've just removed the article from this category since it feels a bit premature to be reaching such conclusions. Investigations into what happened are still ongoing, and all we can report are the facts. Please add any thoughts here, but don't re-add the category without first discussing it and giving a good reason why we should include it there. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Also removed Category:Attacks in 2018 and Category:Chemical weapons attacks for same reasons as above. Attack also suggests something on a greater scale, and since there is much we still don't know about this incident let's leave these out until we can be more certain about the facts. This is Paul (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removing Category:Attacks in 2018. Police have clearly ruled out accidental poisoning and murder-suicide, and the incident is being investigated as attempted murder. English WP:RS universally refer to the incident as an attack:
 * Salisbury nerve agent attack: UK OSCE Permanent Council statement – HM Government
 * Spy poisoning: Putin most likely behind attack - Johnson – BBC
 * Allies back UK to condemn Russia over Salisbury nerve agent attack – The Guardian
 * Detective caught up in Salisbury nerve agent attack 'no longer in critical condition' – Independent
 * U.S., France and Germany join Britain in saying Russia likely responsible for chemical attack – The Washington Post
 * UK Police identify over 200 witnesses in nerve agent attack – Reuters
 * Nerve gas attack unsettles residents in English cathedral city – CNN
 * Russia promises reprisals to U.K. as White House calls out Moscow over poison attack − NPR
 * US, Germany and France blame Russia for nerve agent attack – Financial Times
 * Putin 'highly likely' behind nerve-agent attack: Boris Johnson – Al Jazeera
 * U.K. points finger at Putin over nerve agent attack – Bloomberg
 * Skripal nerve agent attack shows 'unlawful use of force by Russia against the UK': Malcolm Turnbull – ABC
 * Russian media respond to poison attack on former spy with conspiracy theories – CBC
 * Obviously, they were attacked, the question is by whom: Russia, or someone else trying to affect the presidential election... Firebrace (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously it's an attack against individuals — any crime against a person or persons could be described as such — but given the kinds of other things included in these categories, is it an attack in the sense of how we would define an attack? If yes then we can include it, but if not then we shouldn't. Also we need to remember this incident is still the subject of a criminal investigation, so how we describe it will be affected by that. This is Paul (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No one has been charged with attempted murder yet. Category:Attacks in 2018 includes the Killing of Blaze Bernstein; Category:Attacks in 2017 includes 2017 Beckton acid attack, 2017 Amman incident, Orlando factory shooting, Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting, and 2017 Chicago torture incident among others. The incident in Salisbury is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism unit. Firebrace (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Precisely, the police are still investigating and nobody has been charged with any crimes, so we should wait till they've reached their conclusion(s). Remember Wikipedia has no deadlines so we can wait for all the information to become available. This is Paul (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What I mean is the police have already concluded that it was an attack. There is no mystery here... Firebrace (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Attack categories are probably fine in that case if the police are calling it an attack, but it shouldn't be added to Assassination attempts unless that is also made clear by law enforcement and/or government sources. Also perhaps we should steer clear of using phrases like attempted murder unless that is specifically stated by authorities (here I'm not referring to your comments above but something that happened on the main page earlier in the week). This is Paul (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For now, we can say the attack is being investigated as attempted murder, but I'm afraid it seems unlikely the perpetrator(s) will ever be brought to justice, not least because the UK has no extradition treaty with Russia. Firebrace (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a sensible plan. This is Paul (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The Novichok agent
I think we need to use due caution. In the added "Chemical experts' commentary", the expert does not know which agent was used. He is speculating. Novichok is a category, containing over 100 agents (unknown exactly how many), with next to no information available to the public/civilian experts. Yes they are acetylcholine esterase inhibitors, yes they are broadly organophosphates. Do we have kinetic data on them? No. Do we have solubility data on them? no. Honestly the expert's opinion without knowing what agent he is opining on is unreliable, and I think it should be removed. MartinezMD (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * He was talking in general terms about nerve agents. Firebrace (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is a reasonable expert opinion and can stay. Perhaps it only needs to be sourced to something better like this. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * After looking more carefully, it appears that British expert was wrong. Newer versions of Novichok are resistant to moisture -see here. This must be noted or whole thing removed.My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That was my point. This guy is taking an educated guess, which is a fair thing, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia where greater accuracy is desired. Otherwise I could insert my opinion as well or those of any other toxicologist/chemist/expert. The benefit of washing it is that it would remove it from where someone could come into contact with it, and by dilution it can reduce the exposure to the point where it is not enough to be toxic. MartinezMD (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You could only insert your opinion if it was published in a reliable source. Firebrace (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we sure about that? From the NCBI link:
 * "The toxicity of both substances is reportedly comparable with that of VX, but compared to the substance, A-230, they are less volatile and resistant to moisture."
 * I read that as "less volatile and [less] resistant to moisture [compared to A-230]". Firebrace (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand the issues; and I am quite sure. And I didn't say I was going to insert my opinion, simply that he offered nothing more insightful (actually seemingly worse) than any other general specialist could provide. Being resistant to hydrolysis does not mean it can't be diluted or washed away. It just means it is resistant breaking down when wet. But that is not the issue. I was pointing out that we (nor the previously quoted expert) don't know which of the 100+ novichok agents was used, so the *specific* properties are not known to the general public. These agents are military/state-grade and not the type that the average civilian specialist comes across. So any issue discussing the agent needs to be carefully considered. This reminds me of when Bill Nye was on the media talking about Fukushima and was getting several facts wrong. You can be an expert in your field, or a related field, and not have the correct information, especially when ignorant of the complete facts of the case. A statement/opinion about the agent would ideally come from a someone with experience with those particular agents or someone more general once the specific agent is known.MartinezMD (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How does User:My very best wishes know that a newer generation of Novichok was used in this attack and not an older variant? As you say, information of this type is not in the public domain. The expert is only wrong if he or she is right... Firebrace (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Which all goes back to my point that it's speculation. An opinion in the article needs to be clear that it is a generalization, from an informed source, or not included in the article. MartinezMD (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not know that. I simply read review cited above. I have no strong opinion about keeping or removing this. Just do not mislead the reader. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Death of Gareth Williams
Gareth Williams, a GCHQ agent was claimed to have been murdered by suspected Russian agents on British soil in 2010. Karpichkov claims Williams was killed by "an untraceable poison introduced in his ear":

http://www.businessinsider.com/kgb-defector-russia-killed-the-british-spy-found-in-a-duffel-bag-2015-9?international=true&r=US&IR=T

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mi6-spy-gareth-williams-was-killed-by-russia-for-refusing-to-become-double-agent-former-kgb-man-a6670196.html

I think we should add this in the "See also" section.

VendixDM (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * From the article itself - "A subsequent Metropolitan Police re-investigation[2] concluded that Williams's death was "probably an accident". I don't think it has the same clear indication as the inclusion of Alexander Litvinenko. MartinezMD (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The MET seems to have been trying to cover it up:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/02/gareth-williams-inquest-police-mi6

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/may/02/gareth-williams-death-mi6

It was definatly not an accident. VendixDM (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Heads up regarding related Wikipedia article
To those who are working hard to make sure that this article is properly sourced and follows WP:NPOV, I would ask that you also keep an eye on our Novichok agent article to make sure that major contradictions don't pop up. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Made some minor changes already. Looks pretty well-balanced. MartinezMD (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Source for article expansion
Unable to read personally, owing to paywall limitations. Reputable source. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2164202-exclusive-other-countries-could-have-made-russian-nerve-agent/ --Danimations (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC) There's also the letter in the Times (paywall) from the senior medic at Salisbury Hospital saying that nobody has suffered nerve gas poisoning in Salisbury. It ought to get a prominent mention, but given that I expect this article to biased towards British givt views I'm not going to try editing it. Nine-and-fifty swans (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see on google there are a number of sources touching on this topic, but also rebuttals. Shouldn't be an issue to include a line or two on this.NaneSarma (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are some related articles on the web. I have included both reliable sources and some that are definitely not as an attempt to show what someone searching the web for information on this is likely to find.
 * France says it wants 'definitive conclusions' on Salisbury attack before taking action
 * Nerve agent: Who controls the world's most toxic chemicals?
 * Why is the UK accusing Russia of launching a nerve agent attack on Sergei Skripal in Salisbury, and what is the evidence?
 * Iranian chemists identify Russian chemical warfare agents. (Published details on how they synthesized the nerve agents:)
 * WMD Lies Strike Again: The Skripal Incident
 * Poisoned Russian spy Sergei Skripal was close to consultant who was linked to the Trump dossier
 * The Elephant In The Room
 * Of A Type Developed By Liars
 * It's strange that a British-American intelligence TV drama Strike Back had several episodes featuring Novichok nerve agent and Evil Russkies last year. Someone orchestrating political theater in the UK watches a lot of TV, or is advised by its producers.
 * Exclusive: Other countries could have made ‘Russian’ nerve agent
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Many of the 'sources' you've listed are blogs, self-published op-eds, etc., and would not pass RS standards. The sort of fringe opinions expressed are along the lines of 9/11 deniers and so on. The press and European governments are very sure this was a Russian 'hit.' 50.111.3.17 (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Focussed

 * Section hatted as off-topic Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not at all off-topic, as it concerned the wording of disagreed-upon section where the concern was fresh, with Chieftan a party to the disagreement. However, it was also the creation of a block-evading user. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Give it a rest, the user has been blocked, you're just relighting an already extinguished fire with your comments, the word 'focussed' and the use of it has no bearing on the article whatsoever. Your time is better spent sorting out issues and improving the article rather than focusing (pardon the pun) on the word 'focussed', the discussion about usage is more suited for the language template not the talk page of an article which happens to use the word otherwise I could go around sticking this on every article which contains the word 'focussed'. If the wording bothers you so much, take it up on the template talk page. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm just making a point here that I have rarely (I think never) seen focused spelt as "focussed" in the UK. This may be a traditional spelling but it is rarely used nowadays and it just looks weird for those of us under 40 at least.Negin1 (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This does not need to be discussed here as the article no longer uses that wording, it would be more suitable to take it up over at the discussion page about the appropriate template's talk page. However I would like to point out, that I am in fact younger than you and use the spelling "focussed", and looking online it would seem to me that either can be used and both are widely accepted, it is unnecessary to undo someone's spelling if it is correct, the only exception would be to ensure consistency across the article if the word appears multiple times under different spellings, however in this case the word only appeared once therefore changing it was not required. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Chieftain Tartarus, my role was simply reverting to the stable version, which is the one which should be maintained until consensus is built for a change in case of conflict. I have double checked with a number of other British friends. They concur that "focused" is the most commonly accepted and widespread spelling. Oxford English also redirects focussed to focused as the most commonly used spelling. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/focussed Hope that settles it. Negin1 (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oxford English is currently a separate template from British English, it is known to have different spellings than convention. You're conduct in an edit log was also highly inappropriate by suggesting a user had 'joked' when making the edit contrary to WP:AGF Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus. Oxford English is different to British English now... Classic WP:WORD. Negin1 (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Most Universities will follow the Oxford English Style but this article has been written following British English. The former is in the process of being merged with the latter, while the latter is in the process of being merged with IUPAC Spelling. Using the Oxford dictionary as a source for your preferred revision is invalid due to this difference in templates. Even searching 'focussed' in Google shows that their definition indeed accepts 'focussed' before 'focused'
 * So just to clarify, yes they are different, and watch your language, you may cause offense.Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This seems like a very pertinent issue especially since the article has a British English only notice. With a Google search I see that "focussed" represents around 3.6% of all spellings of the word. It seems to be used primarily in 1) India, Australia, New Zealand and maybe some other non-UK Commonwealth countries 2)websites from continental Europe where writers are using English as a second language. I see no native British sources using this spelling. Perhaps american spelling has become mainstream in UK? In any case no editor has the right nor authority to cut a discussion short against the will of other editors.NaneSarma (talk) 16:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, as for cutting the discussion short, that is not the case. This discussion was 'hatted' meaning that it isn't entirely on topic, that does not prevent editors from writing in the section. Closing a discussion uses a completely different formatting where the area is archived, this has not been archived, you were never prevented from continuing the discussion, what I took issue with was why you kept un-hatting the section itself when there is no need to do so. Apologies if you are not familiar with some of the colloquial language that is used on Wikipedia when discussing formatting. However I would like to direct you to the Collins Dictionary,, a British source which uses the double-S spelling. Generally both uses are accepted, the only issue which had arisen from this was that the original editor who took issue with the spelling repeatedly changed it even though both versions are accepted and since there was only one instance of the word in the article, there was no need to alter the spelling at all. I hope that clears up any confusion. Chieftain Tartarus (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Minor correction: it was collapsed with . You would use  for "hidden archive". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Might not be Novichok
An editor I suspect of extreme russophobia and hate speech seems to be blocking publication of the facts that the nerve agent used in this case might not have been Novichok. "Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray noted this "does not unequivocally confirm that the agent is Novichok". Keeps getting removed, simply, it appears because the editor doesn't like Russians. Please can I get a firm consensus that we shouldn't lie to people by telling them it was definitely Novichok? AssadistDEFECTOR (talk) 00:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The quote of a former ambassador who is not informed of the current facts has no more relevance than just ab out any other politico out there. In addition, we already have several Russian countering statements. Keep it out of the article. MartinezMD (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Where is the Russian countering statement questioning whether it is Novichok? Previously I had to fight just to get the article to say who it is that made the claim that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichok. Several editors wanted to put it in Wikipedia's voice, claiming that the identity of the poison was an established fact that nobody has disputed. We are still waiting for the results from the scientists at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) who are testing blood samples from the Skripals. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you meant questioning Russian use of Novichok. The majority of the "Russian government" section has denials/countering accusations of them being responsible. Countering that it is Novichok itself is another thing. I haven't seen a report that credibly disputes it, especially now that an apparent 38 additional people are reported to have been affected. If all this is fabricated, it would seem to be a poor job by a government who has a reputation for sophisticated intelligence. MartinezMD (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to pass judgement on whether a government is credible. Sometimes they are (The Surgeon General says smoking is bad for you) and sometimes they are not (Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons and is developing nuclear weapons). It is our job to accurately report what the claims are, and who made them. Also we do not allow claims in Wikipedia articles based upon "I haven't seen a report that credibly disputes it". If someone (The UK government) claims that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichok, we report that. If someone (Former British ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray) claims that the there is no proof that the Skripals were poisoned with Novichok, we report that. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia you really need to stop evaluating claims for credibility and start reporting them according to WP:NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I support mentioning an (additional) independent, critical opinion/view in this article, from someone who is noted for telling the truth about human rights in Uzbekistan and having born the UK's grunt over it, thus a reputable whistleblower. We should also not forget to clearly state the known and the unknown unknowns, on top of the known and the unknown knowns, to paraphrase Ramus and Rumsfeld. Wakari07 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If someone else has a blood/tissue sample from the affected people, or if someone has special knowledge of the case or involvement I would support it. A former ambassador doesn't seem to cut it. So is he saying these people weren't poisoned? Where is the credibility? MartinezMD (talk) 13:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards. Anyone, including a former former ambassador, can make a valid claim that there is no evidence from a trusted source (implying that the UK government is not a trusted source) No special knowledge needed. Saying that you don't trust the UK government is just as legitimate as saying that you don't trust the Russian government. Both governments have been caught telling lies in the past. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, User:MartinezMD is correct. We don't simply report anything that anyone says about this or any other event (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). As you say, this is an encyclopedia. We therefore report significant/notable commentary. It's for you to explain why you think this particular comment from this particular individual (a former diplomat with no connection to the investigation) is so significant that it should appear alongside statements from the police and security services. MartinezMD isn't evaluating the credibility of the Ambassador's opinion, he's evaluating its significance in relation to how we should cover this case. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying they are not poisoned. That argument doesn't stand. Wakari07 (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * To respond to the concern that there is no "Russian countering statement questioning whether it is Novichok"—we are discussing the section on the investigation, which is being carried out by the British authorities and the OPCW. This is why the Russian position isn't discussed here (but is discussed in the relevant section). L.R. Wormwood (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT dictates due weight for WP:NPOV significant, verifiable, neutral, fair and proportionate point of view (non-UK-gov-sourced) statements like Craig Murray's concise remark here. Wakari07 (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have a large section on Russian officials' public positions, so NPOV is more than accommodated. Additionally, the most recent statements (recently added) suggest that again, the Russians aren't denying it's Novichok. They are suggesting the UK did it themselves. Murray offers no special knowledge on this particular case.MartinezMD (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What Nebenzya says. Wakari07 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't satisfy WP:NPOV by inserting whatever commentary we can find that contradicts or throws doubt on whatever precedes it, regardless of its significance/notability/relevance. This is especially so given that we are discussing a section which describes the progress of the police/OPCW investigation, and that the comments you want to insert—for reasons you have been unable to clearly articulate—were given by someone with no connection to the investigation, or relevant experience/expertise.
 * For future reference, note that it's more effective to respond directly to the comments which other users have made/concerns which other users have raised, than to serve up the kind of word salad that you have above. Simply insisting that your preferred changes are "verifiable, neutral, fair", etc, is unlikely to convince anyone—it certainly won't convince me, at least. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Craig Murray's bit told the same, in a more compact way. But his point of view is now adequately worded in the article by Nebenzya and Lavrov. Wakari07 (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

ITN (yes... again)
This article has been nominated to be featured on the main page at WP:ITNC. Interested editors may comment at the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Cellphones off, suitcase theory.
The UK Times:
 * "The Russian spy and his daughter poisoned by nerve agent turned off the GPS tracking on their mobile telephones for four hours on the day they were attacked, it was reported yesterday.


 * The move could have allowed Sergei Skripal, 66, a former Russian military intelligence officer, and his daughter, Yulia, 33, to keep a clandestine meeting, according to the Sun on Sunday."
 * https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/skripal-turned-off-phone-gps-during-missing-four-hours-xsnb07qbs


 * Other sources suggest the poisoning may have occurred at such a meeting:
 * "Police are hopeful the huge task will identify a phone used by the shadowy would-be assassin who poisoned them with the military grade nerve gas agent Novichok."
 * https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5893197/russia-spy-mobile-mystery-skripal/
 * This seems to have replaced the suitcase theory.
 * Keith McClary (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Military grade nerve agent
Are there any nerve agents that are not military grade? What else would a nerve agent be used for? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Commonly used in agriculture and pest control. See malathion as an example. The military-grade agents are typically most persistent in the environment/less likely to wash away or evaporate. MartinezMD (talk) 02:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

International expulsion of Russian diplomats
mentioned at In the news/Candidates here that the newspapers are making this "Trump" related and mentioning EU countries as an afterthought. Reading the entry in this article's Aftermath and international consequences section current version seems to do the same somewhat. The paragraph was created by in this series of good faith edits. Should we rephrase? See WP:CSB AND WP:WORLDVIEW. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My edit was just a stop-gap action: feel free to modify/update. All these countries′ actions were obviously in response to the UK gov′s solicitation. Smb has to go through the available sources thoroughly to present this collective action in a more balanced/unbiased way, and sourced too. Perhaps a while later.Axxxion (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have also made some stop-gap changes. If you identify a problem, it would be better if you could make the changes yourself rather than request that other people do so on the talk page. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you guys for your edits. My input was was not meant to put down what had already been done. I totally get writer's block every time I try to write prose. I do not think I totally suck at it,but it takes me a long time to compose. I am also often end up trying to do it when I should be sleeping or doing other real life stuff. You guys are champs for getting the content there. I am sure the prose written reflects the citations given, but the press tend to push Trump into the headlines, because Trump sells newspapers and is click bait. (Along with babies and train wrecks.) I though Masem made a good point and wanted to bring it to the attention of the active editors on this article. I pinged Axxion because I was discussing content he had added, not because I though it was wrong or bad, but because it was his. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Should the map not include the United Kingdom as they also have expelled diplomats, and Should Greenland not also be coloured in as it is a constituent country of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom has a single united foreign policy?--DSBennie (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed, added. --Микола Василечко (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversy section
I suggest the addition of a Controversy section with the following wording: "The wisdom of imposing sanctions (e.g. expulsion of diplomats) on Russia, before the completion of the police investigation, has been questioned". Mock wurzel soup (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the source could be used with proper attribution and making it clear that we are summarizing the specific position of the Lowy Institute directly; also, I don't think a single sentence needs a section. Just add a sentence to one of the other sections (the Responses of others... maybe) to the effect of "The Australian journalist Tom Switzer, writing for the Lowy Institute, has argued against the current regime of sanctions without public evidence of the involvement of the Russian State."  Switzer has written that, representing the Lowy Institute; insofar as both are notable, their opinions may be valid here with proper direct attribution so we know that it is the voice of that man, and that organization, which holds that opinion.  But I would be against giving such a singular position WP:UNDUE prominence by giving it its own section, just add it as an additional sentence in another section.-- Jayron 32</b> 16:34, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this is noteworthy coverage. If this should appear anywhere, it should appear at Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, not here. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Same. I'm not sure what one think tank's opinion has over any other. I'm sure there are dozens of independent opinions. Not sure what makes this one notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP:BRD I reverted the entry until we establish reasoning for notability and criteria for a think tank's opinion, especially when it's speculative. MartinezMD (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Victim toll vandalised
I refuse to believe that this was not some sort of speedy vandalism done in bad faith ... the victim toll is clearly more than just mere 3 ... -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear so much as vandalism as to what the definition of a "victim" is. I have made an edit that hopefully makes it clearer. MartinezMD (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Page protection?
I think this is now appropriate—the vast majority of IP edits to this page are not constructive. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The tag on article says it expires today. That seems a little too short.MartinezMD (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ?? It says it expires in 2 months. Natureium (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I could swear it said March. Now I see May. Will clean my spectacles... MartinezMD (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Map key
Can someone label what red and green refer to on the map of ejected diplomats? Natureium (talk) 23:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Click on the map and the key will be revealed. 86.143.86.53 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Belgium needs to be coloured on the map. It also expelled a Russian diplomat, according to the article. --Mrodowicz (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * The map seems to be updated more or less daily, so you might give the person doing so a chance. 86.143.86.53 (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Treatment, or emergency treatment?
"An additional 46 people sought medical advice after the attack, but none required treatment."

I think whoever edited this doesn't really know how the British NHS (NHS England) system works; or, more likely, given what this article is, deliberately misquoted the source, possibly with a political motive of downplaying the number of victims or affected. The quoted source only really said no-one else (apart from the 3) required emergency inpatient admission  and medical care in Salisbury District Hospital (or some other inpatient hospital settings, with a hospital bed).

From the actual quoted BBC News website source (which has been itself considered somewhat suspect by the UK general population, outside of Wikipedia, but that's 'by-the-by'!):

"Salisbury District Hospital has also assessed 46 people who came forward expressing health concerns but they were not  admitted .

In a letter to the Times, Salisbury NHS Trust emergency medical consultant  Stephen Davies said only three people - the Skripals and Det Sgt Nick Bailey - had needed treatment."

87.102.116.36 (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Proof of possible mischief-making going-on... -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Read the Number of affected section towards the top of this very page for a discussion about this topic. MartinezMD (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Who owns the time machine?
The article gives the various Russian diplomatic expulsions as of the end of March 2018. As there are still two days of March left, someone must have a time machine to be able to foresee the total on that day. 86.143.86.53 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The expelled diplomats will still have already been expelled by the end of March. As more get expelled, we can add them.  That's how Wikis work. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "End of March" could mean the last week of March... Firebrace (talk)
 * The Belgian expulsee is barely notified now. She/he must not leave the country until 10-15 April. Wakari07 (talk) 10:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

More detail on the daughter
Haven't seen this in the article - daughter worked at the US embassy in Moscow and had dated a Russian intelligence agent: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5838665/boyfriend-of-poison-victim-yulia-skripal-was-russian-secret-service-agent/

I think The Guardian reported the same. The Sun then reports speculation that the target was the daughter, and the perpetrator the mother of the intelligence agent. Bizarre.Shtove (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Juicy bits but too gossipy at this stage to include in the article. No doubt, the investigation is considering/pursuing multiple leads, but they all seem to go to Lubyanka/Kremlin anyway; thus it is all largely irrelevant: all professional "security" (i.e. criminal) agencies are adept at harnessing personal motives (or appearance thereof) for their (supposedly state-interest) purposes.Axxxion (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find the report in the article that both victims had turned their mobile phones off for several hours, and it seems that this is sourced back to The Sun On Sunday, with other publications lifting the details for themselves. And that also seems to be the case for the details I originally referenced.Shtove (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Updating...
Today, march 29, S. Lavrov, foreign affairs ministry or Russian Federation, announced the expulsion of 60 U.S. diplomats...retaliation, by the similar initative of U.S.A. Lavrov also announced that other similar measures will taken against other countrys. And UK doesnt present any physical argument that show that Russia is guilty !. So, I think, that the article on Wikipedia is not so clear in that point: UK has no presented any evidence against Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.207.31.218 (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's good that this article doesn't say that the UK presented such evidence.-- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 04:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The Brits have not even provided any evidence that their spy was poisened at all, just claimed, let alone that it was a nerve agent let alone a Novichok agent. --213.208.157.7 (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Blood samples have been taken by the independent OPCW. Firebrace (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they are too late to find anything. Would there be any nerve agent remaining in a victim's blood 3 weeks after exposure? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, according to Russian Foreign Ministry, that were British intelligence services who poisoned not only Skripal, but also Litvinenko, Berezovsky, Glushkov, Perepelichny and Patrakashishvilli ... My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * For anyone concerned, find reliable sources (not fringe theorists) and we can discuss proposals to the article. That's how Wikipedia works. MartinezMD (talk) 21:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not you understand the irony? Both sources are reliable to support the statement by Russian Foreign Ministry. Are you telling they did not claim it? Of course we both know that the statement was ridiculous (and an implicit admission that Berezovoskiy did not commit suicide, but was killed on the orders from Moscow), but it should be included merely as a sourced and notable official claim by the Russian Foreign Ministry.My very best wishes (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't make it clear I was responding to the initial posting. Russian denials are already in the article. The issue of "lack of evidence" is more to what I was referring. The article, as I see it, makes no case (as it should remain neutral) and simply writes what is reliably sourced. MartinezMD (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the section "Response of Russia" is too large and repetitive. This should be summarized more briefly and some content moved to Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal if it is not already there. However, the official comment by the Russian Foreign Ministry that "Britain can not provide safety of such and such [former] Russian citizens" is remarkable in the context of all these events and should be included. And in fact they may be right: Britain can not provide anyone's safety because it was Theresa May who "did her best to head off any inquiry into the Russian’s 2006 death" of Litvinenko . My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The response and their implications will likely fill a few books when history is able to look back. There are always happenings that are slowly or never revealed to the public. I agree the Russian response is large and may be more appropriate in a separate article, with a summary in this one.MartinezMD (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I moved and removed a few things. What I removed was already included in "Reactions". My very best wishes (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to add/mention Cold War II ?
Do we have to add/mention Cold War II in the see also section? Many sources and prominent politicians mention the term Cold War II. What is your opinion. Iedylstudein (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Already listed in the categories. MartinezMD (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

First sentence and lead of the article
Continuing to take issue with it, I need to compare the first sentence of this article, "On 4 March 2018, former Russian military intelligence officer and British spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal were poisoned in Salisbury, England, with a Novichok nerve agent," with the Behind the Smokescreen statement of East StratCom Team, the EU EEAS anti-disinformation office:

"Former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned in Salisbury on 4 March. A policemen who attended the scene was also seriously affected. According to the UK, this was either a direct action by the Russian state against the UK, or the Russian government lost control of its nerve agent and allowed it to get into the hands of others. The result: a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia was used offensively for the first time on European soil in over 70 years, the EU Foreign Affairs Council stated."

Notice "according to the UK" is linked to the BBC, which I insist is a primary source in this case. The EU doesn't say that the UK says it's Novichok, they describe it as "a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia", which is weak too since it seems to forget about the reported developments in the Soviet era. Wakari07 (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Did you overlook this part of the first source? - Referring to novichok, “Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at Porton Down, our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so, Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations, and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations, the government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal,” she said. Where "she said" refers to May, who presumptively was speaking in her role as PM on behalf of the UK. I would support, in fact I'll add, according to the UK in that lead. MartinezMD (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think i overlooked it. Thanks for your edit. I hope we can now put this to rest after two weeks of discussing that point. Wakari07 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Nonsensical remark
"In total, Russian officials and mass-media have distributed around 25 versions of the Skripal assassination in what was described as a "smokescreen" by European External Action Service East Stratcom Task Force."

This makes no sense. The number of versions distributed by media has zero influence on the credibility of the government. Similarly, I would not want the writings of BILD or The Sun or any other mass paper to reflect on the respective government. As such, this sentence sounds a lot like Western propaganda. If this article is meant to be politically neutral, this sentence must be removed.

I am confused how this could ever be included. If you want to counteract Russian propaganda, do it properly without using own propaganda. The source is also to be taken with a large grain of salt apparently. I will remove this line. --mafutrct (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The number of contradictory versions distributed by government officials definitely influences the credibility of that government. If Russian Federation embassy retweets a bizarre conspiracy theory this definitely counts as "distribution". Reverting for now, please discuss here. Cloud200 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The "smokescreen" strategy has been always employed after such events, for example after shooting down the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, poisoning of Litvinenko, Russian apartment bombings, Donbass, Russo-Georgia war, whatever. This indeed should be noted on the page (agree with your restoration), but only briefly, although I would not object to simply listing all conspiracy theories in a single paragraph. My very best wishes (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no certain opinion who is at fault. But the text currently tasks about media. Inofficial media are irrelevant, as I wrote before, and the text should be changed to not mention them. If it was actually the government itself (not third party media), then this is a far stronger fact that must instead be used. Please remove the mention of media to make the claim stronger, or remove the whole line as it currently sounds no better than cheap Russian propaganda, if one puts in just one second of thought. But I much recommend to not leave it as is. --mafutrct (talk) 20:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have updated the info in that passage as per same source, in an updated version. Also modified the wording: the source does not speak of "versions", but "narratives" ("theories" as per the earlier ref), also made clearer the status of the source, which of course is a purely propaganda outlet. I do believe that official propaganda sources matter and what they say is relevant for such topics.Axxxion (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Is "Mutual expulsions of diplomats" section necessary?
Do we need this section in such detail, duplicating the relevant section in Reactions, as well as partly the "UK gov response" section here?Axxxion (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Imo no. it should be summarized and the details placed only in the Reactions article. MartinezMD (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2018
Please put link to Mirzayanov's book that is regularly distributed and sold by Amazon.com

In addition there is article about Iranian chemists that identified Novichok and cooperated with OPCW http://www.spectroscopynow.com/details/ezine/1591ca249b2/Iranian-chemists-identify-Russian-chemical-warfare-agents.html?tzcheck=1,1,1,1,1,1,1=&&tzcheck=1

The High Court Judgmenet issued statement on page 10, point 17 i) that reads: Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent. which did not prove origin and clear identification neither method of poisoning. Link for judgment is https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/secretary-of-state-for-the-home-department-v-skripal-and-another/--Vvucic (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Vvucic (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to make these additions. People wanting more information about the agent can read about it in the specific novichok article. And we already have a large section and further discussion in the talk page about Russia's denial of the allegations against it. MartinezMD (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. --  Dane  <b style="color: #00AC1D;">talk </b> 03:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

French involvement
Until the release of Moscow's questions, I wasn't aware of any French connection. Is there some information about it? I don't see anything readily published. MartinezMD (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

See also section
Please add the next link: Reichstag_fire 05:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.118.81.22 (talk)

Link to this article from Salisbury Page
I feel that as this is a internationally significant event that has occurred in Salisbury, a link to this page from Salisbury article should be made added. But I'm not sure the best way to add it. A section notable events might work? Polyamorph (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * A single sentence in the "History" section would suffice. The more recent history of that article could use some expansion anyways.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done. Polyamorph (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we need the pub picture on this and Scripal page?
Did it turn out to be relevant? Smeagol 17 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No it's just there for decoration and should be removed. Firebrace (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Offering new identities to Skripals
Added today to etwi vers.: "Poisoned daughter refuses to meet Russians". —&#160;Pietadè 11:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Rink
Some details about him can be found on ruwiki: ru:Ринк, Леонид Игоревич. My very best wishes (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Perpetrators
- I fixed this per WP:GEVAL. My very best wishes (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed is the right word. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Boris Johnson
There is no any sense in this edit because the situation was already explained in previous paragraph. Is it just to tell that he "lied"? In any event this info was about Boris Johnston, not really about the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal -. this should be placed elsewhere, maybe in "reactions", but I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Your edits are extremely disruptive and biased and I'm finding you contributions lack integrity. I ask you level out your thoughts and edit fairly, if not then please stop editing on this article. DRALGOS '' <font color="##000000" size="4px" font-style="normal">♕ 21:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * The problem with the paragraph is that it uses WP:SYNTH with the DW.com interview to state that Johnson "contradicted" the scientists at Porton Down. I've added a secondary analysis by Channel 4 News, along with a statement from the Foreign Office. FallingGravity 21:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Would it not be sensible to use the DW source? It's from the horses mouth. http://www.dw.com/en/boris-johnson-accused-of-making-misleading-russia-novichok-claim-in-dw-interview/a-43251856 DRALGOS '' <font color="##000000" size="4px" font-style="normal">♕ 21:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's more sensible to use secondary sources in Wikipedia, especially in cases where the primary source is ambiguous. Channel 4 News's fact check concludes: "We have no way of verifying what Porton Down scientists may have told Boris Johnson behind closed doors; nor do we know what he was intending to refer to in his comments," and "At best, this means his comments were sloppy and ham-fisted. At worst, they were wrong and misleading." FallingGravity 23:19, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

No, I disagree with you now, you're skewing. I added a source which any honest editor would use, you removed it to suit your own view. There is obviously a lot of back peddling going on however to bases content entirely on article based on this period are biased. DRALGOS '' <font color="##000000" size="4px" font-style="normal">♕ 10:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with Wikipedia's policies on using secondary sources and WP:SYNTH, then try to get consensus to change those policy. FallingGravity 19:29, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think current version of the section is definitely much better and just fine from the BLP standpoint (so yes, I support this version), however, it gives an undue weight to a non-notable controversy that does not really add any information. I would just remove two last paragraphs from this section. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could be moved to Reactions to the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal? The most relevant part related to this article is that Porton Down scientists determined the chemical was Novichok. FallingGravity 04:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. I removed it for now. This clumsy wording by Johnson becomes increasingly unimportant with events of every coming day. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

A subsection about alleged FSB hit list
The text was unilaterally moved by a red-linked account without any discussion - the diff. I think it is obviously important and deserves a separate [sub]section. Any thoughts? This is not a "theory" because he received this information 3 weeks before the attack had happen. Also, it does not come from a discredited source, such as Russian government that evidently lied about the development of chemical weapons. My very best wishes (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * He claims that he recieved the information before. The article and interview are after. Also, does it matter that I have red page. What and how does it say anything about this (or any) matter? Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Small paragraph does not need its own section header. Heading removed while this discussion is open DRALGOS '' <font color="##000000" size="5px" font-style="normal">♕ 19:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * @Smeagol. Yes, this is just a claim, but it was published in a large number of RS and received significant coverage. Do you know any RS telling specifically this claim was fake? If yes, let's include them. But if not, this is an important and so far undisputed claim. @DRALGOS. I do not think it fits anywhere without specific sub-title. This is pretty obvious.My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And I did not delete this or claimed it is false. The topic is positioning. Your positioning gives this claim an undue weight. Even British goverment has not yet claimed anything about this list. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic is positioning?? My positioning?? Whatever. I do not understand why you guys are doing multiple reverts in a matter of minutes to keep this information about the hit list hidden at the bottom of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You can write more about my motives, if you want. Maybe make a special subsection on this talk page. Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * A statement from an intelligence officer sits perfectly under the Intelligence heading. DRALGOS '' <font color="##000000" size="5px" font-style="normal">♕ 20:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid an unnecessary and wasteful edit war. I'm not sure I've come across a "hit list" being mentioned in the articles I've read. Can we get a list here in this section of the talk page of reliable sources discussing this list? Then we can rapidly assess it. If valid, we include it with appropriate weight. I suspect that we all just want a good and accurately written article. MartinezMD (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is text in question (I hope it is still on the page):


 * One clarification: I did not write a single word in this text and did not check these sources (other contributors did). I read about it elsewhere. Where? Maybe here, here, here,, etc. All of them qualify as RS, and the first one, for example, tells directly: "hit list". My argument: this is not just another "opinion", but something a lot more important and different from other content which needs a separate sub-heading. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * One must add: the list allegedly includes Christopher Steele (first ref), which makes it even more important - see Trump–Russia dossier. My very best wishes (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an allegation made by a single person without corroboration, and all the sources refer back to the same statements Karpichkov made. It may be accurate, or it might not. I definitely do not think it merits a separate section. I think a single sentence is all that it can support. I'll see what the other editors think. MartinezMD (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If something should be included (and the degree of coverage on a page) depends on coverage of the subject in secondary RS - this is per WP:NPOV. By the same argument you could tell that Trump–Russia dossier deserves only one phrase - as an allegation by a single person. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really. Trump, for example, is a current head of state. He makes a national policy. Karpichkov has been "retired" for 32 years and all the sources report the same interview where he himself states that "he thought the call was a joke rather than a threat — typically dark Russian humor". Additionally, this is a primary source reporting what an unidentified person supposedly said. It is hearsay at best. MartinezMD (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, the dossier came from Christopher Steele (a former intelligence officer, just as Karpichkov), not from Trump. Secondly, yes,  the phone call would be a hearsay, unless the Skripal was actually poisoned later. That is what led to the high coverage by RS. There were also numerous other publications which suggested that such hit list exits (and existed) based on indirect evidence, such as the long list of people (Litvinenko, Berezovsky, etc.) who were previously killed in UK or died violently under strange circumstances. My very best wishes (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting there can't be such a list (clearly someone had it in for the guys with high profile, rare poisonings), but in the sources you provided so far it's just Karpichkov. Steele is only mentioned as a target by Karpichkov in one of the sources. If you want us to consider creating an entire section, we need appropriate sources. We have to avoid synthesis. MartinezMD (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Steele was mentioned in several sources (e.g. MSNBC). Most important, it is the sources, such as that one (not just Karpichkov!) claim that the list is probably real and that the claim by Karpichkov was real - based on analysis of various information, including previous killings. This is the reason we are using secondary sources per policy. Simply using the claim by Karpichkov (as a primary source) would be indeed inappropriate. We can't and should not assess ourselves if the list was real (that is what you are probably trying to do). We must rely on sources. This is reference work. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is a better written article but it's still Karpichkov reporting a phone call. The review of the other suspicious deaths is a good overview. Still not sure we have enough for a section, but if there are a few more good supporting sources it may be alright. I don't want to have undue weight in the article. I'll hold my tongue a bit until other editors present their views. MartinezMD (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * More sources about Karpichkov - this is not just an ordinary retiree, and he claimed before to be a target, , . My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting to hear from other editors, but here's my take on this so far. Maybe it's just me, but all I see is primary Karpichkov interviews, and I am suspect to his motives. He is in fear for his life, but he gives several interviews. In one he allows them to take his photograph. The "mafia" is after him. The "FSB" is after him. He is accused of stealing $500,000, but it's not true because he actually "uncovered corrupt links between...the Latvian government and the Russian mafia". This guy's case comes across as very self-serving - "We do not receive in Great Britain any help or benefits because British authorities refused us". Without a corroborating source, to me it seems this guy could be easily just telling tales to benefit himself. MartinezMD (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This is your interpretation: "I am suspect to his motives. He is in fear for his life...this guy could be easily just telling tales to benefit himself", etc. That may be true or not, but it is not our job to make such personal assessments. We simply say what secondary reliable sources say on the subject. It is their job to make such assessments based also on other information they have and describe. And it is pretty much a consensus of these sources that the list is probably real (obviously, no one knows this as a fact) and the story is notable enough to be published in a number of RS. This is all we need for inclusion. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Personally I believe his motive is to sell his book and possibly score a movie deal. The whole receiving a phone call story seemed flakey to me, personally his very little of interest to me in regard to this story. DRALGOS '' <font color="##000000" size="4px" font-style="normal">♕ 14:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Which only supports my point that such arguments are WP:OR. My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I can have an opinion based on what I'm reading. I have not suggested making an edit based on original research. I am saying the source is a primary source without any corroboration from an investigative agency. And furthermore, that that as an editor, I have to consider the weight of any source we use. I am just explaining why a primary source can be unreliable. If there is more supportive evidence I would be in favor of adding that. I have no agenda except for an accurate article here. It is not helpful if it is wrong. MartinezMD (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, absolutely not. All 5 or 6 sources used to support the statements (MSNBC, Bloomberg, etc.) are secondary sources. Yes, every secondary source uses other (primary and secondary) sources to support their statements. They always do. Every book by historians analyses some primary records, etc. You can't say: we are not going to use a secondary source because it cites primary sources. My very best wishes (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources use the same interview information. The Bloomberg article seems the best. With what I have read so far, I see enough for a statement or two, but not enough for a section. MartinezMD (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Each source uses a lot of information, not only the interview. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, i'm with MartinezMD on this one DRALGOS '' <font color="##000000" size="4px" font-style="normal">♕ 19:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is Boris Karpichkov? Why are his words about the alleged telephone call being perceived as an authoritative source? In fact, you suggest believing in his prediction made after the event. 37.151.19.210 (talk) 07:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Some info about him can be found in sources linked above. Yes, his words were taken very seriously by a number of RS. Only that matters in WP settings. No one should try to disprove multiple secondary RS. We simply tell what sources tell. My very best wishes (talk) 00:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Where is the evidence (proposed new section)
For the sake of completeness, I propose that a new section be added to this article, titled ‘Evidence’. In it, could be summarised what evidence is publicly available about this case, particularly regarding the supposed guilt of Russia. As far as I am aware, to date there has been almost zero evidence presented to the public. Assertions, no matter how many times they are repeated, are not evidence. Do we know that the drug involved is Novichok? Do we know who manufactured the drug? Do we know who exposed the Skripals to the drug? There is a highly relevant article at the Lowy Institute website : https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/skripal-west-escalates-where-proof Logicman1966 (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Wikipedia is an WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA—we will not speculate about the credibility of the evidence or the investigation. We do not publish WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH or WP:SYNTHESIS of published material. We report notable/significant commentary from WP:SECONDARY WP:RELIABLESOURCES. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Logicman1966 is not asking for speculation, he is asking for evidence. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added an Evidence section. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The evidence will be uploaded to the article as it becomes publicly available (when reported in WP:RS) with the progress of the investigation. A section which comments on the lack of publicly available evidence would count as speculation on the validity of several claims referred to in the article. It would also be a reflection of the priorities/opinions of particular Wikipedia contributors, rather than a reflection of the WP:RS coverage/commentary of this event. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * So we do agree that there is no published evidence. Isn't it strange that the Russian State has been convicted of the crime without evidence? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 13:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, there has been no conviction. There has been an accusation.  This article in no way uses the word "conviction".  It does, however, use words like "accuse" and "accusation".  It is an accurate reflection of what has actually happened.  The Russian state has been accused of complicitness in this crime.  And the article says exactly that.  When investigators release more information, we can add that as needed.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If Russia has not been convicted, why is it being punished? Mock wurzel soup (talk) 15:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't waste your time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No evidence, no trial, no conviction, but the Russians are punished anyway. If that isn't Russophobia, I don't know what is. If this is not mentioned in the article then I think there is an NPOV issue. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * That's not our problem. We don't explain, we don't justify, we don't pass judgements.  We report.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It's more a logics question. The absence of an "Evidence" section says it all. Wakari07 (talk) 10:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Retaliation is not the same as punishment. Firebrace (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I see sophism, not a fine line of distinction there. Did you read the list of capital crimes in the Torah? According to an interpretation of the Noachide Laws, the death sentence is warranted against whoever in humanity worships idols (or otherwise blasphemes . It's about who calls itself master, and others servants. It doesn't matter if it's called punishment or retaliation or educative measures. Where is the internal link? Russia is clearly being punished (or "retaliated against", if you insist) for something it allegedly did. It's not really a matter of naming it a retaliatory or punitive spree, expedition, action or coordinated set of measures or actions; it's all the same the execution of a sentence. Wakari07 (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Russia declares its innocence and the absence of any evidence against it. This should be reflected in the article. Riv-ks (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

More Details Needed
Hello all. Why are there so few details in this article about the facts of what exactly happened on the day of the incident? What were the victims doing at the pub? Why did this happen just after Yulia came from Russia? How was the "nerve agent" injected or ingested? How did the other victims get poisoned? Why have samples not been released? There are other larger questions that no one seems to be asking, including those identified by Dr. Ron Paul. These and others include what motive Russia could possibly have for carrying out such an attack so many years after this spy was released in a spy exchange and indeed why it would have carried it out in such a clumsy manner. Will someone with more time than I have please research these questions and provide more concrete details on what precisely took place. Many thanks. Gunnermanz (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ron Paul is an extremist and not taken seriously by a large percentage of the population - poor example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.3.17 (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * What, sir, is "extreme" about asking that evidence and details be provided regarding an issue replete with unanswered questions about one of many similar issues which are raising tensions between nuclear powers to the most dangerous level since the Cuban Missile Crisis? I submit that the "extremists" are rather those who in supposedly democratic societies dismiss those who ask for facts and evidence amid this "us versus them" hysteria as "extremists" or "foreign trolls." This is not the way democracy works, particularly when it comes to issues that threaten the very existence of the human species. Representative government is based on the consent of the governed, and the public can not give its consent when instead of facts we are given innuendo, secrecy, unproved accusations and childish pictures of red octopuses grabbing the world (as on the cover of the Economist and in the Guardian, duplicated almost exactly from Nazi propaganda posters). That, sir, is extremism. Cheers. Gunnermanz (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)