Talk:Alexander Litvinenko/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Spelling 2 rationale 3 Russian Democracy 4 Bush's Fault 5 1962-2006 6 Also See: 7 Sally Lievesley 8 Polonium explanation over technical? 9 A tip 10 Possibly not one for the main article but... 11 Typo in source article 12 Do we consider Litvinenko a reliable source? 13 Ayman al-Zawahiri 14 ** poisoned with the WOST type of poisoning ever?? ** 15 First Paragraph 16 Career in FSB 17 Nigel West? 18 FSB Or KGB? 19 "Polonium cow"? 20 Expanded introduction 21 Criminal charges in Russia timeline

Spelling

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

rationale

"The Russian state TV's reaction was that if Litvinenko knew any important secrets he would already have made them public during his 6-year-long stay in the United Kingdom."

is that serious enough to make it into an encyclopedia? it's obvious even if there were no secrets "left" and nothing to be revealed, it would be a good motive for discouraging others doing the same. --Leladax 02:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This entire paragraph does not provide anything new that could be interesting for a reader. I do not think we should cite every propaganda report, like this one prepared by Trubetskoy.Biophys 03:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It's quite a substanially point. Would Putin/whoever bother to risk the problems associated with assasinating such a high profile target make it worthwhile? Obviously you could discourage others (indeed arguably more so since he was so high profile and it had been so long (where ever you are, however long it's been we'll get to you eventually) and you would obviously get revenge (the Operation Wrath of God FA does make one think). On the other hand, it is a rather risky move. However in the end, I think it's a valid and important counter-point whether you agree with it or not Nil Einne 15:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian Democracy

Russian democracy: How much of it is Russian, and how much of it is democracy? Wandering Star

Bush's Fault

No, I lied. However, MI5 believes that Russian intelligence services were responsible for the assassination, yet there is no mention of this in the article. Wikipedians have no problem closing the case on "Bush's 9/11 plot," but even when obvious means, motive, and guilty reactions point straight at the Russians, it gets a blind eye. Great job CCCPedians --Haizum 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

we're an enyclopedia, not a jury. these things are not for us to judge. also, it's a collaborative project, so instead of thinking of "witty" tags for other editors, why not find a source for MI5 saying that and add it to the article yourself? just a thought. W guice 02:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The sourcing is so pervasive that I thought it trite to even mention one. [1] Security sources said MI5 believes the Russian intelligence services assassinated Mr Litvinenko. --Haizum 02:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Jury like an OJ jury. --Haizum 02:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

User: Haizum currently the artile reads very nuetral with cited information about MI5 suspecting Russians, that's how it should be, let's keep an eye on the subbsequant editsRaveenS 03:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that it has been added - problem solved - onward and upward.-- Haizum 07:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What the hell does CCCPedians mean? Tuviya 08:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling us communists. 203.109.221.19 10:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. --Haizum 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

CCCP is cyrillic letters for USSR : ) 82.93.133.130 15:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1962-2006

• Observe guidelines, please. —Leather_is^tough 07:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Also See:

There should be a link to Viktor Yushchenko who is also suspected to be a victim of poisining by the russians. --Doom Child 07:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Already linked in the article. Harald88 14:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sally Lievesley

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

Polonium explanation over technical?

I believe that the description of how Polonium-210 works is far too technical for this article. If it's not already in there info should be moved to Polonium. Pontificake 12:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Can people please stop turning this article into some kind of scientific text book. Details about isotopes and radiation in relation to poisons and other massively over-the-top intricate scientific details should go in the article about the poison itself. Madder 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think it was inappropriate at all. It clearly illustrated why such a poison was so dangerous in such small doses and how it would be detected using spectrometers. interesting details that I haven't seen correctly explained in any other news article out there. not "over the top intricate" at all, and the polonium page DID already have the information when you moved it there.--Deglr6328 21:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not view the section on Po-210 to be too technical, I think that nuclear crime is very poorly understood and this is becuase it is a very new topic (I have only come across one other case of a radioisotope being used as a posion {internal exposure} by a criminal to harm another person). I think that the reader need to know how it is possible to distingish one isotope from another. With radioactivity it is not simply a case of waving a geiger counter like a majic wand at the "thing" before getting the answer to what has happened, there is much more that needs to be done in such a case. To my mind the radiochemical/health physics work done to measure the level of radioactivity and to trace where it came from in this case is as important as the balistics work done to bring to justice a gunman. I think that none of the larger and commercial news services like the BBC have failed to explain how it is possible to distingish between thallium-201 and pollonium-210 (We can do better as at wikipedia we have several people with an understanding of radiological/nuclear matters).Cadmium

If someone is interested in radioactive materials and isotopes, they can read the relevant Wikipedia articles on those matters. They shouldn't have to go to an article about a Russian spy to get the information. Madder 02:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a nuclear crime page now which describes criminal acts which involve radioactive/nuclear materials.Cadmium

A tip

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

Possibly not one for the main article but...

Has there been anyone suggesting anything about the posibility of another political body (ie. not russia) being involved in the poisoning in order to discredit russia? Considering Litvinenko's critisism of russia for this kind of thing being one of the main reasons russia's being blamed, it would be quite ironic if that turned out to be the case. --87.112.35.77 20:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should call the article 2006 false-flag assassination theory and include it in Category:Conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theorists will of course include the assassinations of Anna Politkovskaya, Pierre Amine Gemayel, Rafik Hariri and the attempt on Viktor Yushchenko in the same plot. -- Petri Krohn 22:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

From the main article: "...I think that we are witnessing a well-rehearsed plan of the consistent discrediting of the Russian Federation and its chief...". Title change away :o) But yeah, I was hoping someone citable would mention something like that. --87.113.8.161 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Typo in source article

The ITAR-TASS article incorrectly spells cui bono as "qui bono", and the misspelling is faithfully reproduced here. Whether and how it ought to be corrected here is a question I'll leave to someone else. Sylvar 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"sic" is probably best. i'll have a look W guice 23:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Do we consider Litvinenko a reliable source?

If we do, then his allegations could appear in article about Vladimir Putin. I am not sure.Biophys 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not these allegations are true, I think you can still insert that bit into the Vladimir Putin article. Just say that Litvinenko made the allegations, but the veracity of those allegations is not known. Nishkid64 02:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ayman al-Zawahiri

I could not trace the original source where Litvinenko tells that Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained in Dagestan. Is that correct? My impression was that Ayman al-Zawahiri could visit the Dagestan, but training? Who would train him and with what purpose? Biophys 01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This was the reference for that bit in the article. [2] These are allegations Litvinenko made; we're not sure if he is such a reliable source. Nishkid64 02:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

** poisoned with the WOST type of poisoning ever?? **

Okay I heard that the stuff he was poisned with was EXTREMELY dangerous, and the people who did it had to be in this big ass nuclear plant thing.....It's insane.....the fact that you guys don't include this is why Wikipedia is biased towards the USA. Zabrak 03:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What? Grundler1 07:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Err... yes, well... the BBC have mentioned (somewhere...) that the technology needed to produce polonium-210 is known as "state-technology" in certain circles. As for the USA, see my post above about other political bodies being involved. I believe the correct response is "include it in Category:Conspiracy theories". All I can find is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6181688.stm, right at the bottom: "Professor Dudley Goodhead, Medical Research Council Radiation and Genome Stability Unit, said: "To poison someone much larger amounts are required and this would have to be man-made, perhaps from particle accelerator or a nuclear reactor."" --87.112.35.77 12:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• no offence, but since:

1. you apparently can't spell "worst"; and
2. Wikipedia isn't some sort of cabal but in fact can be edited by anyone (including you, god forbid) and therefore it makes no sense whatsoever to suggest there's some kind of conspiracy of silence on the issue of who can make polonium or how; and
3. your mention of the USA is completely irrelevant to the matter of a Russian-turned-British citizen and the Russian government; and
4. you don't appear to have read the article at all; and
5. we rely on verifiable sources, meaning "Okay I heard that... [so-and-so happened]" is not going to cut any mustard in that respect;

your criticism seems a little weak and ill-founded. W guice 17:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User Zabrak appears to be nothing more than a vandal. Move along. --Haizum 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

The first paragraph opens with a long sentence. Furthermore there is no flow in the several sentences there. This is a poor style. The first paragraph is very important for an article in this category. We must come a consensus on the essential details that will and will not feature in this paragraph. Please do not revert several times, without discussing in accords to the three revert rule. Below please propose what should be in and out and we will come to a consensus - Chavatshimshon 23:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It's all a bunch of random what-not. I split the first setnence into two, and I'm currently trying to revise the introduction of the article. Nishkid64 00:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Age Issue Why is it that several people insist that Litvinenko was '43' when 2006-1962=44 and Nov 23 is AFTER Aug 30. Please explain. Either use '44' or change "1962" to "1963." - 68.219.235.65 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get August 30th from? He was born on December 4, 1962 and died on November 23, 2006. That means he's 43 years old, and about two weeks shy of his 44th birthday. Nishkid64 00:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I had the August 30 figure somewhere in my head as well, i think it was misinformation that was in the lead para a few days ago until it was changed. don't quote me on that tho W guice 00:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was changed by Jpeob earlier today. See [3] . Nishkid64 02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Career in FSB

1) I removed "the most secret" in the "he was again promoted to the most secret department of the Russian FSB, the Department for the Analysis of Criminal Organizations". Obviously the most secret department of FSB is the Counterintelligence Service due to nature of its work.

2) I changed "He was then drafted into the Soviet Army and rapidly rose through the ranks from private to lieutenant-colonel" since this information is incorrect.

He was then drafted into the Internal Troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and after one year of service matriculated to Kirov Higher Command School in Vladikavkaz. After graduation of the school in 1985 he started his service as a platoon commander in a Internal Troops regiment guarded transporting valuables.

He became a KGB agent in 1986 and in 1988 he was officially transferred to the Third Chief Directorate of KGB (Military counterintelligence). In 1989 after one year studying in the Novosibirsk Military Counterintelligence School he became an operational officer and served in the military counterintelligence until 1991.

Source: http://www.prima-news.ru/news/articles/2002/10/10/17299.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ovc (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

Nigel West?

Who is Nigel West? Haven't he heard of Georgi Markov or Stepan Bandera?

See Nigel West --jmb 10:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Markov was killed by the Bulgarians Jooler 12:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Not true. The 0.3 millimeter subminiature glass sphere containing the ricin poison was manufactured by the KGB. The umbrella rifle that fired the pellet was built by the KGB. In fact, this mechanized murder umbrella design has served until 2003 as the logo of russian computer anti-virus firm Kaspersky Labs. Its founder and head Eugene Kaspersky is a former KGB member. Really sad.

Look here, opened umbrella: http://www.wareza.net/archives/kav.jpg Closed umbrella: http://saaal-apwu.org/bioterrorism/umbrella.jpg Note the large size coil spring in both drawings. You cannot dismiss it.

The umbrella may have been made by the KGB, but the actual assassin was a Bulgarian. Nishkid64 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he was not bulgarian. The actual assassin was an insignificant italian crook, one Francesco Gullino, who lived in Denmark for some time and he is still at large. Whether KGB or the bulgarians hired him is not known, but the tech gear was made by KGB. Anyhow, Bulgaria was de facto part of the USSR during the communist regime. The commie dictator Todor Zhivkov actually wanted to unite the two countries or better say merge Bulgaria into the mighty USSR. He proposed to do so on the party congress but eventhe comrades rebuffed him. 195.70.32.136 11:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

FSB Or KGB?

In the Polonium page, it says that he was a former FSB agent. But in this article and on news reports, he was in the KGB. Was he both, or one? --ASDFGHJKL 14:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There are no KGB since 1991. FSB is its successor. --Ovc 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

When he first joined, it was KGB. That may be why the Po article uses the term. 82.93.133.130 16:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

When he was born there surely was KGB. But when he had joined FSB there was only FSB.Alexandre Koriakine 10:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"Polonium cow"?

• What on earth is a "polonium cow"? It sounds like some sort of nuclear barnyard incident. I'm assuming it's a real thing since the user who added mention of it is a chemist, but maybe a short explanation is in order so the layman may know too? Also would make it less likely to be mistaken for vandalism. W guice 17:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I presume it's some sort of polonium breeder reactor and you 'milk' it of polonium. However I agree it needs further explaination or a link Nil Einne 17:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the guy just "made up" the word. I searched on Google, and I only got 1 Google hit. [4]. Nishkid64 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

An anon dismissed that info, and removed it from the article. See [5]. Nishkid64 18:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

About the Po-cow, it is oftein the case that many users of open sources of short lived radioisotopes use a longer lived precursor isotope as a source of the shortlived isotope. If a easy chemical separation can be made then it is possible to milk the isotope cow on a regular basis. For Tc-99m it is normal to use Mo-99 on Al2O3 (eluted with saline to get the Tc), for radon-222 it is normal to use radium-226. While the chemical and physcial design of the cow will vary according to the isotope required overall it is the same general method. If someone was to work out a good way of making the Po/Pb separation then a cow is possible.Cadmium

Thanks for that. It appears then that the anon did make the word up but isotope cow is used colliqually for breeder reactors. Even our on article mentions the term Technetium-99m generator. I.E. No one that we know of has made a polonium cow but if they did, people would understand what they meant by polonium cow Nil Einne 09:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Expanded introduction

See my changes here. Tell me what you guys think, and feel free to expand or subtract stuff from it. Nishkid64 18:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I also would like a few comments regarding my additions to the "See Also" section. Are all of those links appropriate for this article? My only concern is the Georgi Markov link. Nishkid64 19:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest to rephrase section: "Litvinenko publicly attributed his death to decisions made and acts performed by Russian government officials, which has attracted widespread international attention."

Reason: Litvinenko did not make public statements; he just signed his death message. All public announcements were made by Alexander Goldfarb.

--Ovc 00:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, your statement sounds a bit awkward. "Litvinenko publicly attributed his death"...while he was still alive. Nishkid64 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Criminal charges in Russia timeline

Timeline:

Press conference - November 18, 1998; Criminal case initiated - December 2, 1998; Arrest - March 25, 1999; Court acquittal - November 26, 1999;

Arrest with new charges (in the courtroom) - November 26, 1999; Release on bail - one month later; Criminal case closed due to lack of evident - April 21, 2000;

Criminal case with new charges (left on bail) - April 21, 2000 (the same day); Left Russia and arrived to London - November 1, 2000;

Timeline is based only on an interview with Litvinenko and requires verification.

--Ovc 20:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko was found guilty June 25, 2002 by Naro-Fominsk garrison military court (Russian: Нарофоминский гарнизонный военный суд) and was sentenced to 3.5 years probation in his absence. Later Inspection # 5 of the Moscow Department of Corrections (Russian: Уголовно-исправительная инспекция № 5 Управления исполнения наказания УИН Минюста РФ по Москве) filed petition to revoke his probation due to his absence in Russia, but at February 25, 2003 Chertanovo court (Russian: Чертановский суд) declined petition according to paragraph 74 Russian Criminal Code.

Source: http://newsru.com/russia/27jun2006/chaika.html#13

--Ovc 00:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)