[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Alexander Litvinenko/Archive 1

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

Sections of the article

I changed "Career in Russian intelligence" to "Career in Russian security services" since he never worked in PGU KGB/SVR.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ovc (talk • contribs) 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

Boris Berezovsky

It is written that Alexander Litvinenko while employed by Russia was asked to arrange for Boris Berezovsky to be killed. In other places it is written that they are (were) friends in London. I find it strange that there is little written about this curious relationship. At what point did they become friends? When did they first meet? Were they already acquainted when Alexander Litvinenko was ordered to arrange for Boris Berezovsky to be killed? Has anyone documented the trajectory of this relationship? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.201.37 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 28 November 2006

Thallium?

The BBC 6 O'Clock news tonight was saying that some doubt was now being thrown on the identification of the poison as thallium? Angus Lepper 19:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The articles I've read have said the doubt is because it's clear there was some radioactive element involved. Some are now saying it could have been radioactive thallium. Tuviya 23:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The BBC have aired footage of a hospital doctor numerous times today, stating that the poison was "unlikely to be a heavy metal, such as thalium" and also unlikely to be radioactive. In one article it even suggested he may have poisoned himself. See http://www.forbes.com/infoimaging/feeds/ap/2006/11/21/ap3194773.html "London's University College Hospital said: "Based on results we have received today and Mr. Litvinenko's clinical features, thallium poisoning is an unlikely cause of his current condition."" --87.112.76.78 00:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Nov25-Dec1 issue of The Economist says that "Doctors... downplay earlier diagnoses of thallium poisoning"(page 42)
--User24 15:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The symptoms, at least according to all the articles, point to the poisoning with radioactive thallium. The same exact symptoms were described by Nikolai Khokhlov, who was poisoned by KGB back in 1957. Since radioactive thallium quickly decays, the dosage quickly falls below toxic. However, the radiation and whatever remains after decay still wreck havoc on the body, but also make the antidote less effective.
I would disagree that this is according to "all the articles". The newer ones are tending towards ruling out the thallium hypothesis in favour of pol-210. W guice 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

sushi

This passge does not follow. IE where is the prior mention to the Italian jounalist. Has it been removed? He had lunch with her? If so, this needs editing...

On 1 November 2006, Litvinenko fell suddenly ill while investigating the death of journalist Anna Politkovskaya. He had had lunch at Itsu, a sushi restaurant in Piccadilly. The female Italian journalist claimed to have information on the murder of Politkovskaya, 48, the outspoken journalist who was killed at her Moscow apartment in October 2006 - the Italian passed him papers on the Russian journalists fate.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Sasquatchuk (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

2nd edit: {{db-bio}}

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&q=Alexander+Litvinenko

This is a very big deal - to call Mr Litvinenko non-notable even without the possible poisoning is laughable, IMHO, but with the poisoning it could have very dramatic repercussions on foreign relations with Britain and Russia. This is a major news story, he is a major critic, and this is a big deal internationally. Tuviya 03:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that this page doesn't need to be deleted, then please expand it and I will remove the tag.Ardo 03:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to be a collaboration. Just because you don't think something has enough detail doesn't mean it's non-notable. That has nothing to do with the criteria by which you are attempting a speedy deletion. I will expand it, in due time, but I would remind that there's more to Wikipedia than deleting new content without searching for relevance - you could add to it too, especially since I gave you a list of news links (see above). I came here looking for more information and was surprised to see nothing. So I created a new page about this notable figure - that's how this is supposed to work, I thought. Something is certainly better than nothing - and in any case, it doesn't qualify for a speedy delete anyway. Tuviya 03:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course he is a notable, even famous person. We must have this article in Wikipedia. Biophys 19:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, this story is all over the news front pages - obvious notability due to references from multiple independent reputable sources. DWaterson 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
You guys can stop agreeing now, it's not up for deletion any more. W guice 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Like Yuri Schekochikhin and Nikolai Khokhlov?

I think we should pay close attention to the fate of famous Russian journalist Yuri Schekochikhin (Юрий Щекочихин) from Novaya Gazeta who died from a poisoning with very similar symptoms a few years ago (if I remember correctly). See[1] and [2]. Like Litvineko, Yuri Schekochikhin investigated Russian apartment bombings and wrote a book about domestic KGB/FSB activities "Slaves of KGB" ("Raby GB", Russian). He was a member of Kovalev comission, together with Sergei Yushenkov who was also assassinated [3] [4].Biophys 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken about Georgi Markov. Markov was indeed assassinated, but he was poisoned with ricin. It was defector Nikolai Khokhlov (Хохлов) who was poisoned by tallium derivatives. See the article (Russian) where Nikolai Khokhlov described how he was poisoned in the same Novaya Gazeta [5].Biophys 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps accidently, the journalist who prepared the interview with Nikolay Khokhlov was Anna Politkovskaya [6]! Biophys 21:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I included some relevant information about this in articles about Anna Politkovskaya and Nikolay Khokhlov. Biophys 01:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide any proof that Yuri Schekochikhin was poisoned?Link N1 (which you provided) says he died because of an allergic reaction.Dimts 17:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

British citizen?

The lead in this article says "in October 2006 became a British citizen", but no source is provided for this claim, and BBC News say only that he is "believed to have taken British citizenship this year, although this has not been confirmed by the Home Office." Especially given that uncertainty, a firm statement of fact as in this article must be referenced. 86.136.252.196 22:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Guardian states "The defector, who has been granted asylum and citizenship in Britain...". While Guardian can usually be classified as "reliable source", I think there is a lot of assumptions and mis-information floating about that I wouldn't put that down as a fact until more reliable sources agree.nordstar 22:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
El Tiempo say that he was arrested by Russian security services in 1999, and in 2000 he abandoned Russia with his family and set in the Uk, when he obtain his citizenzhip, but they dont say the exact date or anything specific.--ometzit<col> 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Since when did Britons become citizens? I thought the proud and proper term was British subjects -- has this changed? Eleuther 09:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

On 1 January 1983, upon the coming into force of the British Nationality Act 1981, every Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies became either a British Citizen, British Dependent Territories Citizen or British Overseas Citizen.

The use of the term "British subject" was discontinued for all persons who fell into these categories, or who had a national citizenship of any other part of the Commonwealth. The category of "British subjects" now includes only those people formerly known as "British subjects without citizenship", and no other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.201.54.21 (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Pictures of him in hospital have been released. [7]. Although copyrighted, they've been released by the family so would probably count as 'promo' photos in a way and IMHO, they would qualify under our non-reproducible requirements too. So IMHO fair use is definitely possible. However it would still be good if someone can try and contact the family and very carefully and considerately ask for these photos to be licensed under a suitable free license Nil Einne 18:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"His family gave permission for the pictures to be released to show the effects of what they believe was a deliberate poisoning. He has lost all his hair and looks far older than his 44 years." [8] EvilAlex 19:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that as I stated. However the fact remains, the license these photos are released under is uncertain. As I've stated, they'll almost definitely qualify as fair use IMHO because they're effectively promo photos (in a way, the term promo might sound offensive in this context but they're similar in many regards) and they're also unlikely to be reproducible. However until and unless we can get a suitable license, we can only use them under fair use IMHO. That's why I urge someone to contact the family at some stage and politely and carefully try and get the images released under a suitable license. This may or may not be possible. Bear in mind the family may not be willing given our requirements which prohibit no derivatives and no commercial use restrictions. Nil Einne 13:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There are photos of him holding his book "Blowing Up Russia" everywhere. Surely they would count as promo photos, as he is advertising his books. I have a good one I could upload. --Codutalk 14:16, 22 November 2006 (GMT)
I think you should. The current picture is from AFP. Although it is said to be include under "Fair Use" the use of photos from agencies is specifically said not to be Fair Use in the examples on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fair_use#Images
The new photo of him is one of him holding hos book. This is a much better photo I think. I hope everyone likes it, and has no problems with it. codu (t/c) 15:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The tag line of him in hospital states "...in intenstive care" wasn't this picture taken prior to him being moved back into ITU after dererioating? Panthro 00:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Retract my last statement, I have found a copy of a picture taken at distance where he is clearly in ITU, http://www.elperiodico.com/EDICION/ED061124/CAS/FOTOS/EPP_ND/CARP01/f020mh01.jpg Panthro 00:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Original source of information

It seems that much of the information on the alleged poisoning originates from Boris Berezovsky and other "friends" of Litvinenko, including Alex Goldfarb. Are there any independent sources for the poisoning or the presence of thallium?

Some interesting links:

-- Petri Krohn 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Alex Goldfarb and Alexei Goldfarb, co-author of Litvinenko, are probably two different persons.Biophys 18:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Lawyer? Alexander Goldfarb (author) (Alexei, Alex) is a spokesman for Boris Berezovsky [9] and the head of his "Civil Liberties Fund" (CLF). [10]
Seem to be the same. I am not sure.Biophys 16:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
No they are not the same, Alexander Goldfarb is a former member of the Knesset.
The name of the New York organization is International Foundation for Civil Liberties. See [11] for more on Goldfarb. -- Petri Krohn 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

radiactive?

The article states that others where killed by radioactive thalium. Is there any prof for radioactive thalium? This would be a real overkill in my view.--134.76.234.75 10:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw this documentary on THC about the so called "Laboratory X" and how it was linked to all these poisonings in Russia(the thalium was supposedly their idea)... but I was surprised to see no reference to it here in Wikipedia. Nor a "cateogory" that links all these people. Would that be a hoax? Overawe 13:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6167728.stm Archibald99 13:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is said he will need bone marrow transplant even if he survives, due to the radioactive nature of tallium he was fed.
latest bbc reports have his doctors saying it probably isn't radioactive thalium but they can't yet rule anything out. they seemed to be implying it wasn't thalium at all. confusion --Mongreilf 19:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the radioactive thallium bit, as its seemed unlikely to me. I have since seen an AFP release which repeats the speculation, 'citing' an unnamed British toxicologist. As I chemist, I still feel that it is doubtful: if you wanted to kill someone by radiological means, you would not choose thallium to do it: thallium is quite capable of killing someone on its own without bothering to produce a sufficient quantity of the radioactive version (much harder to handle and to administer). It seems like there is a certain amount of disinformation going on (compare with the death of Yassir Arafat). I am just off to check the accuracy of our article(s) on thallium toxicity; give me a shout if you need a chemist in the house! Physchim62 (talk) 11:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The "unnamed British toxicologist" is being named on the BBC: John Henry (toxicologist) [12]. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 11:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Also named by CNN here. The Wikipedia pieces on thallium toxicity are short and distributed among a number of articles, but seem accurate. These two papers [13], [14] give good overviews, if a little technical. The Indian paper gives some hints as to the problems of being sure about the diagnosis. Physchim62 (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yury Skuratov

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

BLP most definitely applies. I have shortened the passage appropriately. Physchim62 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ranks

Disscontinuity: a person can be promoted in ranks, but not in the reverse order. So he can't be first a colonel and then become a lieutenant-colonel.

Not saying that's the case here, but a military personal can be demoted in rank. -- KTC 01:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Eh? Any person can be demoted in rank in any field - civil service, military or private company - so he can. Anyway, each rank was in a different service so that may also explain it. 86.17.247.135 01:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Litvinenko cannot be ex-KGB colonel; he joined KGB in 1988 (3 years before its disbandment) and continued his service in MB-FSK-FSB. His rank was lieutenant-colonel, not colonel. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Ovc (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC).

Dead

ITN News just reported he is dead. --Tim1988 talk 23:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed by BBC and the hospital... Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
That should be in article:"The bastards got me but they won't get everybody"[16] EvilAlex 00:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean that should be in the article? I second that (thought : best last words ever) The Lilac Pilgrim 01:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes it should indeed be in the article. At the top. Chavatshimshon 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Biophys 07:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Also reported by the BBC: Speaking in Friday's Times, film-maker Andrei Nekrasov said that, before he fell unconscious for the last time, his friend had told him: "I want to survive, just to show them. The bastards got me but they won't get everybody." (Times)

Does not make sense

Following a deterioration of his condition on 20 November, Litvinenko was moved into intensive care. On 23 November, an X-ray was said to have revealed three small objects in his intestines, almost certainly due to Prussian blue, the treatment he had been given for thallium poisoning.[14] What? The three small objects were caused by Prussian blue? This paragraph makes no sense. -Rolypolyman 03:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No the three small 'objects' visible in the X-rays were the prussian blue given to treat thallium poisoning. Nil Einne 13:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian Assassination Law

British MEP, Gerard Batten said on BBC News 24-Nov-06 that the Russian Government had passed a law, in mid 2006, legalising assassinations of Russian and non Russian disidents, anywhere in the world, slandering or libeling the Russian Goverernment. Does anyone know about this law? Anon user 08:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See this link [17]. Can't read Russian but it wouldn't surprise me if it's true. Israel/Mossad is infamous for it's assasinations in foreign countries and the CIA to a lesser extent Nil Einne 13:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I can read Russian and I can tell you that this an anti-terrorism law. The only part that refers to acting outside Russia is Article 10 "Use of Russian Armed Forces outside Russia for prevention of terrorist activities" that says that armed forces can be used to destroy terrorist bases abroad. The decision must be approved by the upper house of Russian parliament and the president. The decree must specify the number of servicemen, ther specific tasks etc. This law does not authorise secret killings abroad. Russian secret services (and I am sure other countries are not different) definitely do kill people abroad - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelimkhan_Yandarbiev#Assassination but there is no LAW in Russia allowing that - that would be against international rules and laws.
So, Kremlin claimed to follow the international rules, but it does not follow these rules in practice. The Ilukhin's opinion reflects how this Law was widely interpreted by Russian public. Also see this [18]. The paper says that ..."the draft law contains a number of controversial elements. One is a clause that allows Russia to eliminate suspected international terrorist targets beyond its borders, although the country's security services would be supposed to act within the terms of international treaties and agreements signed by Moscow." This law was also interperetd by Lev Ponomarev as a step toward creating a parallel FSB government. In a wider context, see this [19].Biophys 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ilykhin also said that Putin's decree about creating the National Counterterrorism Committee inflates the role of the FSB to the degree that it "makes it a state within a state and a substitute for state functions and prerogatives." [20] Biophys 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


This bill is a clear Antiterrorism Bill. You can find defenition of terrorism, terrorist activity and anti-terrorism operation in the paraghraph 3 of the law. --Ovc 01:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

See also this BBC article. --Zundark 16:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Text of the law does not have world "extremists" or "extremism" at all.--Ovc 18:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Investigating" Politkovskaya's death?

Any proof that Litvinenko was "investigating"? What kind of investigation could he possible have done if the murder occured in Moscow and he was outside Russia for the past 6 years? Can it really be called "investigation"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.209.1 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 24 November 2006

Well it's been said he'd been told the day he got sick who the killer was. This info was supposedly going to be released when he got well. Since he has died, we can assume this info was passed to someone and will be release in due course, if there is anything really there. However this IMHO isn't too important. He has stated he was investigating the death and unless we have reason to believe this isn't true, then there is no point speculating. Whether or whether not he had any chance of successfully investigating her death without visiting Russia is an interesting question but not one for wikipedia, unless it's something that is raised in a reliable source. However I should point out that journalists have successful uncovered things in other countries relying solely on contacts and without visiting said countries Nil Einne 13:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Boris Berezovsky has been named as one of the suspects in the Politkovskaya assassination. In theory it is thus possible to investigate the murder in London. As Litvinenko was on Berezovsky's payroll, it is unlikely this is the lead he was following.
It is likely that Politkovskaya and Litvinenko cases are related. In fact I believe that assassinations of Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Gemayel, and Hariri as well as the attempt on Viktor Yushchenko were all organized by the same people. Who dunit? Follow the money - who had the most to gain? -- Petri Krohn 01:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The story about Boris Berezovsky as the suspect appeared in the Russian media because Berezovsky knows too much about too many things. So, they want to destroy his credibility as a potential witness (he already has zero credibility for Russian public due to such propaganda campains).Biophys 03:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine Berezovsky having any "credibility".He ordered the assassinations of a few of his enemies,he supported the Chechen rebels,he always calls for the overthrow of the current goverment of Russia.Everybody knows that!Do you really think he's a nice guy?Dimts 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Further Recherche towards Vladimir Ruschailo (chassed security secratary)

Boris Beresowski


who founded a party with two other people, Sergej Juschenkow and Wladimir Golowljow, and who was a voter pro Putin-vote-contrahent Iwan Rybkin in 2004

had to realize, that both other party founders Sergej Juschenkow and Wladimir Golowljow were murdered, by the Kreml or by Beresowsky himself?

Boris Beresowski was a TV-Manager, so he choosed the slow public death of Alexander Litvinenko to destroy the image of Putin?

Though, Alexander Litvinenko was doing a recherche to the death aof Anna Politkovskaja.

The recherche has to find out now, if Boris Beresowski has a contamination of Polonium 210, or - which forces within russia do not want a modern Kremel with - and of course why Anna Politkovskaja was murdered by the Kremel. Too many death peaople: Alexander Litvinenko, Sergej Juschenkow and Wladimir Golowljow, and Anna Politkovskaja.

If Boris Berezovsky would die as well, Vladimir Putin would be in hard conflicts.


As Ivan Rybkin is a founder of the conservative party

and a good Friend of Boris Beresowski, both contrahents of Putin, the motives of the death of Alexander Litvinenko maybe found in the relationsships of Ivan Rybkin to the Russian federation.


Secretary of the federation is: 2001 - 2004 Wladimir Ruschailo, he has to be asked as well towards the topics, because his period ended as well with the beginning of putin.

Ivan Rybkin was the security-secretary of the russian federation and as well special-secretary for the Tschetschenien-war. He was called "Mr. Consens" so he made peace with them in a mute way - the opposite of Putin: a loud war. And this was as well the topic of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko: the war against Tschetschenien, which should be strategic product of "burning the house down"-Putin, in their eyes.

So the real focus is the nowerdays work of Ivan Rybkin.

Poisoning

The impression I'm getting from the BBC etc is that the doctors that were treating him now think it unlikely thallium or radiation is the primary cause. It may be multiple agents or we just don't know. However the way it's currently written doesn't quite convey that to me. I don't have sources and I'lm lazy to track them down but hopefully someone else can add this Nil Einne 13:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I took care of it, sourcing it to the Guardian.--Wehwalt 14:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Although interestingly radiation was the cause it appears. Actually now that I recall, it wasn't just thallium but any heavy metal that they said unlikely. I believe also radiation Nil Einne 15:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Romano Prodi

The paragraph with the link on Romano Prodi beeing a KGB officier seems at least "original", and create a feeling that "everything is possible", helping to hide the true and creating further disturb in the public opinion.

The above comment will be removed in five days if it is not signed. In the meantime the link will go back in and stay in untill a consensus has been reached amongst all editors. Chavatshimshon 23:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
are you quite sure you're allowed to just remove comments like that? W guice 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Date of death

The date of Litvinenko's death is stated as November 23rd in the heading and the Death section and as November 24th in the Suspected thallium poisoning section. Which is it? (I believe the former is correct) DES 15:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ITN had it last night around 11, the former is indeed correct. I removed the details from the "Suspected thallium poisoning" section anyway, as i felt they were amply covered in the following "Death" section. W guice 15:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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. [21] 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

I've noticed a remarkable coincidence: Litvinenko was born in 1962 and died in 2006, and Steve Irwin was also born in 1962 and died in 2006. Also:

  • Both died in an English-speaking country.
  • Both died of poisoning of some sort.
  • Both died in a place other than the one where they were born.
  • Both were involved in dangerous activities during their lives.

Scott Gall 04:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

OMG your right!!
Oh wait no... Steve died of a riped out heart.
And you are wrong about Steves death location since he died off the coast of Queensland, AUS.
*Both died in an English-speaking country. WTF??
*Both were involved in dangerous activities during their lives. So has almost everyone who ever died.
Your reading to much into this and coming out with a 'observation' and looking none the wiser.--Doom Child 07:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Australia is an English speaking country BTW. Anyway, what are you trying to say, that the stingrays killed Mr. Litvinenko? What's the point of this topic? 68.105.157.197 08:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
So? Loads of people died this year, who were also born in 1962 and did somewhat dangerous things in their lives.
But maybe you're right. May the Russiand and the stringrays are in league together. Maybe you're just ahead of the game in predicting these things. codu (t/c) 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we remove this section? It's hurting my head. W guice 22:02, 25 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. [22] 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 [23] . 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. [24]. Nishkid64 17:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
An anon dismissed that info, and removed it from the article. See [25]. 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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Alexander Litvinenko/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Short, but mostly well refrenced. The page should improve now that he is on the front page.

Last edited at 14:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko/Archive_1&oldid=1256227605"