Jump to content

Talk:Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sentinel7 (talk | contribs) at 19:10, 1 December 2006 (→Microcuries?!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Reminder ("Wikipedia is not...")


He is NOT wanted by Moscow

I removed the part about him being on the wanted list in Moscow. The Times article given as reference doesn't say anything about it. In his interview in 2002 he said that Interpol's warrant for his arrest has been revoked. Source: http://www.kommersant.ru/index-news.html?ext=news&id=56046

...publicly wanted. Haizum 18:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even more: looks like Russian justice did not look for him at all. His sentence (3.5 years probation) ended in December 2005 and Chertanovo court ruled at February 25, 2003 that his absence in Russia does not violate conditions of probation.
This needs confirmation
--Ovc 01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Convert to Islam?

Is there any credibility to the report that Litvinenko had converted to Islam? Does anyone know the facts one way or another? Dr. Dan 23:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This information appeared on the web-site http://www.chechenpress.info and has never been approved by anybody else include other Chechen sites such as http://kavkazcenter.com/ (ARU)

Putin and little boys

Looks like an article written by him:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vA38XOLDXnYJ:www.chechenpress.co.uk/english/news/2006/07/05/01.shtml+putin+pedophile&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2/

Who knows? Of course, the episodes with Nikita and Skuratov are well known. But we know surprisingly little about the actual Putin's life and career. One person who tried to investigate the actual biography of Putin was Artem Borovik (editor of newspaper "Top secret" - probably it does not exist any more), and he died in a puzzling plane crash (Putin said: "those who are against me will be dead in three days" - just a few days before this crash if I remember correctly). Another person who knows a lot about Putin is Boris Berezovsky (so he might be next on the hit list). However, Berezovsky is guilty as sin in many things, so he probaly is not going to come forward and tell anything, unless his life is really threatened. I only hope that he is clever enought to write down everything he knows and keep it in a secret place (in the event if he is killed too). Biophys 03:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, [1] is by him. Whether there is or isn't evidence that Putin is a pedophile, that Litvinenko alleged he is should be mentioned in the article. -- Infrogmation 14:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you mention 'Putin and little boys' then you have to mention of other Litvinenko accusation: 9/11 in New-York, explosions in London in 2005 and others which was made by Putin (as Litvinenko claimed). Alexandre Koriakine 10:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done--Shakura 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed the part about the Islam?

Why was it removed? It stated that this was not confirmed and it could be a speculation, but what was so awful about it to stay there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.238.139.53 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt remove it but it probebly didnt belong here considering Wikipedia is actualy an encyclopedia and its editors must abide by guidelines. Chavatshimshon 23:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Er, if actual traces of polonium were found at all these places, that raises the possibility of suicide. That Litvinenko is said to have converted to Islam then becomes vital info. Still hearsay, but we could cite it as unconfirmed hearsay. This is a self-destructing theory of course, because now that the possibility of a "theatrical" suicide has been raised, Litvinenko's entourage will probably not dare to publically bury him as a Muslim, so we may never know for sure.
On the other hand, it is not always clear when reading these reports whether the police mean traces of radioactivity or traces of actual polonium. And the presence of polonium at all these places could also mean that someone very close to Litvinenko was involved. --Pan Gerwazy 09:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24.60.104.71 02:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Even if he is Muslim, it really doest tie into this in any way. Since Religion appears to have no significant involvement in his murder.[reply]

I believe it is a sin for a Muslim to commit suicide, except where it can kill an enemy of Islam. So if he did convert to Isalm ( more probably a smaer attempt by his enemies ) he then immediately commited a great sin. 145.253.108.22 10:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Availability of Polonium 210

The article now suggests that only governments could get access to Polonium 210. This is not quite true. Small amounts of Polonium 210 can be mail ordered by anyone in the United States, without any license.

United Nuclear is offering 0.1uCi of Polonium 210 for US $69. [2] For a lethal dose you would need in the order of 0.1mCi, i.e. a thousand times the amount. -- Petri Krohn 13:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nishkid64 removed the statement that Po-210 is freely available by mail order. The article falsely claims, that Po-210 can only be accessed by state actors. This is POV and bullshit. I have restored the sentence and the link. -- Petri Krohn 00:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Please do not try to argue, that Wikipedia needs to be censored, so that other would-be assassins would not pick up on the Polonium 210 idea. -- Petri Krohn 00:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.""--87.113.8.161 01:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Po-210 is 250 billion times more poisonous than cyanide, and yet American websites are selling it online without a licence?? So much for the "poisoners had their own nuclear reactor" hypothesis.. I just hope Osama hasn't noticed..

There was a reference at the end of the main article to the American website, http://www.unitednuclear.com/isotopes.htm, which sells Polonium-210 over the internet, and a remark afterwards "debunking the claim that the poisoners must have been experts with access to a nuclear reactor". I've deleted the "debunking..." remark because it is untrue (or at least highly POV), but I've kept the link to the website because that appears to be a fact. In fact if you look at the website itself you will see that (i) they don't keep the Po-210 themselves - they arrange for it to be shipped from a reactor, (ii) the units they sell are only 1/15,000 of a lethal dose, (iii) it is highly infeasible to combine 15,000 of their units to make a lethal dose, (iv) and in any case they only sell 1 or 2 units every 3 months, so it would be very noticeable if someone tried to do this.89.241.1.1 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freely available?

From the United Nuclear web site:

"All our radioactive isotopes are legal to purchase & own by the general public."

-- Petri Krohn 00:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reference from the company website. I'm hoping for a reference that is coming from some third-party website or news source. Nishkid64 00:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should remember that after the breakdown of the Soviet Union, nuclear material, including Uranium (you get Po from Uranium), has been unmonitored (though the UN is trying to track everything down). Is it possible that this Po was not strictly from a government source? 82.93.133.130 16:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also found a reference regarding United Nuclear and its polonium sales. Nishkid64 23:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Half-time of Polonium-310 is 138 days. Soviet Union breakdowned 15 years ago. Alexandre Koriakine 10:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English or Russian language?

What is the original language (Russian of English) of the posthumous statement and his last words? Russian media has no consistent translation (e.g. bastards is translated to подонки or ублюдки), so it may be said in English, also there are some claims of Russian linguists that some phrases (as a passage about the wings of an angel of death) are uncommon for a person of Russian origin.--213.148.27.40 18:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The angel of death statement is a bit strange for a Russian-born man but remember he was living here for six years. My theory is that Mr Litvinenko had picked up some English phrases like the angel of death part and I reckon he probably tried to make the statement in English (perhaps parts in Russian as his English was said to not be very strong) whereas his last words were possibly in Russian. But that's just what I think. The Lilac Pilgrim 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]



According to the interview with last Russians who met him - Ex-KGB officer Andrey Lugovoi (Template:Lang-ru) and Ex-military officer Dmitry Kovtun (Template:Lang-ru) his English was poor.
Source: http://mk.ru/numbers/2478/article87222.htm
--Ovc 01:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but like the above user said, the angel of death part is not a primarily Russian thing to say. My friend tells me a newspaper has an image of the paper the statement was written on - the statement was apparently written in English. I will have to ask him to get it for me. The Lilac Pilgrim 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's very much possible that his statement was written by Lord Bell's PR agency. He was in intensive care since 20th. Was he even capable of speaking or to dictate his last words? I also find it bit odd in Andrei Nekrasov's statement[3] that "origins of Yeltsin's presidency were legitimate, while those of Putin's are not quite.", if you compare to Russian constitutional crisis of 1993. --Mikko Paananen 17:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While an interesting theory, there's no evidence so it'll just have to remain here. However it wouldn't be that surprising if he did at least have help in composing the letter Nil Einne 09:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence at all that he contributed to the message in any way? Zocky | picture popups 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrei Nekrasov said in an interview with Radio Liberty (computer translation) that Litvinenko composed the statement in Russian with his lawyer. The statement was then translated. I didn't see the original Russian version, if it ever was released. ilgiz 17:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Litvinenko birth date

It's disputed, but some sources give October 30 as the birth date and some give December 4th. I've inserted both since there appears to be no proper source on this matter. Nishkid64 23:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


According to several sources his birthday is December 4, 1962.

I think we can remove October 30.

--Ovc 01:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. Half of the other language wikipedias are using October 30, so I think it's best to keep it up there temporarily. Nishkid64 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please see The Independant obituary and The Telergraph obituary which both state his birth date to be October 30 Ryanpostlethwaite 02:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30 August 1962 according to the Independent and the Telegraph. Well, let's wait utill we can be sure.--Ovc 03:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
August 30, October 30, December 4. This is insane. Nishkid64 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
November 13th!! actually I just made that up. just figured november was feeling little left out... --87.113.8.161 23:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand for 30 August 1962 since most likely obituaries were verified by his friends/relatives --Ovc 02:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could this be simply a discrepancy between calendars? 82.93.133.130 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about three different dates all relatively close to each other, then I would agree with you. However, these dates are nowhere close to each other, and I think that almost all of the world uses the same Gregorian calendar now. Nishkid64 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kgb killings

Rupert Allason, the British intelligence expert, commented that he would be most surprised if the FSB had tried to kill Mr Litvinenko because it would fly in the face of 65 years of Soviet or Russian practice: Neither the FSB nor the KGB has ever killed a defector on foreign soil and their predecessors, even under Stalin, did so only once in the case of Walter Krivitsky in Washington in 1941.[38]

Is this a joke?

No, it isn't. Most of the Americans were brainwashed with anti-russian propaganda and KGB was not as evil as some might think. Actually, IMO, this whole "Litvinenko poisoned by ruskie hitmen", thing is pretty stupid and all these conspiracy theories were created mostly to undermine Russia's democratic status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.38.90 (talk • contribs)
It seems that Mr. Allason is forgetting Trotsky... Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think perhaps he can count better than you. 2006 - 65 = 1941 19:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Uhhh...huh? It says 1941, and 65. Nishkid64 20:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think what anon is trying to say is that 65 years of Soviet/Russian practice would be from 1941. Leon Trotsky was killed in 1940 hence he would be excluded from the period Rupert was referring to. The mention of 1941 is only in reference to Walter Krivitsky. Nil Einne 09:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0.1uCi ?

Why does everyone keep citing the fact that you can get 0.1uCi Po sources from the United Nuclear site as if its some kind of "zomg, oh noes teh atomes on teh intartubes" type dangerous crisis? Its barely 3 times the body burden even if you did manage to eat it all. If people want to wig out over Po sources shouldn't they be looking to the anti-static dusters that contain like 500 uCi? [4]. There's enough in ONE of those things to kill you (provided its separated from the Au amalgam). --Deglr6328 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually you do apparently need a license for the brush but not the UN stuff. Also, while the UN stuff is in tiny quantities, it's I suspect, easier to recover then the matrix stored static brush stuff Nil Einne 09:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.osmolabstore.com/OsmoLabPage.dll?BuildPage&1&1&1005 Another online store for the 500 microcuries source.


A nuke med tech I worked with once gave me a little metal button. I had that thing in my pants pocket for I dunno how long, and then one day he said, "So what'd you ever do with that Americium I gave you?" It came from a Wal-Mart home smoke detector. Hilarious. 82.93.133.130 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the idea that the Po is sealed in some kind of indestructable ceramic matrix inside of these anti-static things came from but it is quite wrong. Its sealed in the same way that americium is sealed in the sources for smoke detectors. Its just electroplated onto a thin strip of silver and then overcoated with a couple layers of very thin gold. Need I point out that extraction of the radioisotope from such an object would be trivial at worst?--Deglr6328 19:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever said it's superhard to recover? I just said it's probably harder to recover. Nil Einne 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub topic of Investigation of the death

Since the investigation is going to be long and ongoing and detailed should there be a sub topic of the investigation? JulianHensey 15:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sounds like a pretty good idea. i think we should prbly also expand the media reaction section to include political reactions since as far as i recall some British Cabinet Ministers (Hain, Howells, Martin) have all taken up the story and commented on aspects of it in the last couple of days. W guice 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A separate section "Investigation of the death" is a good idea.--Ovc 19:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is verisons:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/27/nspy127.xml
Also one more version of Vladimir Gusak (former boss of Litvinenko):
http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.html?docId=725074
--Ovc 21:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one more information based on military psychology http://zhurnal.lib.ru/u/urbi_o_k/litovka.shtml It is supposed that the image codes of the same strategic operation are - POLITkovskaya, LITvinenko, Paul Mccartney, twin, dead yesterday actres POLishchuk-MIRonov-Riga, POLeshchuk, POLand, LITva, POLoni, Thalii, Tal Mikhail, summit NATO Riga, iTALY , Mario Scaramella, Birch ...

paedo bit

  • someone removed

...on the basis that the article was "heresay" and didn't cite sources. i reckon that's irrelevant as we aren't discussing the veracity of the claims against Putin, merely reporting (with source) that AL made them. W guice 16:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone probably took offense to that claim. Litvinenko did make the claim, and we're only reporting what other people did, or else this article would turn into a POVfest. Nishkid64 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current event locking

As with many articles on Wikipedia, current events lend them to abuse and vandalism. May be a good idea to clean and lock this article to prevent further issues (like the yummy-gummy thing I noticed earlier). --Heavy1974, 11-27-2006

There's not that much vandalism to the page (the yummy-gummy thing was an isolated incident). Some of the IP's and newly registered users have made valued contributions to the article and protecting the page would only prevent them from editing it. Nishkid64 21:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it should stay open, this article has come leaps and bounds, but as I've mentioned before the first paragraph is everchanging and must be cleaned up. Chavatshimshon 01:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian translation

Either there is hidden information about gas and oil companies, which should not be revealed (Kremls interest to see Litvinenko mute), or the image of Putin should be decreased (Putins contrahents interests). Next to Beresowski as well his friend Wladimr Ruschailo is a voter pro Ivan Rybkin (the contrahent of Putin in 2004) and he was the security-secretary of the russian federation, which he had to left in 2004, when Putin was elected. Even more, Putin made war with Tschetschenien, which was Ruschailos project for consensual peace. The murderer must have an organization in his background to steer suchs things. So the magazin russland aktuell writes and quotes him: {{cquote|The contact with terrorists is inevitable for the operational work.[5]

I just removed the above section. It's not really written in good English, and I was hoping someone good translate all the text, and rewrite that section. Nishkid64 22:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, Nishkid64. I was thinking of cutting it for the same reason, but stopped myself because I was worried about slapping someone down just because their English isn't good. But looking at it again it seems to be awash with POV as well. Seriously, I do hope this article isn't going to drift into a complete mess. A bit iffy 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, which is exactly why I had removed it from the article. If there's someone who can find an English source or can translate the Russian, that would be appreciated. Nishkid64 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is by the same guy who on this talk page produced the part entitled "Further recherche". He uses the German version of Chechnya, for instance. And Kreml may look Russian, but is also German. As for POV, it seems the guy is repeating what the Aktuel site he is quoting is saying about the Litvinenko affair. Also this page. The intelligence guys Litvinenko met, were not straight from Russia as tends to be believed, claims this version. POV? It is one version among many, of course. Another version, that this same guy alludes to as well ("Litvinenko was killed by unknown people with FSB contacts because he had recently learnt too much about Yukos and had to be silenced") is to be found here. Just my two cents: to incorporate this, you don't need to know Russian, but German. --Pan Gerwazy 01:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the page through Babelfish. It argues that the most likely party behind the murder is Boris Berezovsky and the CIA. -- Petri Krohn 03:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for Babelfish, but not really - "Daraus folgt natürlich noch nicht, dass Litwinenko im Auftrag des CIA oder Boris Beresowskis umgebracht wurde. Es macht es aber unwahrscheinlich, dass der Mord im Auftrag des Kreml geschah." I read this as "That does of course not mean that Litvinenko was killed on orders of the CIA. It does make it unlikely, however, that the murder happened on orders of the Kremlin". A big if here, of course: this is only one of the ends at which poisoning is claimed to perhaps have happened. If one of these guys was indeed CIA, as Aktuel claims, the poisoning did not happen at that end, probably. But there is still this Italian guy. The Scaramella, professor at Naples University, seems to be a woman, called Maria Scaramella. Mario Scaramello is discussed in some detail here I am still supposing the fact that at the beginning some authors thought that the Scaramella that Litvinenko met, was a woman, to be pure coincidence. --Pan Gerwazy 08:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Mafia

It is very clear that Alexandar Litvinenk was linked to the mafia.

  1. He lived free of charge in a house owned by Boris Berekovsky.
  2. He was paid wages by the same Boris Berekovsky - how could he afford to eat at the expensive sushi bar and stay in an expensiv hotel?
  3. Boris Berekovsky is a fugitive from justice and Russia is seeking to extradite him to stand trial for fraud in Russia.

The main beneficiary of the murder is the Russian Mafia such as Boris Berekovsky as it is harder for Russia to apply for his extradition now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigEasyGuy (talk • contribs) 06:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is OT but why? If Boris Berekovsky killed Alexander Litvinenko then I would presume it'll be easy for Russia to extradite him since the UK won't want him any more. It's not as if Alexander Litvinenko was going to testify again Boris after all Nil Einne 09:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would also have to accept that Litvinenko lied about his killer on his death bead. That's a pretty big pill. --Haizum 11:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. There's no reason to assume he lied. He could have just been deluded, confused or unaware the truth of what was really going on. Remember the fact that he said it was Putin doesn't make it true. It simply suggests he believed it's Putin. I personally do accept he believed it's Putin, although I'm not so sure it really was. However the above story does seem bizzare, at least as presented Nil Einne 16:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about this case (Litvinenko death) it *can* be beneficial to many people including russian mafia, FSB, Putin, Berezovsky, Chechnya, CIA, even Scotland Yard (less likely), etc. That is what makes this case hard to solve. However if Putin wanted to kill Litvinenko to shut him up, there would have been a different poison used - the instant (!) one, not polonium, which causes a slow dying. So I think someone really wanted Litvinenko to speak before he died. And that "someone" knew what Litvinenko would say. So who will benefit from what Litvinenko said after he got sick and before he died? That is a 5 million dollar question. =Alexei


Again, Half-time of Polonium-310 is 138 days. And Polonium-210 can be produced in medical lab using neutron generator (AFAIK).Alexandre Koriakine 10:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been the Japanese

There must have been a Japanese "big fish" who was very interested in Russian oil and could make the new James Bond Movie even more realistic, in the new bond movie there are basically no gadgets available anymore then only a tiny defibrillator, anti poisoning drugs and a tiny machine to analyze his blood, By killing Litvinenko it's way more realistic to have do's gadgets as being a spy. Rick Smit 00:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 words: Sony and Sushi Rick Smit 12:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Subject

I would just like to bring to attention a possible different fair-use image that could be used, which shows the subject more clearly. [6]. This image is from [7]. Hope this may be of some use. Ian¹³/t 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded the introduction

See [8]. I rewrote the whole section basically and expanded it. It looks pretty good right now in my opinion, but tell me if you think certain things should be taken out, or added in, or if the POV of the intro is all fine and dandy. Nishkid64 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think Introduction is too long. It could be made at least 3 times shorter - as in biographies of other people in Wikipedia. His allegations and career could be described in separate sections. What is the source that says that he worked for intelligence? Biophys 00:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded it per WP:LEAD. I can cut down some of the details as they are already mentioned in the other sections. I basically summarized his life. Also, it said he worked for counterintelligence in the Career in Russian security services section of the article. Nishkid64 01:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the intro section depends from article to article. Some FA's of people who aren't too particularly notable have short intros while the intros of people such as Mahatma Gandhi are huge, and even bigger than ours. Nishkid64 01:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I simply think that such version of Introduction includes a lot of secondary details, so main facts are lost. It would be enough just to tell in Introduction that his main work was about fighting organized crime; that he appeared on Russian TV with Trepashkin claiming that FSB wanted to include him to a death squad; that he was prosecuted; that he escaped to UK; that he wrote a book claiming that Russian aparment bombing and other bombings were conducted by FSB (that was main idea; everything else is of secondary importance); and that he was poisoned. Everything else could be described below. Yes, I found the reference about his work in "intelligence" - that was not SVR. Biophys 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is certainly not Mahatma Gandhi. Biophys 01:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course he's not. But I and other editors have plans to bring this article to FA status someday. We might as well start now. And what are you saying about the reference? Also, I will shorten the section down. Nishkid64 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reference is fine. He biefly worked in counter-intelligence, not in intelligence, and he told exactly nothing about this work in counter-intelligence. I think the Introduction should only mention a few key things. His main idea about apartment bombings is completely lost (this is his most important and credible accusation - see title of his book).Biophys 01:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. You want to take a look at it and cleanup and stuff? Maybe it will be more effective that way? I'm not too familiar with the whole apartment bombing thing. Nishkid64 02:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
O'K. Then I will look first through the article to check if everything is well supported. Biophys 04:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the introduction is a kind of long. How about this introduction:

Alexander Valterovich Litvinenko (Russian: Александр Вальтерович Литвиненко; December 4, 1962 or August 30, 1962 – November 23, 2006) was a former middle-ranking Russian FSB officer and one of the most furious critics of the Russian President Putin. He accused during his press-conference in Moscow in November 1998 his superiors of ordering him to assassinate a billionaire Boris Berezovsky. He was twice arrested and acquitted by courts. After been charged third time he illegally left Russia for the UK in 2000. He is a co-author of two books, Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within and Gang from Lubyanka, and number of articles severely criticised the FSB and Vladimir Putin. On November 1, 2006 Litvinenko unexpectedly felt ill and became hospitalized. Upon his death on November 23, it was established that he had died from Polonium-210 poisoning. Litvinenko's illness, notoriety as a former FSB officer, and his public accusations that Russian government officials were behind his poisoning, led to worldwide media coverage.

Please let me know is it worth to put it in the article.--Ovc 06:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you need to mention " unexpectedly felt ill" if you do not mention the contacts. - I think to current intro is good; there is no need to make it shorter. -- Petri Krohn 06:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction is way too rambling and detailed which is why I shortened it. Please read WP:LEAD which recommends it is concise. Also some of the sentences don't flow well. The first sentence was a Russian Security Service agent [with a link to FSB] and later a Russian dissident is a much better summary than was an ex-FSB lieutenant-colonel with KGB experience in fighting organized crime. Tom 10:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order for the article to have more impact it needs to be more concise. I promise you, the shortened introduction looks and reads better than the longer one. The longer one does not summarise what he was in the first sentence including his dissidence, it goes straight into a narrative without any gap: "After working in...", it doesn't make sense in English,"his superiors had ordered for the assassination" should be "his superiors had ordered the assassination". You can't be a dissident of an organisation, see dissident. Its got several long contiguous paragraphs instead of 4 short clearly defined ones.

Please can people say which introduction they prefer [9] or [10]. Tom 11:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of which is better. Why would I come here in the first place if I had no intention of trying to shorten it a bit? Even though there wasn't much discussion on this, I think the current introduction is fairly decent, and I'll try to make copyediting corrections and such later on. Nishkid64 15:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is this. I really don't want to get too drawn into this, but perhaps there is someone who can find the information in that link usefull. I really do urge any editors with the available time to read it, as it seems to raise some interesting points. One thing I do know is that this assasination (or something else) is probably far more complicated than we know right now. Esn 07:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix the picture, someone

Could somebody competent to do so please fix the picture?

Some clever harry has posted Le Chiffre from Casino Royale, the new James Bond film.

Minor edit

Hi there. I changed the English in the above paragraph as it wasn't quite right to the following:


I hope no one minds. Feel free to revert it. There are still some overly long sentences there but I didn't want to change too much. Nice article by the way.Intesvensk 11:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I for 1 mind. You changed "Aldo Moro was held" into "Aldo Moro were held". --Pan Gerwazy 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is actually "IF Also Moro was held" which requires the subjunctive to be used, which means "If Aldo Moro were held" is gramatically correct. Correct me if I'm wrong though.Intesvensk 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. The verbal form connected with "if the tip (that) .... " is "had its origin in the KGB". Everything in between is a subordinate clause (containing more subordinate clauses) depending on the "that" in the first part. "Had" is a past tense, no need for a subjunctive there.
The second use of "were" (and "if the KGB were behind ...") is, however, grammatically correct AMERICAN English. In British English, subjunctive "were" is mandatory when the proposition is contrary to known facts, and old-fashioned elsewhere. The trick involved is the use of "would" or "could" in the main clause. See[11] and [[12]], for instance. However, in this sentence, even British people would prefer "were", because they would think of "KGB" as a singular with a plural meaning, like the word "police". Nice ambiguity - which means we do not really have to decide between British and American English here, and "were" is perfectly neutral.--Pan Gerwazy 10:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry. You're grammar is definitely much better than mine. I will try to remember the rule in future.Intesvensk 20:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting the article into new pages

What do people think about starting to cut down the size of the article by maybe moving the investigation to a new page so people can get updates instead of having to scroll all the way down the page? JulianHensey 12:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need to shorten the article in the first place? Nishkid64 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Wiki policy is for a page to be under 32 Kb in length, or shortened into new pages JulianHensey 16:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that's only a guideline.


An article called "Alexander Litvinenko investigation" or similar seems a bit disjointed to me at least at this stage. And if people want to keep up, there's always Wikinews W guice 20:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the the ICU photo deleted

Does anyone know why the ICU photo was deleted? I was of the opinion it should qualify (see above) under fair use. IMHO, it's more significant then the current photo so if we have to choose one, I would choose that one. I've never been good at using the deletion log but I can't find it there and I can't seem to see any discussion on the "possibly unfree images" either so unless it was speedied I'm confused where the discussion took place. Looking through the page history, it was never clearly marked that the image was up for deletion. Nil Einne 16:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's the reason: [13]. I'd still consider the image constitutes fair use though. DWaterson 18:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Russia

I'm encountering resistance to the Liberal Russia information.

In the article, there is a quote from Nikolay Kovalev, retired FSB commander, who says "I'm sure it wasn't the FSB, and I think it was Berezovsky".

This on its own is highly unbalanced because there is no information here given about the other events that have occured between the FSB and Berezovsky, which must be stated or this part of the article is entirely pro-FSB, by dint of not stating existing opposing information.

Berezovsky, along with a few others, founded the party Liberal Russia. One of the founders was shot and killed shortly after founding, and the co-founders were found guilty of the murder and jailed. The FSB accused Berezovsky of being behind the murder.

It is widely accepted that Berezovsky was not involved in the murder (check the article for Sergei Yushenkov) and the FSB is suspected of being behind the murder and convictions of the co-founders to disrupt the thread posed by Berezovsky's political activities. Indeed, Berezovsky was expelled/fled from Russia after this incident.

Bearing in mind this sequence of events, it is entirely improper to quote a retired FSB commander accusing Berezovsky of the murder without so much as a word of the possible issues that must be considered.

(In fact, it's worse than this; Kovalev's quote is followed by a quote from a British intelligence officer who says, seperately, that it's highly unlikely the FSB would commit a murder outside of Russian territory. These two quotes, given with no balancing information, simply mislead the reader by only presenting one side of the argument when the other side would have a significant impact upon the reader's consideration.)

Toby Douglass 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up your section because it was POV-ridden. This was your my cleanup of your edit[14], and the re-addition of the Allason quote (which should be explained more). Encyclopedia articles are supposed to maintain neutrality. You're using words such as "It seems unlikely" or "judicial system in Russia is non-functional" (needs source for 99% and regardless, you shouldn't write your own views on the issue). I agree that it is something of very high importance and I will work with you on trying to get a NPOV entry for that particular section. Nishkid64 22:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Russian Judicial System. A judicial system which invariably convicts *IS* non-functional. There is no getting away from this. I had a similar problem with another contributor in another article - I described the increases in political murder and loss of political freedom in Russia, and he responded asking me to include an opposing view. I pointed out there that human rights violations *ARE* wrong, and there is no opposing view. I could be wrong, but I fear you have fallen into this trap. Toby Douglass 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
British Judicial System. I had a look round the official Government statistics but there are so many it's hard to find what you're looking for - the referenced article indicates conviction rates in the UK for major crimes runs at about 10%. Toby Douglass 12:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you need to source that section. Even now it still looks like speculation unless you find a source that says "Yuskenkov's death and the conviction and jailing of the co-founders of Liberal Russia for his murder is widely perceived to have been part of a policy of eliminating the political threat posed by Berezovsky to the establishment; as such, the accusations from the FSB of Berezovsky's involvement warrant careful consideration." Nishkid64 22:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to get some lunch - be back later to respond to this. Toby Douglass 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, regardless, can you just remove any potentially controversial statements in that section. I mean, you might find a reference that the Russian system is dysfunctional, but how is that entirely relevant to Alexander Litvinenko? Nishkid64 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This url could actually bu useful. Click 'PHOTO PAGE'

operationsallownode.50megs.com

What the heck? It just shows morphed pictures of people. Unless I am missing something, I don't see how this is useful or even relevant to the article? Nishkid64 22:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Developments in investigation do not belong in intro

Dear 72.183.125.111, regarding your edit to this article: the intro of the article should contain only information directly pertaining to the subject, as summarized as possible. Developments in the investigation are not relevant enough for the intro. What is relevant for Alexander Litvinenko is: *date and place of birth *date and place of death *notability prior to death *cause of death *media coverage of the death. Wikipedia is not in the business of public service announcements. The burden to establish relevancy for inclusion lies on you here. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I mean no offense, but your comment seems rather non-sensical on the face of it. Litvinenko is dead. The authorities are investigating. A tie has quite clearly been developed between Litvinenko's death in regard to British Airways. The authorities are seeking BA passengers who traveled to and from Moscow on specific flights...and you somehow not only do not find this relevant to Litvinenko, but feel justified in insisting that I justify it being on the top of his page? I'm quite sorry, but this is utter nonsense from my perspective, and thus have no further comment. --72.183.125.111 01:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • He didn't say it wasn't relevant to Litvinenko, but to the intro section of Litvinenko's encyclopedia article. Which it isn't: it's too unstable (still developing) and not a major factor in the case compared to the other intro details mentioned (who he was, what he did). W guice 01:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we need to split off a new article: Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, maybe even Alexander Litvinenko murder investigation. -- Petri Krohn 01:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yeh, someone made this suggestion already but for a different reason actually, [15] while earlier i commented i thought it'd be a bit disjointed, if we're going to have to keep the size down and not lose information it might not be a bad idea. Should we have a vote? W guice 01:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh, and i'm not sure we could really use the '...murder investigation' one just yet, apparently some people are still considering suicide an option as i found out when i put a fact tag against that before. not 100% yet, anyway. W guice 01:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, I still would oppose splitting up the article. Usually we split up articles when they are really really long (70+ KB?). It's around 50 the last time I checked, so I don't think it's necessary yet. If people vote to split, I suggest we fix up the current article right now and try to make it perfect before doing anything else. Nishkid64 01:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • W guice has summed up quite well what I said: the information is highly relevant for the article and the investigation (that's why I put it back in the article and referenced it after it was removed), but developments in the investigation are at this point not relevant enough to be added to the intro (an arrest obviously would be). Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 15:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Scaramella

I created a stub on Mario Scaramella based on a Evening Standard interview. There is something fishy in his career. -- Petri Krohn 03:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Troops picture / deathbed statement spacing

As reprinted from my, Tpbradbury's talk pages. Thoughts, please?

The picture is relevant because Litvinenko was in the Internal Troops, please put the picture back and read the article next time. In regard of the quotation, I didn't mash-it-up as you asserted, but left it completely in the same form just taking out all the extra unnecessary space. There isn't a correct way of writing anything! It also takes up a lot of space in the article. Anyway let's have a talk about it. If you get time have a look for some more relevant pictures. Tom 12:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True that AL was in the Internal Troops; however, he was also in the KGB and FSB and we don't show pics of their logos or troops in the AL article, because (a) they fit perfectly well at the appropriate KSB/FSB articles and (b) while relevant to AL, IMO they aren't sufficiently relevant to justify having them illustrate a part of his article, even the 'career' part of it.
As to a correct way of writing something, i thought it was prudent to follow the spacing of the document that is (at least purportedly) signed by AL himself, provided by another user in an edit summary and viewable here.
Best, another tom 13:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make an interesting argument, with perhaps some validity, on the quotation, although its unfortunate it takes-up more space. It's also not in the same font as the source and doesn't have his signature in our article. Sorry I'm being difficult! It's a good source but I don't think it's correctly referenced yet, next to the quotation in our article, so one of us should try and do that soon. Pictures: you make some good points. I was trying to get some relevant pictures to make article look nicer/more colourful (it's about a tragic subject i know). I was going to include a diagram on polonium. What pictures do you think we should put in? Tom 13:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that quotations are handled as precisely as possible in the press. For example, any copy-editing of a quote is usually marked with square brackets. I don't think destroying the structure of the statement has a strong argument except that the spaces are "unnecessary" and that there aren't any rules of "writing anything". ilgiz 15:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google ranking of Litvinenko article

CONGRATULATIONS - 1st in Google ranking when looking for "alexander litvinenko" Today we have been in the 1st position when you search under litvinenko on google. We are moving up and down according to various things but always on first page. Google is ranking on a huge amount of factors but two of the most important are number times viewed, and number of updates on pages....since everyone is looking at us we better make it a good article! JulianHensey 15:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering the fact that many Wikipedia articles are the first thing that comes up with when you do a Google Search, I wouldn't really consider this a real achievement. Anyway, keep up the great work with the article guys. We still got to polish up everything. Nishkid64 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It says there's about 10 000 views per day on [16] but I think this is an average for the whole of November. Recalculating this for about the 10 last days is hopefully about 30 000 views per day so Nishkid's right, let's get polishing. Tom 16:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Police investigating suicide

"Someone" has deleted the part about theories of his death being suicide to discredit Putin. This was a published theory by the Independent newspaper in London, and also will have to be investigated by the police as a line of enquiry. Therefore I think it still deserves a place in the article with reference to the independant article - what do people think? JulianHensey 16:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it is highly unlikely that his death was by suicide, particularly if it was by polonium poisoning. The Metropolitan Police have to investigate all lines of enquiry, but they have their own reporting guidelines which we do not necessarily have to follow. Physchim62 (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People are letting their own personal views on the situation judge the article. The article should discuss all theories made regarding Litvinenko's poisoning, and that includes the possible suicide. Nishkid64 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The option of suicide is being investigated, and the option has received quite a lot of media coverage in non-trivial and reliable sources. Whether Litvinenko committing suicide is "highly unlikely" is immaterial. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, section restored. It's totally useful in this article, and I don't know why 72.183.125.111 removed it if it was properly sourced and of significance. Nishkid64 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have hidden one part of the section: "Furthermore, Litvinenko's involvement with Boris Berezovsky, an ex-oligarch who, by his own admission, is "working towards a regime change in Russia", gives credit to other scenarios. The negative fallout of such a demonstrative assassination, including widespread public belief that it was such, would be beneficial to some in eroding the support and political relations of President Putin’s government in Russia and abroad." It fails WP:V and WP:OR. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't think we can really find sources for that or refine it. Keep it in the article for a day or so, and then remove it entirely if no changes have been made. It's all OR. Nishkid64 23:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the statement by Alexander Litvinenko published by GFDL?

I raised this question as when I post this letter to Chinese Wikipedia and translate it into Chinese, someone deleted the texts and say please verify the statement by Alexander Litvinenko published by GFDL. But the main point is the Wikipedia in other languages also do that, but no problems occured. So I want to comfirm it as it takes quite a while to translate it into Chinese, Thanks--Yick50907551 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia is using the statement under fair use. A translation would also be fair use, but many foreign language Wikipedias would not allow it. You can get around this by using "short citations", which are permissible under the Berne Convention. Physchim62 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microcuries?!

The last time I checked, Curies were not the SI unit for measuring radiation and I wasn't even aware people still used them in a non-historical purpose. Now I'm not physically minded, otherwise I'd've done it myself, but would it not make more sense to have converted the obsolete microCuries to bequerels or even Sieverts? 62.25.108.10 18:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As usual it is the US that hasn't changed to SI units. Anyway, I've added Bq conversions of the figures. Sentinel7 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adamov's statement on avalability of Pollonium.

Dear 72.183.125.111!

I'm not absolutely sure that this statement is really necessary here (despite I suppose that it is worth metioning), but you descriptions to the edits are certainly wrong.

First you wrote that there are no any authorities. But Dr Prof Adamov is a nuclear scietins and former head of the Russian nuclear ministry, so you comment was at least incorrect.

Second you name it "fraud". It is not a fraud of any kind, it is a statement made by a professional. It may be wrong, but it is definitely not fraud. And any allegations of crimes of Adamov do not matter.

So I'm reverting your removal again and ask to discuss it here and find a community consensus here before any further removals.

Thank you!

Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Здрасвуите, Dr. Bug:

With all due respect, I made no comment -- at all -- that there are not any authorities. My comment was that Dr. Adamov is a fraud. My source for this was Wikipedia's entry, which states:

"In 2005, he was arrested in Bern, Switzerland, on fraud charges. The arrest was made at the request of the United States. The US accused Adamov of diverting up to $9 million which the US Energy Department gave Russia to help improve security at its nuclear facilities. Extradition requests were filed first by the USA and then by Russia, which has actively protested the move by the US. Adamov was finally extradited to Russia. The move was widely covered as a successful ploy by the Russian government to prevent Adamov from telling US authorites state secrets (and perhaps some criminal secrets) that he knew. Now he is free, waiting for a trial in Russia."

Perhaps most important to Wikipedia's content accuracy, Dr. Adamov's statement regarding the availability of Po-210 is not backed up by any credible authority. With its very short half-life, Po-210 is quite rare, and must effectively be generated via the following sequence in nuclear reactors: 210Po84 is made by a β- decay chain from Pb-210 to Bi-210 to Po-210; the Polonium alpha decays to Pb-206 with a half-life of a little over 138 days, with a decay energy of about 5.4 MeV.

I don't feel that a "consensus" -- i.e., a show of hands -- is the heart of the matter here. Truth is.

You may feel free to quote Dr. Adamov, but you must also be willing to carry the above baggage. It's the truth.

До свидания.

С уважением, --72.183.125.111 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 11 - this is not a good source!

The source says "Certainly, Mr Litvinenko had not done much for his credibility by claiming that the FSB was behind the Sept 11 atrocities or that senior al-Qa'eda officials were agents of Russian intelligence." However, Litvinenko never says that. The actual words of Litvinenko about this can not be found (unlike his words about London's bombing and Zarqawi). I think we shoud remove this. Biophys 22:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I can't find what you're exactly referring to? Can you please link me or direct me as to where exactly this is? Nishkid64 22:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is it [17]. I already deleted this. Could you also take a look at the article about London bombing (reference 14). I think this is also wrong. Read please the entire text. He only wanted to tell that FSB supports terrorism worldwide - in general. He said absolutely nothing specific about London's bombing. May be I can rephrase this slightly. Biophys 22:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this. Biophys 23:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
His "friend" Mario Scaramella is not much more reliable either; he is the source of the claims that Soviet submarine K-8 left 20 nuclear mines in the Bay of Naples in 1970. Do we really believe this? -- Petri Krohn 23:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The UK Indymedia source seems a bit weird. It was taken from Chechenpress Department of Interviews, apparently, and that seems a bit odd to me. The Telegraph article also seems a bit POV heh. It's news, but it's written with some sort of biased tone IMO. Anyway, thanks for fixing it up. Let's see what other people think. Nishkid64 23:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Bay of Naples, see Soviet submarine K-8#1970 Bay of Biscay fire: "Russian officials confirmed in 2004 that on 10 January 1970, K-8 received orders to lay a number of tactical atomic torpedoes as naval mines in the Bay of Naples, to be used against the United States Sixth Fleet. The success of her mission is not directly known." Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but that's not even sourced. It's been tagged as {{fact}}. We can fix up that article if we find an official source on the issue. As for Scaramella, it may be complete bs, but he said it, so it belongs in the article. Nishkid64 23:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Source 15 about "paedophil" also looks suspicious. It gives link to Chechen press, but the link does not work. Is the article actually there? Do you think Chechen press is a reliable source? I am not so sure. At least "kavkaz.org" they sometimes use as a source is not reliable at all (kavkaz.org is a propaganda site of Chechen rebels). So, maybe we should double check. Biophys 00:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked this. Litvinenko indeed made this allegation. There is a russian version of this text:[18]. But the English translation (in the internet reference you are using) is very incomplete! I do not know who translated it, but he certainly had an agenda. I will try to fix this. This is very interesting. Biophys 01:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9/11 According to BBC source - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6163502.stm Appearing alongside high-profile opponents of Mr Putin, Mr Litvinenko continued to make allegations about his former bosses. Perhaps most notably, he alleged that al-Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB in Dagestan in the years before the 9/11 attacks. However, I cannot believe that you may call this person credible (and other persons involved - Beresovsky, it's PR agency with Gold***).Alexandre Koriakine 15:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking here only about Litvinenko allegations. So, the only relevant question is if he made a certain claim or not (if his allegations are true is a completely different story). But we must be sure that he indeed made a certain claim. To be on the safe side, we should only cite sources that provide actual words of Litvinenko and make sure that his words are properly reflected in the text. There are many distortions about this in newspapers, because journalists are looking for sensations. We should not do that. Yes, he made claimes about Ayman al-Zawahiri in Dagestan and pedophilia - I checked this. He did not do any specific claims with regard to September 11 or London's bombings.Biophys 16:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section about experts hidden from view

I have hidden one part of the "Poisoning" section from view: "Those who administered the poison were 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." It is not clear whether those who administered the poison were experts. It's a personal analysis/deduction from what we know at the moment, and as such it should not be presented as fact. Those who can reword it into a more encyclopedic text are free to do so, which is why I haven't removed it altogether. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...it's definitely fixable. I mean, there's a reference for it, so we can use that and try to make it encyclopedic. Nishkid64 22:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. What you should include as well imo is a remark made by Alex Goldfarb, who said that the dose wasn't the right amount of poison at all. If he had gotten about five times as much, Litvinenko would have died the same day from severe internal bleeding, and noone would have thought of radiation poisoning. Because they used so little, he developed the symptoms of radiation poisoning (e.g. the loss of hair), which made people suspicious. If the killer/killers had used a higher dose, he/they would have had a good chance of getting away with it. According to Alex Goldfarb, IIRC on BBC's Newsnight. Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dissidence Section changes

1) added details on the Nov 17, 1998 press conference;

2) suggesting to remove Galina Starovoitova reference;

3) going to add criminal charges timeline.

--Ovc 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence about Starovoitova must remain there. It is very important for many reasons. First, it shows that accusations by Litvinenko and others were credible. Second, it provides a wider context of things that happened with Litvineko. Third, the murder of Starovoitova is almost certainly related to FSB. Biophys 05:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can put in the article only facts, not allegations. According to the facts mentioning Starovoitova is completely irrelevant: her case was investigated and her murders were sentenced. If we use criteria "almost certainly related" we can add to the article almost all people murdered in Russia in 90th. --Ovc 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullet points top of article

I am wondering whether immediately before the introduction we have about three/four news bullet points on the news today and each day about the investigation. It is a real pain to have to wade through the article to find the latest updates and I am sure this article is being used to gather information by numerous people who have already read the main parts of the article and just want updates?

example here

    • FBI becomes involved in investigation "we will always help countries that ask for help"
    • Flight investigation continues, focusing on "football flight" from Moscow
    Then those people came to the wrong place. Wikipedia is not a news website; we are an encyclopedia. If they went headlines, they should go to WikiNews. Nishkid64 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    New Page request

    Do you think there should be a new article because it is a much bigger case now than just Alexander Litvinenko. We have the old pm of Russia, the flights, and just as im typing this, Mario Scaramella has just been told he has been poisoned. Samaster1991 14:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Don't think it's absolutely necessary now. This was discussed earlier, and I said that we should wait and polish up this article before we do any article-splitting. Nishkid64 15:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    Letters from Trepashkin and Galina Starovoitova

    This is probably a speculation, but it is now clear for what reason Galina Starovoitova was assassinated. Mikhail Trepashkin tells the following[19]. "Litvinenko and others bravely came forward to tell the truth about FSB, but nobody supported us. Where are you, democratic forces of Russia? I am sitting in the prison wrongly accussed for 4 years, and no one helps me. " (this is not translation but summary). Galina Starovoitova was a kind of person who would never let them down. She would make a huge international story of it using her personal international connections. Therefore, it was an imperative for FSB to kill her as quickly as possible. It would be important to learn what she did during last three days of her life. Biophys 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    • Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko&oldid=91431093"