Talk:Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal

Name of this fork

Why is it callled “Poisoning of Sergei Skripal”? Does Yulia Skripal not count? Suggest a move to Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Fish+Karate 09:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

See move comment on Sergei's page. MartinezMD (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fish and karate we go with what people will be looking for in article names. Most people don't even know his daughter's name and she is not independently notable. People will be looking for Sergei Skripal. This needs to be moved back as this name is not in accord with WP:COMMONNAME. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Disagree there. Common name is if she were known by another name, not if she is notable or not. We have numerous articles about police shootings, for example, where the victim was never notable and only their killing was notable.MartinezMD (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The basic approach in naming convention is that we use what people are most likely to search for presuming its basic accuracy. This name doesn't work since the news coverage is overwhelmingly about him as he was the target. She appears to have been what is rather coldly referred to as "collateral damage." People searching for information will not be typing in her name anymore than they will be looking for the first responder who was also hospitalized. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't know how it happened yet or what the motives were so we should perhaps name it something more neutral and something closer to the common names used in the media. How about "Salisbury nerve agent poisoning", or similar? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ad Orientem: - That's why we have redirects. Poisoning of Sergei Skripal redirects, appropriately, to the new article name. Yulia Skripal being "collateral damage" is speculation at this point. I'd have no objection to it being moved to DeFacto's suggestion, or indeed to 2018 Salisbury poisoning incident or suchlike. Fish+Karate 14:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it needs to retain one or both of Skirpal's name in the title. This was not a random event. You wouldn't call JFK's assassination the Grassy knoll incident for example. I'd say the officer was the unfortunate collateral victim, but Yulia's targeting is still unknown (incidental, sending a message, vs some unknown). I didn't know either of their names until this happened, so I don't think someone searching for it will be confused by the title. Regardless, I don't have a dog in this fight other than wanting things to be clear. So I won't oppose a majority. MartinezMD (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

You are speculating now, we shouldn't do that. If such motives are determined later, then we can rename again. For now we should follow the common name principle and stick to Salisbury nerve agent incident, or similar. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

No objections. The only name I don't want is the previous one, that implied either only Sergei Skripal was poisoned, or that a woman was as well but she didn't matter as much. Fish+Karate 14:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Good move. This is more appropriate title. More informally speaking, the deaths of Yulia and his son were not an accident, but intentional murder. This is something generally known (even emphasized in the recent British movie McMafia): Mafia always kills members of the family to punish the "traitor". This was also done by Stalin (see Family members of traitors to the Motherland) and more recently in Chechnya. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

1. They're not dead (yet)
2. Sergei and his daughter, or Yulia and her father Fish+Karate 15:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's hope for the miracle. Generally speaking, this is organophosphate poisoning. The compound is probably an irreversible inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase, see Acetylcholinesterase inhibitor. My very best wishes (talk)

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

"outgoing US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson"?

Tillerson wasn't an "outgoing" US Secretary of state at the time he made the statement.
If anything, he got ousted AFTER he said that "Russia was likely responsible for the nerve agent attack".--31.176.206.36 (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, indeed - fixed. Are you telling that's why he was fired? Maybe not, but it certainly looks this way. My very best wishes (talk) 17:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought that originally, which was why I removed it. According to the White House [1] Tillerson was asked to step down Friday. I've cut down the Tillerson firing to plain facts now, and re-added "outgoing" (although his announcement was before he was officially fired). Widefox; talk 17:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. My very best wishes (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Natureium The details seem to be more clear now...so according to [2] Tillerson was told to look for a tweet on Friday (no indication about what), but was only told by Trump 3 hours after the tweet. So "outgoing" seems premature, I don't know what our protocol is, but according to that timeline Tillerson speaking about this poisoning wouldn't have known he was being fired, thus "outgoing" is premature and slightly WP:SYN so agree with its removal. Widefox; talk 19:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Number of affected

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

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

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

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

We know 3 + 1, plus have you not seen the news? "hundreds" may [3] 500 told to wash [4]. We don't need a citation for the sky is blue. Widefox; talk 20:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

DeFacto This is common sense - a WMD being released in the centre of an English town has known poisonings + a hundreds of potential ones. Don't think there's a cat for that, so technically I'd agree with you.

Any speculation on long-term affects would be just that - it hasn't been released which agent it was, let alone if anyone has studied that exact agent, let alone long term affects. One source claims permanent damage, but any medical claim here would be far short of MEDRS as they're agents designed and kept in secret to evade detection etc. Widefox; talk 20:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

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

We know it's 3 + 1 + more exposed or treated. Those are the facts per WP:RS. Widefox; talk 20:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually I think 3 + 1 + more exposed and treated, possibly exposed and monitored, or the unexposed just seeking medical advice/reassurance. In the Tokyo subway sarin attack, admittedly a much larger situation, 80% of those who went to hospital were the "worried well". We cannot assume that those seeking medical attention were in fact exposed. Rwendland (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

MartinezMD The only thing I disagree with is that these numbers are somehow related to hysteria. Where do you get that from? Those numbers are the numbers of people being told to take practical measures by the authorities. I don't mind if we leave the cat off, but if hundreds had been told to take measures for water poisoning or some other poisoning, we'd consider this wider than just poisoning of a couple of people, by common sense. Widefox; talk 22:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Widefox: they are only the facts we currently know, we don't know what we don't know. How was it administered? Where was it administered? How much was administered? Who administered it? Where was it made? How was it transported? We certainly don't know enough to say it was a "mass poisoning". -- DeFacto (talk). 22:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, that conflates method with result. The method is irrelevant for the outcome. The outcome is 4+. Moving this forward, it's a well known fact that a dirty bomb has limited direct casualties, but mass panic. This is similar in that a WMD is used not as designed for mass casualties but in a limited manner. Still, let's not overlook the casualty numbers, and the facts are clear it's more than the title suggests. Widefox; talk 22:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Common sense is common sense. If they aren't sick they aren't sick. Reliable sources are NOT reporting hundreds sick or even verified exposed, or even anyone other than the initial victims and the responders. This a common response when the public worries. The only people apparently targeted was the former spy and unknown if the daughter was targeted or an incidental victim. The responders were exposed from their contact with the initial victims, not randomly. That's it. We have no other reliable reports. If actual random people in the public become ill, I will support any appropriate change.MartinezMD (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Precautionary principle applies. Do you have a source that makes the claim that even low level exposure to this exact nerve agent doesn't have cumulative or long-term affects? It's an impossible claim, as nobody has - the agent name has not been released, and there's no research on it to WP:MEDRS. If it was a carcinogen, would that not worry you now, despite giving no symptoms? Widefox; talk 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is that you can't prove a negative. No one has reported *actual* exposure besides what is noted already. Get reliable sources, and I'll back you up completely. MartinezMD (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree, but this has gone round in circles, I quote the source above 500 told they may be at risk [5]. Common sense says in the centre of an English town with the public walking in and around the several sites sourced as contaminated, exposure is more than 4. That justifies "mass" but I'm happy to leave off as it's OR with sources not using the term. It really is that simple. Widefox; talk 23:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:RS, Skripal and his daughter were poisoned using a Novichok nerve agent. Leaving this out of the article would be WP:OR by omission. The UK spied on USSR and will have detailed information about its chemical weapons, which has no doubt been used to manufacture the nerve agents at Porton Down to develop ways of detecting them and to analyze the long-term effects on animals. Firebrace (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"OR by omission"? That's a real reach. Natureium (talk) 00:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread the comment. On first reading, it seemed that Widefox was speculating that the UK government was speculating that a Novichok agent was used in the attack. I hope you agree that removing all mention of Novichok from the article would be OR by omission. Firebrace (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It would not be OR, but it would be irresponsible/negligent.MartinezMD (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

(This unrelated issue of anyone reckless enough to suggest dropping "Novichok" from the article is offtopic anyway in this section about numbers.)

To clarify my comments above, "WMD" -> "WMD agent". Widefox; talk 12:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018

In the first line it states the poisoning was by novichok, yet the quoted source does not state this, it just states a "nerve agent" which the police "did not disclose". this of course is relevant as novichok may be seen to strongly suggest Russian guilt whereas "nerve agent" does not. Either the reference to novichok should be removed or the source should be updated to one which credibly establishes the stated claim. TCDA86 (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Firstly Novichok is a line of nerve agents not one in particular. Secondly, for several days it hadn't been released as the name of the nerve agent, which is why older sources don't use it. Please follow the instructions - either provide the exact wording of what change you propose or suggest we close this. Widefox; talk 20:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The first sentence refers to novichok. I think he was looking to support that, so I just added the source from the other section of the paragraph that has it.MartinezMD (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Chinese statement

I understand the inclusion of US, British, Russian, and European statements/opinions. Why is there a Chinese statement, especially when it essentially says nothing? We could include a couple hundred uninformative or non-reactionary government statements. MartinezMD (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, I've removed it. Fish+Karate 11:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, why is there a US statement? Is the US involved somehow? Natureium (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Are they in NATO? Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The US statement is obviously relevant. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't even try to provide a reason... Natureium (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There are 29 NATO countries. Do we need statements from all of them? Natureium (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

US got him out of Russia. See the Illegals Program link in the body of the article. MartinezMD (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you for an actual explanation. Natureium (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

US statements are relevant and noteworthy anyway, for reasons I don't have to elaborate. Do we have to justify the inclusion of comments from the EU and EU member-state governments to you too? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 16:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

There's no need to be uncivil. He asked a fair question. MartinezMD (talk) 16:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the best example of Wikipedia's low trustworthy. Because of such users who can't even make their statements reasonable. Saying that "for reasons I don't have to elaborate" is the same as saying "Superman is better than Batman just because everyone knows it". So, Wikipedia, are you really plunged so low? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.87.35 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The Novichok agent

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

He was talking in general terms about nerve agents. Firebrace (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable expert opinion and can stay. Perhaps it only needs to be sourced to something better like this. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

After looking more carefully, it appears that British expert was wrong. Newer versions of Novichok are resistant to moisture -see here. This must be noted or whole thing removed.My very best wishes (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That was my point. This guy is taking an educated guess, which is a fair thing, but not appropriate for an encyclopedia where greater accuracy is desired. Otherwise I could insert my opinion as well or those of any other toxicologist/chemist/expert. The benefit of washing it is that it would remove it from where someone could come into contact with it, and by dilution it can reduce the exposure to the point where it is not enough to be toxic. MartinezMD (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

You could only insert your opinion if it was published in a reliable source. Firebrace (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Are we sure about that? From the NCBI link:

"The toxicity of both substances is reportedly comparable with that of VX, but compared to the substance, A-230, they are less volatile and resistant to moisture."

I read that as "less volatile and [less] resistant to moisture [compared to A-230]". Firebrace (talk) 23:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand the issues; and I am quite sure. And I didn't say I was going to insert my opinion, simply that he offered nothing more insightful (actually seemingly worse) than any other general specialist could provide. Being resistant to hydrolysis does not mean it can't be diluted or washed away. It just means it is resistant breaking down when wet. But that is not the issue. I was pointing out that we (nor the previously quoted expert) don't know which of the 100+ novichok agents was used, so the *specific* properties are not known to the general public. These agents are military/state-grade and not the type that the average civilian specialist comes across. So any issue discussing the agent needs to be carefully considered. This reminds me of when Bill Nye was on the media talking about Fukushima and was getting several facts wrong. You can be an expert in your field, or a related field, and not have the correct information, especially when ignorant of the complete facts of the case. A statement/opinion about the agent would ideally come from a someone with experience with those particular agents or someone more general once the specific agent is known.MartinezMD (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

How does User:My very best wishes know that a newer generation of Novichok was used in this attack and not an older variant? As you say, information of this type is not in the public domain. The expert is only wrong if he or she is right... Firebrace (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Which all goes back to my point that it's speculation. An opinion in the article needs to be clear that it is a generalization, from an informed source, or not included in the article. MartinezMD (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I do not know that. I simply read review cited above. I have no strong opinion about keeping or removing this. Just do not mislead the reader. My very best wishes (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Vil Mirzayanov

We now have the expert opinion of Vil Mirzayanov, a former Soviet Union scientist who developed the Novichok nerve agents and knows more about the subject than Prof. Robert Stockman. He confirmed that Sergei and Yulia Skripal will be disabled for life by the nerve agent if they survive and that water is insufficient to remove all traces of the chemical. However, the paragraph was deleted by User:Axxxion because "there is no credible Information on this person′s role and expertise: he left Russia 25 yrs ago, is 80 odd and can hardly speak",[6] which is an odd thing to say, given that Mirzayanov spoke perfectly when he was interviewed by Sky News last Tuesday.[7] I have reinstated his commentary to the article per WP:BRD. Thoughts? Firebrace (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Given his unique knowledge and significance of his publications on the subject of Novichok, his opinion definitely belongs here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

His opinion is highly appropriate as an expert (on the assumption his credentials are accurate). However that same report has an opinion from Paul Cosford, the director of Public Health England, tempering the doom and gloom prognosis. He made several statements such as "In contrast, the general public who were in the Mill Pub or Zizzi’s restaurant could only have been exposed to extremely small traces, if any. There will have been a huge difference between the dose those requiring treatment received, and any received by the public." which I think is appropriate to include as well. MartinezMD (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

This is about residual effects of the contamination by Novichok. If there were any scientific studies on this, they could be only conducted in the SU/Russia. This is something only Mirzayanov could know. What exactly he knows? It would be great to elaborate on this issue based on other RS if they are available. From what I read it appears that a Russian scientist died several years after a contamination. Therefore, simply telling, "no that was probably safe" without knowing the dose, simply because there are no immediate effects on someone (as this British doctor does), would be a hearsay. My very best wishes (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Source of the nerve agent

The Guardian is reporting that some experts have doubts over the UK's claim of Russian state involvement.[8] It highlights a 1995 case in which a Russian banker was killed by poison that "came from an employee at the state chemical facility who sold it through intermediaries to help reduce his debts", and explains that "the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall were chaotic, with chemical weapons laboratories and storage sites across the Soviet Union abandoned by staff who were no longer being paid. Security was almost non-existent, leaving the sites at the mercy of criminal gangs or disenchanted staff looking to supplement their income". Firebrace (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Renominated for In The News (Main Page)

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

Corbyn

Should the coverage of the UK political reaction to events cover the Labour Party's response and the row that has blown up over comments by Jeremy Corbyn and Seamus Milne? See [9], [10], [11] etc. Bondegezou (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think so. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

EconoTimes commentary piece

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2018

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

Nikki Haley, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, said: “Let me make one thing clear from the very beginning: the United States stands in absolute solidarity with Great Britain. The United States believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two people in the United Kingdom using a military-grade nerve agent"

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Totally inaccurate image

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

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

Richard Avery, do you have any sources for the above claim? See WP:V and WP:OR.

See Neil's confirmation below. I live in Salisbury, have been though that area a thousand times and have been watching the news and local newspapers. subsequent photos indicate my point. Best. Richard Avery (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:Firebrace, who uploaded the image. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

Photographer (Peter Curbishley) had also uploaded a photo of the covered bench on a CC-by license. I've uploaded that to Commons and switched them. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Neil S Walker: The white and yellow tent can hardly be seen. Suggest changing back to the blue tent image with an accurate caption. Firebrace (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

It can be seen nevertheless; also it shows the close proximity and position of the bench relative to the shopfronts. The previous image showed neither. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

So why is the blue tent there? What is it covering? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Speculation: It's an admin type thing. A temporary store for gear. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Bias against Corbyn for asking for proof

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

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

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

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

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

Pizza restaurant

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

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

Fails verification?

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

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

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

And the other source says

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

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

--Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking for? The part of the quote containing the word "novichok"? "It is now clear that Mr Skripal and his daughter were poisoned with a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part of a group of nerve agents known as 'Novichok'. Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down; our knowledge that Russia has previously produced this agent and would still be capable of doing so; Russia’s record of conducting state-sponsored assassinations; and our assessment that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations; the Government has concluded that it is highly likely that Russia was responsible for the act against Sergei and Yulia Skripal." ("Oral statement to Parliament: PM Commons statement on Salisbury incident", gov.uk, 12 March 2018) Neil S. Walker (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

And the truncated quote from The Guardian is prefaced with: "Ministers on the national security council were told that the nerve agent used was from a family of substances known as Novichok." Neil S. Walker (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the concern is that none of the sources identify the agent - only the class of agent. Seems odd.Shtove (talk) 11:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that information was suggested by the Russian ambassador in London to the BBC in a sort of cyclic redundancy check. Wakari07 (talk) 15:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

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

Би-би-си: Почему это вещество назвали "Новичок"?

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

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

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

BTW, it is necessary to exercise caution when reading his statements: the man is old and speaks very incoherently, even in Russian. His English-language interviews are heavily edited, whereas this one (Вил Мирзаянов: "Новичок" можно синтезировать или украсть, но применить его смогут немногие BBC, 16 March) contains obvious factual errors, which the BBC corrects in brackets.Axxxion (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Assassination attempts

I've just removed the article from this category since it feels a bit premature to be reaching such conclusions. Investigations into what happened are still ongoing, and all we can report are the facts. Please add any thoughts here, but don't re-add the category without first discussing it and giving a good reason why we should include it there. Thanks, This is Paul (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Also removed Category:Attacks in 2018 and Category:Chemical weapons attacks for same reasons as above. Attack also suggests something on a greater scale, and since there is much we still don't know about this incident let's leave these out until we can be more certain about the facts. This is Paul (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with removing Category:Attacks in 2018. Police have clearly ruled out accidental poisoning and murder-suicide, and the incident is being investigated as attempted murder. English WP:RS universally refer to the incident as an attack:

• Salisbury nerve agent attack: UK OSCE Permanent Council statement – HM Government
• Spy poisoning: Putin most likely behind attack - Johnson – BBC
• Allies back UK to condemn Russia over Salisbury nerve agent attack – The Guardian
• Detective caught up in Salisbury nerve agent attack 'no longer in critical condition' – Independent
• U.S., France and Germany join Britain in saying Russia likely responsible for chemical attack – The Washington Post
• UK Police identify over 200 witnesses in nerve agent attack – Reuters
• Nerve gas attack unsettles residents in English cathedral city – CNN
• Russia promises reprisals to U.K. as White House calls out Moscow over poison attack − NPR
• US, Germany and France blame Russia for nerve agent attack – Financial Times
• Putin 'highly likely' behind nerve-agent attack: Boris Johnson – Al Jazeera
• U.K. points finger at Putin over nerve agent attack – Bloomberg
• Skripal nerve agent attack shows 'unlawful use of force by Russia against the UK': Malcolm Turnbull – ABC
• Russian media respond to poison attack on former spy with conspiracy theories – CBC

Obviously, they were attacked, the question is by whom: Russia, or someone else trying to affect the presidential election... Firebrace (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it's an attack against individuals — any crime against a person or persons could be described as such — but given the kinds of other things included in these categories, is it an attack in the sense of how we would define an attack? If yes then we can include it, but if not then we shouldn't. Also we need to remember this incident is still the subject of a criminal investigation, so how we describe it will be affected by that. This is Paul (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

No one has been charged with attempted murder yet. Category:Attacks in 2018 includes the Killing of Blaze Bernstein; Category:Attacks in 2017 includes 2017 Beckton acid attack, 2017 Amman incident, Orlando factory shooting, Eaton Township Weis Markets shooting, and 2017 Chicago torture incident among others. The incident in Salisbury is being investigated by the Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism unit. Firebrace (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

BBC as a source

The BBC is generally known for a high standard of journalism. However it is state funded and controlled by members of the British establishment appointed by the UK government. Not surprisingly, on certain subjects the quality of the reporting can wane: during important conflicts such as the miners' strike the BBC can produce straight out fake news [12]. Recently the official Parliamentary opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, (who questions the government's position on this article's subject) was portrayed, falsely as wearing a Russian hat on "Newsnight", the BBC's flagship serious news show. [13] They admit that this was achieved by covert image manipulation though do not seem to think this counts as falsehood.

On certain issues (official government position), both UK and Russian state media are reasonable sources. Otherwise, more neutral news organizations (eg Al Jazeera or CNN) would be better.--Simon Speed (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)