Talk:2018 Amesbury poisonings

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

Sources[edit]

As always be wary of newspaper reports from The Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail etc. as they are making unconfirmed assumptions. IWI (chat) 22:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also section[edit]

Just to clarify, MOS:ALSO says: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Is there good reason to have Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal there, as it is linked in the second sentence? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any special reason to have it linked again, so I removed the see also section. Feel free to put it back if anyone feels it would be useful. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 11:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put it in, as we should not expect every casual reader to understand piped links, and I've put it back in as I do feel it would be useful. Fish+Karate 13:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

If it it confirmed that this poisoning is just collateral damage from the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, shouldn't we just merge them as this couple then becomes another victim of that attack, just like the police officer. IWI (chat) 11:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, hypothetical question. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, police have already said that they don't think they were targeted.IWI (chat) 11:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And based on that you are speculating. Not our job. HiLo48 (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sajid Javid has just told the Commons that he thinks they're linked? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We'll come back to this if there are more developments. IWI (chat) 12:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And he's "called for Russia to explain". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can regard point-scoring by a politician as a reliable source. HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It will be more obvious whether this is a notable separate incident later on. Right now it's being widely reported in the media, but limited information is confirmed. I see no harm in it being a separate article for the time being. Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 13:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the point of the view of the person who first created the article - I think I, like most other people, was a bit quick to come to the conclusion initially in my mind that this seemed like another targeted attack like the one in Salisbury. As more details of it have come out, and will continue to come out, and it seems more like leftover contamination from the initial incident in Salisbury, then maybe I was a bit quick on the draw in creating the article. I think it should be left a few days at least first and then if necessary the articles could be merged after a discussion. Buttons0603 (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it does appear as if it is just collateral damage. Like I said, if so they should be merged. IWI (chat) 01:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it should be merged because this is now the same criminal case. I marked these pages for merging and started discussion on another page here. My very best wishes (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the Discuss link on this article top brings us to this page. You need to get them both to go to the same place.Rwendland (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No should not merge. Everything is up in the air at the moment, neither case has any solid evidence so at this point editing will be a nitemare. DRALGOS ♕ 17:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018 Merge Proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge given that there is not a clear consensus to merge, there is clear opposition, the events are linked but each is independently referenced, the pages are appropriately linked, and the discussion is stale. Klbrain (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have added this break in here as the proposal made in September initially linked to this discussion, but should probably be seen as separate from the discussions a few months previously. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge British police say there's "no doubt" the two incidents are linked and part of the same investigation. FallingGravity 20:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Almost certainly connected, but each large enough for separate stand-alone articles and easier to manager and navigate like this. This was a tragic accident not a targeted attempted assassination.Martinevans123 (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The combined article title though needs to be carefully worded, eg '2018 Novochok poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal and subsequent Amesbury poisonings' may be a bit long winded. John a s (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. The evidence points to a single container used to target a supposed dissident but has resulted in collateral damage - they are two incidents but part of a single subject so it makes sense merging them. I think the page title should simply be named 2018 Salisbury and Amesbury Novichok poisonings. The target was Sergei and Yulia Skripal but the Russian spies involved have appeared to messed up and it is now a poisoning incident which has claimed the life of an innocent civilian and has been supported by other international countries. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this page into Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. No renaming - if anyone wants to rename, please open separate section/discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support merge without renaming. It can go to aftermatch. Smeagol 17 (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge No compelling reason to keep these as separate articles. Endymion.12 (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Yes, they're related, but they're different attacks. There are a lot of issues with merging, such as the article title and how will it be sorted out to avoid navigation problems. Average readers might also be confused too often if these two attacks were in the same article. Techy Halnerd (speak) 15:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge These are two attacks which are part of one incident; having them listed as separate is misleading. 2018 Salisbury attacks is a suitable name but agree that this can happen after a merge. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, no renaming necessary. The Amesbury case can simply be a section in the full article, while 2018 Amesbury poisonings should redirect to that section. — JFG talk 14:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Of course, these cases are close related. But the transfer of all information into the article Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal will give an excessive chapter there for this incident. I would propose to stay the article "2018 Amesbury poisonings", and use the "Main article" template in the article Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Perhaps it also would be useful to rename the article "2018 Amesbury poisonings" to "Poisoning of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess (Scripal case)".--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an especially long article (1,200 words, the main article is nearly 8,000, for comparison). It can also be precised quite easily. This also isn't really an argument for maintaining two separate articles. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion/Comment[edit]

This 'debate' seems to have been very slowly progressing over a few weeks, with little discussion moving towards a consensus. I think that this needs a few more eyes on it so I'm going to post to a few Wikiprrojects. FWIW I strongly support the merger - the second poisoning is connected to the first and I don't think even the Russian government disputes that; they just dispute who did them. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you meant to say "the Russian government has no interest at all in two domestic events with which no Russian nationals were involved in any way whatsoever."? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:04, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: It can change at any time, but we may not have any official police connection of the cases for many years. Should this merge proposal remain for years? Smeagol 17 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: So. Any new thougths? Smeagol 17 (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry not to reply for three months! I must have missed your ping or it did not work. But I have seen nothing, since I !voted to oppose a merge, to make me change my mind. Yes, they were very closely connected events. But I think the reader is better served with separate articles. Especially as there were two different geographical locations. I don't realkly have very strong views on this however. I can see there are good arguments on both sides. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinevans123: No biggie. So, do we remove this merge proposal for now? Smeagol 17 (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mot too sure. The consensus seems to be to merge? Not sure if a more formal proposal for WP:PM would be needed first. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 6 July 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 21:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Amesbury poisonings → Poisoning of Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess – Harmonizing with Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, as it is both a similar event and also involving two victims; a small enough size to have their names in the title. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • tentative oppose - in the other case, the identity of the victim(s) was of key importance to the events. In this one, it doesn't seem to be the case, and so the locale and proximity to the other poison is more informative. It is mentioned heavily in the headlines of the current set of sources. If the two cases are eventually connected, we'd probably see this page merged into the other one as an aftermath. -- Netoholic @ 09:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Personally I would wait and see. Sources at the moment suggest that this incident was collateral from the earlier Salisbury incident, in which case this article would be better off being merged with that. Also, the identities of the victims here aren't as important as the Skripal's so it may be better to go with a geographical designation. That said, some sources are suggesting the poisoning actually happened in Salisbury, so the Amesbury tag may not be suitable. At any rate, an appropriate title should become clearer in time. ToastButterToast (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative oppose - the location seems more important than those affected. However, if it comes to light that Rowley and Sturgess were the intended target of the attack, and it is not negligent disposal of a nerve agent, I would support such a move. --Danski454 (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - until we know whether the poisoning is connected to the Skripal poisoning, we'll leave it. But I think the location is more important in this case anyway because the people aren't people of interest as opposed to Sergei Skripal who was a spy. IWI (chat) 16:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - unlike with the Skripals poisoning the victims this time around are not previously well-known and do not appear to have been deliberately targeted because of who they are. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as Buttons above. the victims this time around are not previously well-known and do not appear to have been deliberately targeted because of who they are. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this looks like a sad case of collateral damage from the first incident, rather than deliberate targeting (unlike with the Skripals). Fish+Karate 10:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

OPCW[edit]

I don't see mention of the fact the OPCW was prayed in aid on 13 July, a delay similar to that after the Skripal poisonings.

OPCW press release.

The information about the OPCW has been added, thanks; as for delay - the secondary source should speak.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - it may be useful to compare and contrast how the state has dealt with both incidents. But I don't expect any reliable source will be found for wikipedia purposes.

Queen Elizabeth Gardens[edit]

The video timeline of the movements of Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov published e.g. by The Daily Telegraph here shows no video evidence of them entering or leaving Queen Elizabeth Gardens in Salisbury; which is presumably why they chose that location for disposal of the remaining Novichok. But one is left wondering why they chose that location (a public park rubbish bin?), when there must have been countless other places where a small perfume bottle might never have been discovered. I guess the press will soon link these events are speculate on possible reasons? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If they put it in a rubbish bin on 4 March, the bin would surely have been emptied before 30 June. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I read somewhere that the bottle was found on waste ground in an area frequented by drug addicts. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Bit of a missing part of the jigsaw of guilt here. How much has the official Met statement and May's Commons announcement connected the two events? Although I would imagine, if Salisbury City Council had any sense, they would empty litter bins only when they looked full (or particularly fragrant). Or do you have a source for the waste ground? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, in his statement says: "Let me be clear, we have no doubt these two incidents are connected and now form one investigation." and "We continue to liaise with the Crown Prosecution Service regarding the poisoning of Dawn and Charlie." But there's not much about the location in which the bottle was found. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The bottle was found "in a charity bin" The Guardian, this bin which was located at the back of shops in Catherine Street, effectively in the south end of the Brown Street car park, was cordoned off by police and removed. Queen Elizabeth Gardens is about half a mile away from this place and I have seen no information that the bottle was discarded or found in "Lizzie Gardens". For me the mystery is why the poisoners went so far into the city centre to dump the bottle. But there is so much unanswered (and possibly undisclosed) stuff about the whole affair. Richard Avery (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No suggestion of a litter bin, then. Is it known when a decision was made about "a charity bin"? I wonder where was the source for that bin being "at the back of shops in Catherine Street"? Do we know why police spent hours "combing a bank" in the park and also spent about an hour in "public toilets in a car park next to Queen Elizabeth Gardens ...[and] left with items in clear plastic bags"? The Guardian. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly my sources are local reports. The bin that the police removed from the back of shops in Catherine Street was the only one removed that remotely fitted the description "charity bin". The police spent over 4 weeks searching the park with up to 12 officers preventing anyone entering. They undoubtedly spent "hours combing a bank" but they also spent hours on their knees searching the open grass and a specialist team searched the two rivers in the park. They certainly spent more than an hour in the toilets searching and testing. The problem here is that newspapers report what they see on a particular occasion. If they are not present 24/7 then they miss some activity. The Guardian which one might regard as reliable had several geographical mistakes which suggests that there may have been other informational mistakes. The reason the police searched the QE Gardens is because friends or associates of Charlie and Dawn had told them that Charlie and Dawn had spent some time there the previous day, (not surprising as it was a well known area for drug dealing) the day before they became ill. Local people knew the police would not find anything significant in the park because during the hot spell it had been heaving in every part with families including children and nothing had been reported. The bench on which the police found minute traces was used many times every day and no harm was reported. All a bit POV. Richard Avery (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sturgess inquest[edit]

"The inquest for Sturgess was opened and adjourned by HM Coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon in Salisbury on 19 July 2018 until 16 January 2019." This needs updating. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to John Helmer, the inquest has been repeatedly postponed. [1] As this is a blog, I assume it will not be admissible as a reference in Wikipedia. There is allegedly a press release about the latest postponement but nobody has been able to get hold of it. A secret press release is a contradiction in terms. Mock wurzel soup (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this topic into its own subsection, adding a Jan 2020 Guardian article and link to the coroner's ruling on scope. Future updates needed. --Wire723 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge now?[edit]

Is it the right time to merge this page with Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal? A common name in my opinion has been reached because of the recent drama 'The Salisbury Poisonings'. That should be the name change. And because they are both connected it should be one page. Cwmcafit (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High Court Judgement[edit]

A detailed final judgement from the high court is available here [2]. It may be useful for updating this article. daylon124 (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Amesbury_poisonings&oldid=1196750943"