Talk:Novichok

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chemistry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry 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.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Russian & Soviet / Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989) Medicine: Toxicology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Toxicology task force (assessed as Low-importance). Pharmacology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Technology & engineering / Science & education / Military Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet, and CIS military history task force. Soviet Union Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) 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.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "'Novichok'". The New York Sun. 9 September 2013. Karel Knip (21 March 2018). "'Unknown' newcomer novichok was long known". NRC.nl.

Reference 12 links to Independent (newspaper) article, which only mentions OPCW report, but does not link to it. Here is the summary of the report from OPCW which should be used instead as its reliable source:

https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/S_series/2018/en/s-1612-2018_e_.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.1.157.210 (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The article here already included a reference by the OPCW that they had issued this report but it now also includes a link to the .pdf as above, which of course does not reveal the actual structure of the novichok agent, which was kept secret. Mikedt10 (talk) 17:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Wikipedia page on Novichoks contains the following graphic: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Kivelidi_Edgewood_spectra_2.png Top: Mass spectrum of agent with which Kivelidi was poisoned. Bottom: Mass spectrum of A-234 from the NIST98 as reported by Edgewood Arsenal. The top spectrum has a peak at 42, while the bottom one does not. Does anyone have any idea as to what the significance of that is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alure155 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It just means a molecule with a molecular mass of 42 was present, could be any number of substances, C3H6 is 3 x 12 + 6 x 1 = 42 which is cyclo-propane ,a common propellant in aerosols, many simple solvents could also have a molecular weight of 42. You can do a search by molecular weight here https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?Value=42&VType=MW&Formula=&AllowExtra=on&Units=SI&cMS=on There are some pictures here too, https://www2.chemistry.msu.edu/faculty/reusch/VirtTxtJml/Spectrpy/MassSpec/masspec1.htm note that some molecules get broken up inside the mass spectrometer, so you will see peaks at all the possible fragment weights. It is possible that 42 is the weight of a fragment or an impurity. Salbayeng (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8/24/2020 In outdated topic "Novichok". There was a pick from interested parties / visitors to the page.

Several of these seek additional explanations. As for Novitshok non-military modifications "Nivitshok Famely". Possible symptoms and long-term consequences for health. Yes ! First, - gastroenterals. After that? ... Mild to moderate difficulty concentrating? And what else  ? Yes, that's right ! Wikipedia is an inciclopedia for the children. No medical portal. But . When our children go to school on September 1st. And if you have poor concentration ... You will, possibly, find a remedy, look for some information on Wikipedia.org.Salbayeng2 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this codename a NATO reporting name or somesuch? If it is a Soviet codename, what was it really, was it "foliant" in Russian, or some Cyrillic characters that are equivalent to FOLIANT or sound like "Foliant"? This needs a Russian language original term added. -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Russian Wikipedia, I believe it is "Фолиант". Can somebody find a source for it? I do not understand Russian. ― Hebsen (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is Фолиант. 2A00:1370:812D:B141:DB0:7B25:6E48:5590 (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Foliant redirects here. Please change the hatnote to indicate the Olympic medalist horse "Foliant".

Change:

{{redirect|Foliant|chemicals used to remove leaves|Defoliant}}

to:

{{redirect|Foliant|chemicals used to remove leaves|Defoliant|the horse|List of Olympic medalists in equestrian}}

-- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 14:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: There is really not much information about Foliant the horse in that list. It is only mentioned once. ― Hebsen (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An Olympic medallist horse should get a mention, even if it is to the list where it tells you the circumstances of the medalling. -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Wikipedia is not news https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-54002880 2A00:1FA0:83C:2360:142:9DC8:4587:57F5 (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the beginning of the last sentence of the preamble: "In the 21th century" should read "In the 21st century" Kramer2718 (talk) 19:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

done MartinezMD (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone replace this:

The forerunner of Novichok agents, substance-33 (frequently also referred to simply as "Novichok")^[1] was reportedly used in 1995 to poison Russian banker Ivan Kivelidi [ru], and Zara Ismailova, his secretary.^{[2][3][4][5][6]}

With this (or a similar variation):

A novichok agent^[7] was used in 1.8.1995 to poison Russian banker Ivan Kivelidi [ru], who died three days later in a hospital at the age of 46.^[8] The poison was applied to Kivelidi's office phone in Moscow.^[9][7] His secretary Zara Ismailova also got symptoms on 2.8.1995 and then died a day later in a hospital at the age of 35.^[8]

Old version has the following problems: substance-33 is not mentioned anywhere in the cited sources (I don't think anyone has publicly disclosed which novichok agent it actually was), the picture (Novichok agent formula from Kivelidi case.svg) is not substance-33 (or any other novichok agent I could find: see for yourself), there is a citation overkill and lack of specificity (when, where and how?). Sorry about the wacky formatting of this comment. 5-HT2AR (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is nobody gonna react to these potentially false claims regarding "substance-33"? This article is helping propagate baseless claims. An example: page 3 of this doc cites this article. I can't edit this article myself since it is semi-protected. 5-HT2AR (talk) 06:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit but I kept The Mirror out as a potentially unreliable source, being a tabloid without much credibility in these matters. MartinezMD (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Substance 33 is mentioned in Mirzayanov book on Libgen. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the 7 Novichoks are known to be the most potent nerve agents on earth, 5-8 more deadly than VX, why are then the cases of recovered cases like Skripal or Navalny mentioned here? There is no scientific basis for these political claims. A military grade nerve agent is so potent to kill 10 of thousand enemies, to be resolved in air over a wide area. That's why it needs to be that potent. Nerve agents used by secret state agencies, like the GRU, don't need that potency to kill their targets efficiently, but in the two mentioned cases this goal was not achieved at all. All victims recovered fully after 3 weeks. It cannot be one of the known strong Novichoks. Either a very weak variant, or something else. The described cases should mention this descrepancy, that a Novichok-like substance, much weaker than the documented Novichok variants could have been used. Maybe a special variant for the GRU, not the ones for the military. Then the naming is inaccurate, those two attacks should be moved to some other page describing the weaker variant with a not yet invented name. Like GRU-novichok. It's basically a two-component "binary" acetylcholinesterase. The UK and US military developed the very same btw., but they are held secret. ReiniUrban (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:No original research. Perhaps it was a small dose, I dunno. ― Hebsen (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There could be any number of reasons why the cases were not fatal, perhaps the dose was too small? Perhaps the agent was intentionally diluted or weakened in some way as a margin of safety, making it easier and less risky to transport and administer? Perhaps the claimed potency of the various Novichok agents ( 5-8 x more deadly than VX ) is not actually accurate? After all, the Russians have never publicly acknowledged ever using it. Perhaps it was administered extremely sparingly or in a weakened form to limit the chances of other innocent people nearby from also being killed by a minor contamination, because increased casualties would obviously draw even more worldwide attention to the incident and increase the likelihood and severity of a possible retaliation. I could go on and on, but Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of speculation or original research. Currently according to the vast majority of credible sources, and most significantly the OPCW (the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) the agent used in the Salisbury attack was indeed a Novichok nerve agent.2A00:23C8:2688:A401:B53B:DFEC:EBB1:31A0 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the message "Foliant" redirects here necessary (for readers who weren't redirected)? It seems likely to cause confusion, by suggesting that "foliant" is a synonym for Novichok agent (especially since foliant seems related to defoliant, and some defoliants belong to the same class of chemicals as the Novichok agents, the organophosphates).
Maybe it's better to only show the message when readers were redirected, or to add a redirect for "Foliant program" (or "Foliant project", "Project foliant"..) and change the message to "Foliant program" redirects here ? (Although that could be interpreted as a program to develop foliants)
Foliant is an existing word in several languages, in Welsh it means laudatory (full of praise, giving praise), in other languages (German, Russian, Dutch, Frysk, Swedish,..) it refers to a book in folio format. At least I learned something ;-) Prevalence 16:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allegedly has sold illegally chemical products to Russia. Xx236 (talk) 12:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The concentration of butyryl cholinesterase (HuBuChE) in human plasma is normally about 80 nM" is in ambiguous units. The combination of small n and big M does not match any units I am familiar with, and a cursory search does not bring any results. Valrosss (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the correct value would be 80 nmol l^-1 but I haven't got access to the source doi:10.1021/tx0101806 to check. See Mole (unit)#Derived units and SI multiples). Mikedt10 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think worthy of including in the article, but the Daily Telegraph has a mini-article Police 'had to rely on Wikipedia for Novichok clean-up' reporting from the public inquiry today. It reports the Sturgess family KC saying "(One) report records that the most comprehensive source of information to local police was Wikipedia ... There are references to public health officials being risk averse and too slow to offer advice and make decisions." Rwendland (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]