Talk:Vitaly Yurchenko

Neutrality Issues, Verification, and Sources

This article claims that Yurchenko voluntarily defected but notes that, upon returning to the Soviet embassy, Yurchenko claimed that he'd been drugged and coerced by the CIA. As there are no sources at all, what is supposed to be the truth? There ought to be some references, the competing claims, and a discussion of what to think and for what sorts of reason – because it is meaningless to take one side of the story at the expense of another. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

But taking one side of the story at the expense of the other is exactly what a double agent does. And Yurchenko was a master. This man is a great embarrassment to US intelligence. He defected to the US and outed certain KGB agents, but kept Aldrich Ames under the radar and left the US-- "kidnapped by the KGB"-- with the most haunting smile on his face. Nannygoatstrut (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed a little. No, he was drugged by the KGB.Biophys (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the complaint about "no sources". I'd agree that there needs to be a source for a statement "Yurchenko claimed he'd been drugged". Yes, it should be documented that he made that claim. But there's no need to go into whether he REALLY WAS drugged or not if all that's being reported is that he CLAIMED to have been drugged. If I give sworn testimony that someone told me they'd been drugged, and they were not drugged, but they did tell me that they'd been drugged, then my testimony is correct.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vitaly Yurchenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424005418/http://dcist.com/2004/09/an_obituary_yur.php to http://dcist.com/2004/09/an_obituary_yur.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Failed. Not dead yet. -- Pemilligan (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vitaly Yurchenko. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130424005418/http://dcist.com/2004/09/an_obituary_yur.php to http://dcist.com/2004/09/an_obituary_yur.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111013305/http://foia.cia.gov/ to http://foia.cia.gov/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Article should not contradict itself

I'm going to infuriate everyone again by complaining again about Wikipedia contradicting itself (which commits the cardinal heresy of using Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia). At the time of my typing this comment, this article's first paragraph contains the text QUOTE:It is clear that his initial defection was illegitimate, because Yurchenko was awarded the Order of the Red Star from the Soviet government for the successful "infiltration operation."UNQUOTE There are two problems with this text, the first of which is that it contradicts the entire subsection titled "Theories" which provides MANY possible scenarios (not all consistent which each other) in which a person would TRULY defect from the Soviet Union and then TRULY defect back. Nothing listed under "Theories" is rendered implausible by the fact of Yurchenko being awarded The Other Of The Red Star after undefecting. The second problem with the quoted text is that it cites in support of its assertion that the initial defection was illegitimate a fact that, even if true, does NOT support the assertion that the first defection was a ruse. It's entirely possible that the defection to the U.S.A. was sincere, that the undefection was also sincere, and that the Soviets awarded The Order Of The Red Star despite the fact that the first defection was sincere. One explanation is that the first defection was sincere but Yurchenko managed to gull them into thinking that it wasn't, that he was executing some master operation so tricky he couldn't tell his superiors about it. Another explanation is that the first defection was sincere and the Soviets knew it, but awarded the Order Of The Red Star (when Yurchenko undefected) to retroactively make it seem, for the public record, that the defection had NOT been sincere. A third explanation is that the Order was awarded in order to convince the Americans/NATO/"the West" NOT to believe anything that Yurchenko had told them during a defection that the Soviets knew was sincere. The fact that the Soviets awarded him The Order Of The Red Star upon his return to their side does not in any way shape or form support the contention that his defection to the U.S.A. "was illegitimate". I'm not, here, impeaching the notion that his defection was a ruse. I'm impeaching the notion that the Red Star award is evidence that the defection was a ruse.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

I'm not scholarly enough to track it down right now, but I believe evidence exists that Yurchenko, when he undefected to Russia, worked until retirement-age as a security-guard in a bank. That supports the idea that his defection was sincere, that his bosses knew it, and that they'd never trust him with a real intelligence-job ever again.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson