Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings

Galkin's Testimony

Considering that Galkin's Testimony was extracted under torture, why are we using it? I mean heck, if someone's beating me up 24/7 and gives me a text to read to stop the beatings, I'll read the text. So would anyone else. Even James Bond, (in the movie with the North Korean thingy in the air) broke under torture. (M admitted that he was "leaking intel".) No one can withstand torture, especially if it's done over a long period of time. You can force your brain to forget the information, so torture confessions often don't help Recon, but in terms of forcing a person to read a testimony, that's pre-written, it's not complicated at all. Which other Wikipedia Articles sink to the level of using "testimony" obtained under torture? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

What?! It's absolutely inadmissible in the world practice. Quoting his evidence here, we effectively support torture. I strongly vote for removal of his evidence. ellol (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Three Worlds Gone Mad, Robert Young Pelton. Good. The piece from that book about the captive officer's testimony must be translated into Russian. What the barbarism. ellol (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

From Galkin's interview to Novaya Gazeta:

After I got to ours, I was immediately put into hospital. Half a year was spent for medical treatment. I described what happened with me to my commanders. After the hospital, when I learned writing anew (yes, it's exactly so, I had to learn walking, had to learn writing, and my friend had to learn talking -- he stuttered too much), I reported everything in a short document.

...

It's a fate that we stayed alive. When I passed a medical investigation, got an x-ray, doctors revealed that four ribs are broken. During the captivity they healed a bit with displacement of a rib fracture inside a lung. The jaw was broken three times, head traumatized, arms shot through... With my health condition I couldn't continue serving in the Armed Forced. Got dismissed to reserve in Summber 2002 after a rehabilitation course. And psychologically... I would just like to forget it all. And as such things can't be forgotten, I try to imagine it happened not with me.

ellol (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007, I only want to add to your comment, that as Galkin is alive today, using the evidence obtained from him under torture in this article may lead to further traumatizing the man. (Imagine, he opens English wikipedia with this article, and sees the "evidence" he was tortured to say. That's horrific.) ellol (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the HRW, which according to Wikipedia is a valid source, states that evidence extracted under torture cannot be used. Evidence extracted under torture is inadmissible in civilized countries. We must defend Wikipedia from becoming as accepting of evidence, as the North Korean Courts! Where is Radio Free Europe's outrage on this? I cannot believe that they missed it, only because the testimony extracted was anti-Russian. If that's true, that would be an atrocious thing to do! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel very uncomfortable removing well-referenced relevant information that is widely used by proponents of a point of view. On the other hand the text labeled words extracted under torture as "volunteer interview" and only then added that after escaping from his prison Galkin changed his "confession" saying that he was tortured. IMHO we should restore the section changing a few words in the first paragraph so to emphasize that this "confession" was extracted under torture and has very little reliability. We might want to add a few details of how exactly he was tortured (in the notes) so the reader would get an idea Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are ok with testimony extracted under torture if it is well-referenced? Doesn't torture contradict being well-referenced, as, when you are under torture you will confess to anything? In the Salem Witch Trials, Mary confessed that John was pure evil, and that testimony was very well referenced. It was allowed to convict John, who later turned out to be innocent. I don't see why we should follow that mistaken precedent, why we should quote others, when they said something against their will. What is the difference between someone, say Galkin, confessing under torture, or someone simply misquoting Galkin? Both are false, and a waste of the reader's time. Yet you propose allowing one, but not the other. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much clear, that Chechens forced him to say that his interview was "volunteered". But it's likely that he had at that moment broken ribs or arms shot through -- what the interviewer did not care to check. During the interview his Chechen captors were present (you can see that from Pelton's interview), so he had to say what pleased them.

It's not a merely Wikipedia rules issue. But if we leave the "evidence", we collectively are to held responsibility for extending the mental sufferings of the living person who suffered physically and mentally much worse than you or I can ever imagine.

I emphasize that Galkin is not an acting officer now. He retired from the Armed forces in 2002 -- that means, he is a civilian. I think it's the general respect of mercy that we shouldn't prevent that person from living a normal life now. The mention of his "evidence" in a political article may actually hurt the living person -- himself. Imagine he opens this article and sees that "evidence" -- what would he think, that people in the world support the torture applied to him?

But we are not the enemies of civilians who did not committ any crime! ellol (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in removing the references about the rendition. The rules only require to verify the facts of publishing. So referring to the rendition directly is not allowed, but including references to the publications about the rendition and presenting their summaries is OK. The WP:NPOV policy mandates to stay away from monopolizing the truth. Only published statements and contradictions between them matter. As for the biographic limits, I did not see that Galkin's personality was denigrated, taking into account the possibility of tortures. Whether the Wikipedia editors are extending the mental suffering of Galkin or of the relatives of the bombings' victims who might feel betrayed by the state secret service has little to do with libel. --ilgiz (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Publishing tortured testimony is by its very definition unverifiable. How can you even be talking about truth and NPOV, if it's crystal clear that the testimony was obtained under torture? Any testimony obtained under torture isn't going to be NPOV, and violated WP:NPOV. It's also not the truth, it's complete bullshit. And about Galkin being betrayed by the state secret service, that's your own original research, please see WP:OR. Agents get captured and tortured, that's part of the job. This has nothing to do with NPOV, as how can you be NPOV, if you are told what to say at gunpoint? "Read this document, or we shoot your kid, but say it's NPOV, k?" HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ilgiz, do you think that testimonies obtained with the use of torture are valid? ellol (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on this. The editors' beliefs or "common sense" should be irrelevant in representing the summaries of references. --ilgiz (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the use of torture to obtain evidence is the most disguisting behaviour, and using the data obtained with torture in a Wikipedia article really stinks. That's my opinion, you can have yours. ellol (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a very strong and firm belief that common sense should not be irrelevant. And here, common sense, dictates, that a testimony obtained under torture isn't NPOV. Editors must strive for NPOV. Thus, we cannot use testimony obtained under torture, irrespective if it's pro-Berezovski or pro-Tooth Fairy. How can one speak from a neutral point of view, if he or she is being tortured? And this is the first time I see Common Sense challenged on Wikipedia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:VERIFY policy talks about verifying the fact that the reference was published. Verifying the facts presented in the publication and tossing publications deemed untrue is beyond Wikipedia's policies. --ilgiz (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

From the policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.

Is testimony extracted under torture NPOV? No. Is testimony extracted under torture reliable? No. You must have all three, not just one. Here you only have verifiability, and the other elements for inclusion are simply not met. Quoting from Wikipedia's policies: "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". And yet here you are doing exactly that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV policy refers to the relationship between publications and their editorial summaries. Your understanding seems to imply that NPOV is focused on dissonances between the facts and their interpretation in the publications. As for the reliability criteria, again, they are about the authors of the publications not the facts or persons covered by the publications. --ilgiz (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is WP:NPOV - Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. Do you honestly believe that a view extracted under torture is significant in any way, shape or form? "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Ilgiz, do you honestly believe that "evidence" extracted under torture, can ever be considered to have NPOV quality? It's right there in the definition. You need NPOV and Verifiability. Verifiability you have, NPOV you do not have. Anything extracted under torture cannot ever be NPOV type or NPOV quality. You need both. You cannot just pick and choose what you like. As per WP:NPOV this is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007, I wonder what the next discussion will we have, after discussing whether torture is a proper means to get information. Justification of pedophilia, or morality of cannibalism? I always thought that such questions are just too much neanderthalean. It's really a wonder for me that there are people like Ilgiz, eager to justify things like torture.

I really wonder, in fact. Usually in criminal codes of various countries there is no law prohibiting cannibalism -- there's just no need of it. Is then cannibalism an acceptable sort of behaviour for Ilgiz?

IMHO, the whole topic is just that much nauseating and humiliates our human nature as discussing cannibalism does. Like hell, we are the people of certain culture, that stands against torture, regardless of who is the victim. We are, like, people, not a bunch of animals. Don't you think so? ellol (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that entirely. Both, governmental rules and rules of society must be respected, but not worshiped. Often we forget that rules are created by humans and they can change. If we never broke the law, there would still be De Facto segregation in the South, India would be in British hands, etc. As Lincoln said, "A House Divided cannot stand". When societal rules clash with governmental rules, one or the other must go, and often society is correct. But certain people worship rules of government, and ignore societal rules, and are later surprised when society punishes them for it. At least it provides good, societal entertainment for historians. But I think that a lot of people don't get this concept, so I won't apply it to anyone here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That's wrong. "Divided we stand, united we fall".Biophys (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_we_stand,_divided_we_fall HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Alex Bakharev. This must be described as an important incident described in numerous sources, but noticing that the confession could be forced.Biophys (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia does not use information obtained under torture, as that is by its very definition, unencyclopedic. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not use information...". No, wikipedia uses any information published in books identified as WP:RS. This is not a court room. We only must provide proper attribution. This is is anotable controversy on the subject of this article. At least two books claim that he was telling the truth, and the matter was debated in many other sources.Biophys (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the point is, that evidence obtained under torture can't be considered as evidence, because a person does not act not on a free will. You consider political prisoners of GULAG as victims, because albeit they put their signatures under false evidence, they were forced to. Galkin was forced to provide that evidence. Galkin is a victim, exactly like the political prisoners of GULAG. ellol (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, none of us considers this as evidence (we are not judges). We consider this as notable material published in multiple books by several people like Robert Young Pelton, Felshtinsky, Pribylovsky, Goldfarb and others. Once again, torture is a legitimate subject, we have many articles about this. He was a victim? Fine. Let's describe what he said in Novaya gazeta when he was freed.Biophys (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As encyclopedia editors, it is our duty not to trick the reader into misinformation. This was obtained under torture: " say this or we'll torture you some more!" There was medical proof of torture. What was done to Galkin, is exactly what Stalin did during the purges, i.e. you beat the crap out of a guy, and you force him to confess. So what you are saying, is that if person A is kidnapped, beaten up, forced to "confess", we should go ahead and use Wikipedia to publicize the "confession" to promote a conspiracy theory? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Quite a nice article by the telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3665772/All-roads-lead-back-to-Berezovsky.html

It's about Litvinenko's murder, but it also shows who is really behind the conspiracy theory claim, due to Putin's "betrayal" of his "henchmen". How dare did Putin not follow the Davos Pact. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Can't we call a Conspiracy Theory, a Conspiracy Theory?

This article does it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Why exactly are we trying to insist that calling a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory, against NPOV? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_apartment_bombings&action=historysubmit&diff=329775558&oldid=329774888 Wikipedia has very clear rules, that we cannot make conspiracy theories appear more than they are. Yet now I am branded a POV warrior, for calling a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory.

What are the facts? There are none, it's all hearsay, perpetrated by a single, anti-Russian Government group.

On the other hand you have Khattab, who used a similar Modus Operandi to bin Laden, stating that he did it. Then realizing that nobody liked his terror tactics in Dagestan to begin with, and that this incident isolated Khattab's terror group completely, he suddenly starts denying evidence. Instead a person from a non-existent "Dagestan Liberation Army" calls, and uses the exact same speech that Khattab used. Here, compare:

"The mujahideen of Dagestan are going to carry out reprisals in various places across Russia."

"Our response to the bombings of civilians in the villages in Chechnya and Dagestan."

Well he changed reprisals to response, and added Chechnya, a funny act by the "Dagestan Liberation Army", but otherwise the texts are identical.

Here is another sample, (from this very article):

"From now on, we will not only fight against Russian fighter jets and tanks. From now on, they will get our bombs everywhere. Let Russia await our explosions blasting through their cities. I swear we will do it."

And the mysterious caller "said that the explosions in Buynaksk and Moscow were carried out by his organization. According to him, the attacks were a retaliation to the deaths of Muslim women and children during Russian air raids in Dagestan. "We will answer death with death," the caller said".

But nobody heard of his "organization" before or after the blasts.

Khattab did it. He threatened to do it, he carried it out, and the Russian Government was blamed, because they were sloppy, disorganized, and careless.

And all the people who are accusing the Russian Government are those who either want to overthrow it by use of force, or are directly tied to those who want to overthrow by the use of force. If it walks like a conspiracy theory, and it quacks like a conspiracy theory, it's a ... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies recommend to expose existing points of view, not to find a "true" one. Contradictions in real life events are primary sources and their interpretations are secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that only classifies primary and secondary sources and does not synthesize hypotheses. As for naming (classifying) the theory of government involvement, I do not understand why it should be given any name, or a name that has a dual meaning. --ilgiz (talk) 07:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

'Conspiracy theory' is clearly a POV term and therefore not appropriate in an article that attempts to be non-biased. Malick78 (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You guys want to change this article's name too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories According to both of your arguments, it should clearly be changed. Have I your permission to present your arguments to that article? After all, they should be NPOV and apply to all articles, right? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand we have Berezovski, Satter and Associates. On the other we have Academics, Professors, and the people who actually saw proof, as well as threats and a confession by the terrorist leader who did the damn thing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that promoting both on an equal footing is not NPOV.

And since we all love NPOV, how about reading associated policies with NPOV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV#Undue_weight

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority. Satter's testimony was REJECTED by the US Congress. Nevertheless it is cited here 17 times! Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister at the time, endorses Putin's testimony of the bombs. Instead we get John Sweeney's bashing of Putin. Geez, I wonder, who is more important, the Prime Minister, or a "reporter". Goldfarb and Litvinenko's book is cited nine times, more than the opinions of prosecutors handing the cases. And of course the Jamestown Foundation is present in any article dutifully bashing Russia. Trepashkin, the "Independent Investigator" so lauded, is only cited four times. But in one string of citations, the editors, only for NPOV purposes, managed to cite Satter twice. Is this NPOV? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that we shouldn't use such headings as 'Conspiracy Theory of Russian government involvement'. 'Theory of Russian government involvement' is a nice and neutral name; we can trust the reader to examine the section and sources calling it conspiracy theory and otherwise and decide what was it by him(her)self. Alæxis_¿question? 09:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But we are discussing whether to present a fact or not. We aren't deciding on NPOV. You are welcome to match up these events' chronology with the events of 9/11. They are identical. First you have a Saudi group, bin Laden/ibn Khattab, threaten. Than you have said person claim responsibility, after the event took place. Only after said events took place, does the chronology begin to differ, insofar as Khattab retracted his statement, because the Taliban sided with bin Laden's actions, and Basaev did not side with Khattab's actions. After that, the chronology once again becomes the same, insofar as groups trying to destroy the US/Russian Governments by force, go ahead and say that instead of gross negligence, the governments orchestrated it. Watching someone fall of a cliff because your couldn't get a decent rope, and pushing that someone off the cliff are two different things. I mean the fact that Russia lost the First Chechen War isn't NPOV towards Russia. But it is a fact that must be presented. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the Conspiracy Theory is just OK. More than 10 years have passed. The time is ripe to stop teasing readers with "may be"'s and to be more encyclopaedic. There are no proofs of the theory that would stand in a court, but there's the rich criticism of it. It's the conspiracy theory. ellol (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Historic - Tony Blair and Congress wanted to suck up to the Russians... that's why they didn't make waves. Sure, let's quote things in proportion, but let's also be sceptical of the nefarious Russian government (murdering Litvinenko, probably Politkovskaya, attempting in the first hours to cover up the Kursk...) and all those who want contracts for its oil. 'Theories' is perfectly adequate, no need for 'conspiracy' before it. Malick78 (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Potentially there's a choice of 3 names - 'Conspiracy Theory of Russian government involvement', 'Theory of Russian government involvement', 'Russian government involvement'. The middle one is also the best in terms of NPOV imho (even though I myself think it's a conspiracy theory indeed). Alæxis_¿question? 20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Alaexis, I already made the point, that we are deciding whether to include a fact or not, we aren't deciding on NPOV, see above. Malick, in terms of who killed Litvenenko, there is proof. In terms of Kursk submarine, there is proof. In terms of Politkovskaya, there isn't proof, which is why you used the word "probably". In terms of this article, there isn't a centilla of proof. Satter's reported was rejected by the US Congress, insofar as they didn't act on any of his suggestions. The rest of the gang are all tied to Berezovsky, and all we have is threats to make the movie, (either make it or shut up, you had ten years,) and hearsay. Proof is what matters. Thus in the case of Livenenko, it would "theory of Russian Gov't involvement" as there is proof, i.e. Polonium leaves a trail. BTW, Litvenenko was a double agent, selling FSB info, so there was motive as well, I mean which agency wouldn't kill a traitor? In the case of this article, you have no proof, no motive, (i.e. the Second Chechen War was happening, whether these events took place or not,) and all you have is hearsay, by a linked group of people, all of whom want to bring down the Russian Government by force. Hence in this case, it would be "conspiracy theory of Russian Gov't. involvement". Theory implies that you have at least a centilla of proof. As for British wanting to suck up to Russians, sorry but I don't buy that argument, based on hearsay alone. This article's lack of evidence towards Russian Gov't involvement is the classic example of a conspiracy theory. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Malick, I believe we should decide based on the evidence we have. The factual side is the same, regardless of the attitude taken by the British, or the Russian authorities. That's what we should think of the first. ellol (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning.[1][2]" - from the WP page conspiracy theory. So who are the superhumans required for this to be a 'conspiracy'? ;) Malick78 (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The Russian FSB is deemed by theory authors to be able to do such a thing without any information leaks, and held it in perfect secrecy for now a decade. Remember Abraham Lincoln: "You may deceive all the people part of the time, and part of the people all the time, but not all the people all the time." The authors pretend that FSB managed to do exactly the latter. ellol (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I always found it fascinating that when applying WP policies, users most often miss the part that contradicts their claim: "Conspiracy theories are viewed with skepticism and often ridiculed because they are seldom supported by any conclusive evidence and contrast with institutional analysis, which focuses on people's collective behavior in publicly known institutions, as recorded in scholarly material and mainstream media reports, to explain historical or current events, rather than speculate on the motives and actions of secretive coalitions of individuals.[3]"

Here, you only have hearsay. The differences between a theory and a conspiracy theory are many, but a major one is a lack of evidence. Here, all we have is hearsay, which isn't evidence. Never has been. Never will be. I can say that Ellol is a hockey superstar, that Ovechkin's twin brother reincarnated into Ellol. I can also have several sources say the same thing. That is hearsay. It's not evidence. All you have is either statements of notorious criminals, or statements of people belonging to Berezovsky's faction, that wants to overthrow Russia's Government by force, or Satter, whose report was rejected by the US Congress. However it is all speculation and hearsay.

The other theory offers clear evidence. Khattab threatens Russia that if the Wahhabists get bombed, bombs will go off in Russia. Wahhabists get bombed. Bombs go off in Russia. After the blasts, Khattab takes responsibility for the blasts. After failing to gain support, Khattab suddenly says that he didn't do it, and an unheard of group, before or since, suddenly claims responsibility using Khattab's language, almost verbatum. All of these are facts. Nothing there is made up, or hearsay. Geez, based on these facts, I wonder, who did it... HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Putley

Here is the previously inserted quote by Jeremy Putley:

"Jeremy Putley, who had written an article in October 2002 for "The Spectator" supporting the view that the Russian FSB was responsible for the bombing campaign (http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/10496/getting-away-with-murder.thtml) reviewed the book "Darkness at Dawn" for the August 20, 2003 issue of "Prospect", also expressing support for that view."

My problem was not that the quote was inserted, but with how it was inserted. Someone placed it under scholars but Putley is just a reviewer, not a scholar. Additionally it was placed as criticizing the conspiracy theory, whereas in reality it supports the conspiracy theory. Ergo I removed it, because I don't believe that they article should become a battlefront of he said/she said crap. If Putley's notable enough to make such a review, he should be properly included. If not, then he should not be included. And his notability to make such a statement has yet to be established. A blogger, parroting what larussophobe says, is not notable. http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jeremy-putley/ HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jeremy Putley replies: certainly I am not famous but I did carry out detailed research; I am not less scholarly than Kirill Pankratov; I publish using my real name; and I do not parrot what La Russophobe says if you care to read it attentively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.225.134 (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

May I see this detailed research, or is this part of Berezovsky's video that's still yet to come out? And I provided the link where you are parroting what larussophobe says. From the link: larussophobe wrote 10 months ago: Murder in the Time of Putin by Jeremy Putley Original to La Russophobe Eduard and Larisa Baburov pay... Furthermore, publishing using your real name does not make you notable. Because saying "I am not less scholarly then Kirill Pankratov" doesn't actually prove anything. I can say that I've been to the moon. Doesn't mean I have. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

About the Caucasian accent

Can anyone please source it, is it Caucasian race or Peoples of the Caucasus as the context doesn't provide this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor (talk • contribs) 07:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Testing the sugar

There are now references to sacks with "sugar" in Ryazan being tested somewhere outsite the city. When exactly that was done? According to book by Rdward Lucas, FSB indeed claimed about the test, but it was done much later, not the day when sucks were found.Biophys (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag Discussion

The recent edits by Biophys do not meet NPOV criteria. Under the guise of "a more detailed abstract", Biophys writes: " They were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen separatists and together with the Islamist invasion of Daghestan were used as a pretext for the military invasion of the breakaway Chechen Republic, which started on September 30 and escalated the Second Chechen War."

"Quickly blamed by the Russian Government", does that sound NPOV to anyone? Additionally, factual evidence showed that everyone in government was in favor of the Second Chechen War, so it would not make sense to bomb your own popular to support a war that already had widespread support.

Biophy continues:

"The (then) Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians and ordered air attacks on Grozny. The local police caught two Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who planted the bomb in Ryazan shortly afterwards. "

However he has yet to cite an NPOV that those were FSB agents. I don't really see what air attacks on Grozny have to do with anything, except a cheap shot against Russia that is superbly unencyclopedic.

"the secessionist Chechen authorities, claimed that the 1999 bombings were a false flag attack coordinated by the FSB in order to win public support for a new full-scale war in Chechnya, which boosted Prime Minister and former FSB Director Vladimir Putin's popularity, brought the pro-war Unity Party to the State Duma and him to the presidency within a few months " was not what the source says, so I checked it. "Как сообщила в 16-часовом выпуске новостей телекомпания НТВ, при экспертизе в подозрительных мешках взрывчатых веществ не обнаружено." - As the 1600 News Block on NTV announced, when the suspicious looking sacks were checked, no explosives were detected. That's exactly what the source says, and it should not have been removed. Reworded, maybe, removed, definitely not.

And I think the Ryazan explanation and expansion should go into the Ryazan column. Just my two cents. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• cite an NPOV that those were FSB agents According to the April 29, 2003 article by Leonid Berres, Izvestia[1], residents of an apartment building in Ryazan found sacks with hexagen. Following this, FSB director Patrushev stated that there were training exercises in the city. --ilgiz (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Good try Ilgiz, but I asked to have this cited, it's why you don't respond to me out of context: The local police caught two Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who planted the bomb in Ryazan shortly afterwards. So I am asking to cite, an NPOV source, if the people who placed the bomb were FSB agents. According to the source: Как удалось выяснить корреспонденту "Известий", заказчики этого преступления - прежде всего Шамиль Басаев и два араба, инструкторы диверсионных лагерей в Сержень-Юрте и Урус-Мартане Хаттаб и Абу Умар, убитые в прошлом году. . In other words, Izvestia states that the bomb was ordered by Khattab and Basaev. So the FSB agents placing it, had to be turncoats, since neither Khattab, nor Basaev work for the FSB; in fact they work against the FSB. The newspaper states that according to Berezovksy, which the newspaper admits is not a credible source: озвученную опальным предпринимателем Борисом Березовским, yeah that word in Russian, the bolded one, not a good description to have of your persona. So yeah, according to Berezovsky, who wants to overthrow the FSB, the FSB placed the bombs. And that's what the paper says. If an NPOV paper says it's POV quote, guess what - it's a POV quote. Good article though, I agree with it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The first quote from the Izvestia article is about Procurator office's investigation (opinion) on the Moscow bombings. The quote I showed did not attribute the Ryazan sack discovery and Patrushev's statement to Berezovsky. You seem to imply that Patrushev did not make the statement. Besides, I am not sure what the word "disgraced" has anything to do with the opinion of the "disgraced" person. It was never disputed that the sacks were found, that the search for perpetrators was halted after few people were found, released and that Patrushev declared the events an exercise. --ilgiz (talk)
      • Ilgiz, you are very welcome to fix anything you want. You know this subject well.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Biophys, are you going to respond the POV tag? It came to the article as a result of your edits. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I am saying that Russian FSB forces did not blow up their own civilians, and the only ones who say otherwise, are the disgraced Berezovki clique, as the article that you cited points out. When claiming otherwise, show me the quotes from the article, so I can see your evidence, as I am a huge fan of evidence, over mere claims. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia editors do not carry the burden of verifying facts (primary sources) described by the publications (secondary sources). Only the facts that the references were published need to be verified. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. --ilgiz (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Ilgiz, when you make an edit in Wikipedia, you actually have to cite the information where that came from. And is the source is a conspiracy theories, Berezovsky, the source has to either be identified as a conspiracy theorist, or removed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Appeal

The story of Russian apartment bombings with the time passing becomes a matter of history. And as such, it can't depend on mere speculations. If you can reference solid evidence in favour of the conspiracy theory, you are more than welcome to do that. If you can't, do not harm this article with any more speculation of opposition politicians that's not based on any publicly available evidence. ellol (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia articles would not have much value without presenting references to opinions and works. --ilgiz (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Right, can you have to cite them. And if they are conspiracy theorists, they must be identified as such. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Bombing by FSB agents is a majority view

I believe that comment by ellol has some merit as a reminder to follow WP:RS. So, let's follow it and use reliable secondary sources (that is books by experts), although nothing prevents from using other sources. According to majority of such books, the bombing was indeed committed by the FSB. This comes at no surprise because FSB was so clumsy: the agents were caught red-handed while planing the bomb and so on. So, we have the following books by experts on the Russian affairs that support bombing by the FSB version:

1. Two books by an FSB insider Alexander Litvinenko who said "we did it".
2. A book by David Satter who also reported this to US Congress
3. A book by Edward Lucas (journalist)
4. Book "Age of Assassins" by historians Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky
5. Several documentary movies by Andrei Nekrasov
6. There are some allegedly fictional books with only names replaced, such as "Lesser Evil" by Dubov who describes Berezovsky, Putin and others, but hints that the actual mastermind behind the bombings was Philipp Bobkov

Books that provide no definitive conclusion, but consider such scenario highly probable:

1. The Security Organs of the Russian Federation. A Brief History 1991-2004 by Jonathan Littell, Psan Publishing House 2006.
2. Book by Alex Goldfarb

Books claiming that bombings definitely were not committed by the FSB:

1. A book by Sakva?

Everyone is welcome to continue these lists of books by experts to see which list will be longer. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It makes only a very little interest, who said this versus who said that. Mere speculations do not prove the conspiracy theory. Most of the people you cited as experts are not internationally recognized in such quality.

Surely, you are welcome to provide strong evidence, based on facts, which would prove the theory. But mere speculations of likely biased claimants (such as Edward Lukas aka the New Cold War guy) only deteriorate the article quality. ellol (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not suppose to provide any evidence of any theories. I only should provide sources, and preferably the best available secondary sources. Per WP:RS such sources are books written by experts. If you have nothing to add to this list of books by experts, it means I was right about the majority view per wikipedia policies.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are providing the best available secondary sources, it should be no trouble for you to cite here the list of facts, mentioned in the secondary sources, which unambiguously prove the conspiracy theory. And please, do not say that the only reason why you are not doing that is because you don't have to. The only reason is, that there are no publicly available facts which prove unambiguously the conspiracy theory. All what you cited so far were blah-blah-blah style speculations. When such speculations take place of facts, it harms Wikipedia. ellol (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, your choice of sources is questionable. First, while you mention Russian experts with your pov you do not mention a single one with opposite view. Such people as Yulia Latynina and Leonid Radzikhovskiy who are generally very critical of Russian goverment said they don't believe it or hold it unlikely (links in a day - I'm writing from handy). And using fictional books as sources is beyond wp policies, really. Alæxis_¿question? 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And here are the promised prooflinks: Latynina's article in EJ.ru, transcript of Radzikhovsky's program on Echo of Moscow Alæxis_¿question? 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Biophys, your sources are dishonest:

1. They are all tied to Berezovksy, who stated that he wants to overthrow Russia's Government by force, or any means necessary. Via logic, we can deduce that one of these means is blaming the Russian Government for an act that the Russian Government did not commit.

2. They are all Russia bashers, or people who have an axe to grind against Putin, and cannot possibly be objective, as they are paid for bashing Russia.

Let's analyze: Alexander Litvinenko defected from the FSB to Berezovsky's clique. I doubt he is objective. And where's the proof? Oh right, Litvinenko has none, other than his word. Satter's testimony was not accepted by the US Congress. Instead the US accepted Putin's version. Is the US Congress controlled by Putin? Really now, Biophys? Edward Lucas has been bashing Russia non-stop. He's one of the attack dogs. Maybe he has proof? Oh wait, he has none. Or perhaps you can show us the "documentary" movies by Nekrasov. Oh wait, they have Litvinenko telling his side of the story, and calling that a "documentary". Felshtinsky co-wrote a book with Alexander Litvinenko. Pribylovsky makes money by spreading propaganda, some true, some not true, about Russia's government on his website, anticompromat.org. None of these people have a shred of objectivity towards Russia. They're all paid to bash Russia. But I am glad that you suggested fictional books, because what you are proposing to input into Wikipedia as the "majority view", is fiction.

Now for the other side: first we have the acknowledgement by all UN Members of Russia's side of the story. That's all UN Members. Professional, unbiased scholars, such as Murphy, Sakwa and Ware, take Russia's side. Additionally, as was pointed out earlier, journalists, such as Latynina, who are anti-Russian, but not tied to Berezovski, and aren't paid for bashing Russia, do not confirm your account. They do the exact opposite, confirm Russia's account.

As if this was not enough, we have the facts. Saudi born terrorist, Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab, states that he will fly planes into buildings blow up apartments in Russia, if the Al Qaeda Wahhabist bases are hit. Because these bases are used for armed incursion, they are hit. The buildings apartments are blown up. Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab takes responsibility for the bombings. As a result, people hate him even more. After finding that out, Ibn-Al Khattab stands up and says "I didn't do it, honest!" And instanly the Berezovksy clique yells "it was Putin's FSB!"

Those are the facts, all coming from secondary sources. Our job is to tell the reader the facts, and let him judge. Our job is not to promote Berezovsky's conspiracy theory on Wikipedia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• • My interpretation of the Wikipedia project is different. There is not a goal of seeking truth in it. You may be motivated by your understanding of truth in adding new references or questioning the references from the other side, but you cannot hold to your motivation as the argument. From what I see, you perceive Wikipedia as a secondary source while it was designed to be a tertiary source. --ilgiz (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This probably applies to all parties involved in the revert war. Phrases such as "They were quickly blamed" or "used as a pretext" describe connections that are not universally accepted, so one needs to add in-text references such as "according to this researcher" or "This politician said that" along with links to the sources. Please stop personification of the discussion and address issues not editors. --ilgiz (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Both HW007 and I have demonstrated sources that there are no less experts who doubt FSB involvement. There're more sources supporting both versions in Russian-language Wikipedia, among those who didn't believe in FSB involvement version was Paul Klebnikov. So the initial statement by Biophys (in the header) is not quite true.

      Could someone please propose something definite or else what is the point of the discussion? I would propose again to remove the word 'conspiracy' from the section heading and let the readers decide by themselves whether it's a conspiracy theory or no based on the sources in that section. Alæxis_¿question? 19:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

    • The article is fine as it is. Additionally, we have Wikipedia rules which prevent us from promoting conspiracy theories. As per, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories, we aren't allowed to present conspiracy theories as anything, except what they are - conspiracy theories. We even have a whole section on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories From the source: Proponents of fringe theories have in the past used Wikipedia as a forum for promoting their ideas. Existing policies discourage this type of behavior: if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Because we don't want to be reported, we must clearly label conspiracy theories, as conspiracy theories.

In order to prove that this is not a conspiracy theory, Biophys, Ilgiz, et al, have to do the following:

1. Demonstrate factual evidence that FSB did it, not just hearsay. Said evidence must apply to Russian Apartment Bombings, instead of bombs that did not go off.

2. Show a 1999 or 2000 source that claims FSB did it, has no ties to Berezovsky, and does not want the Russian Government overthrown by force. Said sources must be actual sources, rather than credible and semi-credible politicians merely quoting the Berezovsky clique.

3. Such evidence must have a shread of NPOV in it.

4. They must also credibly negate the current fact pattern: As if this was not enough, we have the facts. Saudi born terrorist, Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab, states that he will fly planes into buildings blow up apartments in Russia, if the Al Qaeda Wahhabist bases are hit. Because these bases are used for armed incursion, they are hit. The buildings apartments are blown up. Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab takes responsibility for the bombings. As a result, people hate him even more. After finding that out, Ibn-Al Khattab stands up and says "I didn't do it, honest!" And instanly the Berezovksy clique yells "it was Putin's FSB!"

Until that is done, this should be regarded as a conspiracy theory, and treated as such, as per Wikipedia policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion, which states:

[Do not promote] Opinion pieces [of the Berezovksy clique]. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. All I'm asking is that we use facts, and label conspiracy theories as conspiracy theories. C'mon folks, it ain't that complicated. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • • I do not see an example of conflict of interests or self-publishing, in the Wikipedia editing sense, in presenting the secondary sources supporting the theory of government involvement. Let us not stir the discussion into a debate over the events and their interpretation. All we can do is present reliable secondary sources. --ilgiz (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Did you just ignore WP:FRINGE entirely? If it is a conspiracy theory, it must be treated like a conspiracy theory. We have Wikipedia rules to follow. The qoutes above have nothing to do with WP:COI. If you would like, I can show you an article where Biophys might be breaking WP:COI, but this isn't that article. Please do not confuse WP:FRINGE with WP:COI. WP:FRINGE is very simple, it's black and white: if this is a view held by a single clique, whereas the rest of the World, including the UN, disagrees with it, use WP:FRINGE. I'm sorry, I can't make it any clearer. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

People, you talked a lot, but only Alaexis mentioned one book so far. Alaexis, do you mean book "Godfather of the Kremlin" and what exactly chapter of this book do you mean? Unfortunately, Latynina and Radzikhovsky did not wrote any books on the subject of this article. This is still a majority view based on books by experts if you can not provide refs to books that claim something different.Biophys (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I looked at the book by Klebnikov (pages 302-305). He tells about the claims by Lebed' and Makhadov that bombings were organized by Russian government, but believes there is no enough evidence of that. He also tells "if Berezovsky was involved in the bombings, this secret would remain an iron bond attaching Putin to Berezovsky". That's a neutral position, not in support of any version.Biophys (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys - is there anything wrong with this fact pattern?

Saudi born terrorist, Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab, states that he will fly planes into buildings blow up apartments in Russia, if the Al Qaeda Wahhabist bases are hit. Because these bases are used for armed incursion, they are hit. The buildings apartments are blown up. Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab takes responsibility for the bombings. As a result, people hate him even more. After finding that out, Ibn-Al Khattab stands up and says "I didn't do it, honest!" And instanly the Berezovksy clique yells "it was Putin's FSB!"

If there is nothing wrong with it, that means you have a conspiracy theory, and we must follow WP:FRINGE.

There aren't a lot of books on "who did 9/11" either. That's because it's obvious. Just as mathmaticians with PhDs don't usually write books why 2 + 2 = 4, so scholars and reporters aren't going to focus on "who blew up the apartments" - because from the fact pattern it is obvious who did it. Initially, Khattab even took responsibility! And he wasn't under duress when he did so! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, you ignored my statement in this discussion (it starts with the words "If you are providing the best available secondary sources, it should be no trouble for you to cite here the list of facts, mentioned in the secondary sources, which unambiguously prove the conspiracy theory."). Please, care to reply. My point is that the issue of credibility of the conspiracy theory amounts to the available facts. The principle of using secondary sources means yet that to prove your point you need to cite a work which reviews those facts -- if they exist. ellol (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not in the business of proving anything. I can only tell that a majority of books on the subject, which are noted by me above, claim that bombings have been committed by the FSB; others (like the book by Klebnikov) tell that the FSB involvement was not proven. And this should be described accordingly.Biophys (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, as you correctly stated, we are not in the business of proving anything. But if you claim that the bombings were committed by the FSB, you should be able to cite the works which prove that point with facts. If that's impossible, we can't treat the conspiracy theory as a fact. And we view it accordingly -- as a pure speculation which has several supporters. There is a section in this article which views the conspiracy theory. ellol (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, let's put Introduction aside for a minute. I would like to make some changes in the body of the article to better reflect factual events (as you suggested) rather than anyone's interpretations. Would you allow me to do this without reverting? Just to clarify, I mean any events directly related to the bombings per WP:RS. For example, if an RS tells that Ugrumov and Romanovich were killed because of their alleged participation in the bombings, the factual information about their death belongs here (and it does not matter if they were actually involved or not - we do not make such judgments). If Galkin factually made a testimony about the bombings (and he did, no one ever disputed this), this also belongs here. Was his testimony false or not is the second and completely different question. Biophys (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't own this article, like you or anyone here.

Yet, your proposals are questionable. You know that Galkin made his "testimonies" under torture, in captivity. In circumstances like that, everybody would say anything to please the bandits. A person can't resist torture, that's why "testimonies" like that aren't viewed, that's the generally approppriate world practice. (See a related discussion at this talk page.)

Other your proposals also aren't ethically clean. Romanovich died in April 1998 [2] -- long before the events. Ugrumov died because of a heart attack [3] in 2001. ellol (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

We cannot use evidence, any evidence, irrespective of whom it benefits, if said evidence was obtained under torture. Was Galkin's Evidence obtained under torture? Undeniably, it was. End of discussion. And evidence obtained under torture is not 100% factual. You torture someone enough, you can get them to confess that in a few minutes, a fleet of pink elephants will be invading the United States. Calling this "evidence", factual, is superbly wrong. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, all points are taken. That's interesting ref. about Romanovich (it needs to be checked against other sources). Sure, many people died from "hart attack", even Anatoly Sobchack. There is nothing wrong to write about controversial confessions about the bombings if they are reliably sourced.Biophys (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Romanovich was noted as someone directly involved in planting the bombs in Moscow in a hundred of sources. Now, exactly 10 years after the bombings an unknown person sends copies of undescribed documents, allegedly from Cyprus, claiming that Romanovich died on Cyprus earlier. The publication does not tell why and when he died, what was the nature of the documents, and who had prepared them. Fine, this should be noted.Biophys (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please, address your concerns 1) to the widow of gone Romanovich, 2) to the Government of Cyprus, 3) to the editorial board of Novaya Gazeta. And please, let us know of the results, it's actually interesting. Until that moment, we have to deal with this link which sais that Romanovich died in 1998 and has the power of a fact. ellol (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but as a matter of fact, we have one publication in Novaya gazeta claiming one thing and numerous publications claiming something completely opposite. This should be handled per WP:NPOV. We tell that Romanovich was involved according to such and such publications, but another publication claimed that he was not involved. That's a typical "controversy".Biophys (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Novaya Gazeta is a reputable Russian investigative newspaper. I think, you don't have reputable sources claiming the opposite to what was stated in it. Please, provide them, otherwise. ellol (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is not an absolute criterion on reliability of secondary sources in Wikipedia. Its policies provide general guidelines and examples of mostly reliable and mostly unreliable sources. Only fringe sources that did not get attention of researchers are the likely candidates for exclusion. --ilgiz (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's simple as that -- when did that man die? If we can't figure out a thing as simple as that, having reliable sources (like a major Russian newspaper), what can we do at all? ellol (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides, I exactly inquired Biophys for whatever evidence he can provide to spill more light on this story -- if he finds Novaya Gazeta evidence unsasisfactory, contradictory, whatever. ellol (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to ask for sources that are already mentioned. Your line of thought implies there is absolute truth about the disputed time and cause of the event. --ilgiz (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re to ellol: There was no any "evidence" in the brief note in Novaya gazeta. No text of the alleged "documents", no descriptions of the documents. Nothing. Are you serious suggesting me to interview people involved in the case (widow of Romanovich and others) to obtain the evidence? Biophys (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There is the evidence. They say that they have (had) the documents. If you doubt their sincerity, it's not their trouble. But you can try to request that information from the Novaya Gazeta. ellol (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus on factual events

I made a few edits to keep this article as factual as possible and only briefly mention theories that are described in a separate article. All factual events belong here. Long debates of "theories" belong there. OK? Biophys (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what was wrong with providing Bibliography section, removing POV forks and other changes. Fix specific problems instead of revering everything please.Biophys (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed some facts, like, the subsection "Previous threats"; you removed all the criticism of the conspiracy theory. That's "what was wrong". ellol (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I now removed nothing. Please note that section "Previous threats" was not removed even in the previous version. The material was moved to a different section where it belongs.Biophys (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine version. Like it. ellol (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! How about (a) this edit and (b) this edit? Biophys (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you can agree with (a), but (b) should be completely re-written to be NPOV. I will do it.Biophys (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't like (a) and I don't like (b). In (a), I object the wording "FSB investigation". I'm not even sure that the FSB has the authority to investigate. I think, that with no further evidence (that's currently next to none) in favour of the conspiracy theory it's OK to refer to it as the conspiracy theory. Regarding (b), I am not sure it fits this article. Possibly, it would fit better the article, viewing the theories in datails. After all, this article is mostly about events, something a bit more real-world, than books. ellol (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as stated in Russian wiki entry for FSB,

"According to the article 7 of Federal Law of April 3, 1995 N 40-FL "About Federal Security Service", the activity of FSB bodies is performed to do the following tasks: Counter-intelligence activity / fight against terrorism / fight against crime / intelligence activity / activity to secure borders / guaranteeing informational security."

The powers to investigate a criminal case do not fit any of these tasks. ellol (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping discussions of theories in this article

All sources tell that investigation was supervised and conducted by the FSB as a serious terrorism case (in US that would be handled by the FBI). But let's talk about our main disagreement. We have two options here: (a) we leave only a brief description of theories in this article, and the theories are debated in detail in a separate article, Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings (that is what I tried to do in last edits), or (b) we discuss the theories here, with all pro and contra (then the "Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings" should be eventually deleted as a POV fork). I would agree with any option. Which one do you prefer? Biophys (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a mainstream view, that's more than a theory, and we have a conspiracy theory, which is a theory. I do not understand, how do we have multiple theories here. ellol (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, let it be one theory. Should we discuss it in detail (support/criticism) (a) in this article or (b) in Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings? If (a), I will significantly expand this section here. If (b), let's remove all discussions of the theory from this article (as I did) and place them to Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings.Biophys (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not have time right now to continue this discussion. Sorry for the delay. ellol (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, this is simply copy and paste from Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings. You said that FSB involvement is a "conspiracy theory". Fine. Then what we have is a copy and paste of debates (rather than facts) about a conspiracy theory. Let's keep where it belongs.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

And could you please read this?Biophys (talk) 05:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting article. And would you possibly read this? ellol (talk) 13:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant to this article. BTW, I am perfectly aware of the serious ethnic tension in this region, as I visited Caucasus on numerous occasions. The Chechnya was an extremely hostile place for Russians even in the old Soviet times. Which is understandable. Biophys (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I see no troubles with the article in its current state. The Conspiracy theory is laid out, then, its criticism is provided.

There's no support of the conspiracy theory, which does not use authority ("McCain said there are serious evidence in support of the theory." McCain did not say which ones.) As the option, I can propose removing any mentions of the conspiracy theory at all.

The Criticism section in this article was not copypasted from the article "Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings". Rather than that, the corresponding section in the "Explanation attempts" article was copypasted from this article. You can see it in 1) history of the "Explanation attempts", 2) the criticism list in this article is better updated, than the one in the "Explanation attempts".

I object inclusion of a section, which reviews the books. Yet, these books are listed in the Bibliography section of this article. ellol (talk) 14:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, you believe that discussions of theories should be kept in this article. Good. Then I am going to expand this section and remove content forks from another article. As about the books and movies, this possibly can be handled through asking third opinions.Biophys (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I object removing criticism from this article. The existence of a separate article which uses some of the contents from this article doesn't justify the removal.

I don't think that discussions belong to Wikipedia. But reasons pro and contra, certainly, do. ellol (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides, what about Latynina's criticism of the conspiracy theory? Why it's not included? ellol (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, please include.Biophys (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you want to include all materials here, let's do it. Then "Explanation attempts" should be eventually deleted as a content fork, after an AfD discussion of course. I will bring materials here.Biophys (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. How about nominating "Explanation attempts" for deletion?Biophys (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we have the theory of FSB involvement as a significant part of the article (including "criticism" and "support"), it must be mentioned in the introduction.Biophys (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are adding much of emotional stuff, and none of the facts. Please, provide any factual evidence in favour of the conspiracy theory, if you want to give more weight to it.

You also re-added evidence, obtained from Galkin under torture, while we discussed it at this talk page, and decided that evidence obtained under torture doesn't belong here. ellol (talk) 13:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you revert?

What exactly "emotional stuff" are you talking about? There was none. Everything was completely sourced. If something was not, please mark as "unsourced". Or please fix any errors starting from the current version. I made 18 edits. Let's consider them in reverse order. What was problem with this? With this? With this? And so on and so on. Please explain. I did no reverts yesterday.Biophys (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A good example of emotional vs. rational stuff:

Your version: They [bombings] were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen separatists and together with the Islamist invasion of Daghestan, a republic within the Russian Federation, that took place in August 1999 were used as a pretext for the military invasion of the breakaway Chechen Republic, which started on September 30 and escalated the Second Chechen War.

My version: Together with the Invasion of Dagestan launched from Chechnya in August 1999 by Islamist militia led by Shamil Basayev and Ibn al-Khattab, the bombings caused the Russian Federation to intensify the Second Chechen war.

This needs to be discussed. May be a compromise version?Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything is sourced, that's fine, but we don't need here further details into the conspiracy theory, if there are no, albeit tiniest, facts in support of the theory. ellol (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your examples, 1 raises no questions, 2 removes the sentense "He [Tkachenko] added that the detonator was a hunting cartridge and that it would not be able to detonate any known explosives", 3 is the fine example of emotional stuff. I am sure, that the list of facts, investigated by Kovalev would be 100% more approppriate here. ellol (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to fix it, please fix it in the current version instead of making blind reverts. Same applies to any other specific issues you disagree with.Biophys (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please self-revert right now and allow me to include the phrase by Tkachenko and make any other specific changes you want? Or you can do it yourself in last version.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not quite understand what are you asking me for! Why would I revert to a version I disagree with? Besides, you ignore my objections sounded above, e.g., about inclusion of Galkin's testimonies, obtained under torture. ellol (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I ask you to self-revert. Then me or you will include the phrase by Tkachenko you want to be included. If you have any other specific disagreements with current version, please post them here, and we will fix everything after discussion. We can include the note that Galkin was tortured, for example. Note that it is you who started edit war today after a series of constructive changes we both made yesterday.Biophys (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any disagreements with the current state of the article. That's why I made the revert. Thanks, and hope for constructive cooperation. ellol (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, current version of the article is the last version excluding your revert to an older version. In other words, you are going to continue reverts instead of working towards compromise with the last version. And that is what you call "constructive cooperation".Biophys (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope, that you follow the consensus previously reached at this talk page, in particular, regarding the evidence of Galkin, obtained under torture. Please, explain, why do you believe that evidence obtained under torture can be viewed in a civilized society? ellol (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, let's remove Galkin from last version and discuss it again. To be constructive, let's do the following. Could you please make a list what exactly was wrong with the last version (Galkin, etc.)? Then I will either fix all of them or temporarily remove for discussion. OK? Biophys (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• As we agreed to remove Galkin's testimony, we have to remove at least from this article, dependent contents such as this.
• In the edit from the previous point, I also disagree with removal of the wording "Conspiracy theory". Why can't we call a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory?
• I disagree with removing the subsection "Theory of Ibn Al Khattab's Involvement" as a structural unit (despite its contents is saved) [4].
• I disagree with removal of analysis by Dr. Robert Bruce Ware, an associate professor of Southern Illinois University [5].
• I believe, that inclusion of the reviews of books and movies related to the bombings deserves better discussing: [6]; principally, I don't have cardinal objections against it, but am not sure whether it belongs to this article; so I propose to discuss whether to include it with more discussion participants.
• Regarding the inclusion of points of support of the conspiracy theory in this edit, I can agree to leave the officials part of that; the "analysts" section there is based solely on emotions: a good example is "although it sounds far-fetched at first, remember that the FSB is simply the renamed KGB", so I vote strongly for removal the "analysys" from this edit; I did not understand as well the passage about "Putin's willingness to shut down Novaya Gazeta" -- Novaya Gazeta is alive and sound, and it was never shut down, so it's simply dis-informing Wikipedia readers.
• [7] I disagree with providing details on Felshtinsky/Pribylovsky theory, as "they did not provide any direct evidence to back up their claims about FSB involvement in the bombings", as one of commentors say; so, the passage edited in this edit should be removed.
• This edit, beyond simply rearranging stuff, removes an important claim: On September 2, Al-Khattab announced: "The mujahideen of Dagestan are going to carry out reprisals in various places across Russia."
• This edit removes an important claim by Basayev: In an interview to the Czech newspaper Lidove Noviny on September 9, Shamil Basayev denied responsibility, saying: "The latest blast in Moscow is not our work, but the work of the Dagestanis. Russia has been openly terrorizing Dagestan, it encircled three villages in the centre of Dagestan, did not allow women and children to leave."
• About this edit: while providing chronology is generally a good idea, this edit fails to pass as a fair depiction.
• Regards, ellol (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Specific problems with current version

• As we agreed to remove Galkin's testimony, we have to remove at least from this article, dependent contents such as this.

You suggest to remove not only Galkin testimony, but also any references to his testimony taken from the books. Fine, let's remove everything about Galkin for now, but only to discuss it here. No, we did not agree. There is no consensus to remove. Let's discuss.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss, and let's invite more people to discuss. ellol (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Could I ask you, if it's not very difficult, to initiate the discussion? Or, as an option, I can initiate it myself. Because simply having a discussion doesn't guarantee peaceful resolution of the argument, would you agree to invite, for example, Alex Bakharev to draw the conclusion of the discussion, after all arguments are made? ellol (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

He already stated his view on inclusion of materials about Galkin (see discussion above), and I can agree with him.Biophys (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Then, it's a win-win situation for you. So, would you agree for a discussion, and to accept the whatever conclusion made by Alex Bakharev? ellol (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree to discuss, and he is a good mediator. I can't promise anything, but I would like to accept any reasonable compromise he might suggest per the policies.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain, please, which decisions of the mediator would be unacceptable for you? (If that's your point.) After all, the mediator is supposed to take a decision. We can't know which one. But if we don't agree to accept his decision, this all will end in another edit war.

I hope, you understand, that the alternative to mediating this question is an edit war. I can agree, that unfortunately, as Russians say, "the choice is not rich", i.e., there are just a few of options in this situation. However, personally, I would be happy to engage in some less senseless activity than edit warring. Regards, ellol (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done as you asked.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. However, you said nothing about what you are intended to do in regards of this question, and what principles are you going to follow. ellol (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• In the edit from the previous point, I also disagree with removal of the wording "Conspiracy theory". Why can't we call a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory?

How about mentioning word "conspiracy" in the text?Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not to mention it once in the header and forget of that problem? ellol (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The wording "conspiracy theory" is not used in the header of the section. ellol (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with removing the subsection "Theory of Ibn Al Khattab's Involvement" as a structural unit (despite its contents is saved) [8].

Let's keep it.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree with removal of analysis by Dr. Robert Bruce Ware, an associate professor of Southern Illinois University [9].

It is currently included. That was a duplication. Certainly, let's keep.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. It was not a duplication.

What you saved is: According to Dr. Robert Bruce Ware of Southern Illinois University, "The assertions that Russian security services are responsible for the bombings is at least partially incorrect, and appears to have given rise to an obscurantist mythology of Russian culpability. At the very least, it is clear that these assertions are incomplete in so far as they have not taken full account of the evidence suggesting the responsibility of Wahhabis under the leadership of Khattab, who may have been seeking retribution for the federal assault upon Dagestan's Islamic Djamaat."

While you removed somewhat quite a stronger statement: According to Dr. Robert Bruce Ware, an associate professor of Southern Illinois University, the best explanation for the apartment block blasts is that they were perpetrated by Wahhabis under the leadership of Khattab, as retribution for the federal attacks on Karamachi, Chabanmakhi, and Kadar. "If the blasts were organized by Khattab and other Wahhabis as retribution for the federal attacks on Dagestan's Islamic Djamaat, then this would explain the timing of the attacks, and why there were no attacks after the date on which fighting in Dagestan was concluded. It would explain why no Chechen claimed responsibility. It would account for Basayev's reference to Dagestani responsibility, and it would be consistent with Khattab's vow to set off bombs everywhere... blasting through [Russian] cities."

ellol (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If the material is organized as arguments by people, let's keep all statements by him in one place. But this is basically the same argument: he thinks, based on the timing, that Khattab retributed for the federal attacks on Dagestan.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The second statement, IMHO, is stronger, as it provides some argumentation (timing of bombings, claims of responsibility), while the first statement is somewhat more vague and ambiguous. ellol (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep both statements, OK? ellol (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I believe, that inclusion of the reviews of books and movies related to the bombings deserves better discussing: [10]; principally, I don't have cardinal objections against it, but am not sure whether it belongs to this article; so I propose to discuss whether to include it with more discussion participants.
• Regarding the inclusion of points of support of the conspiracy theory in this edit, I can agree to leave the officials part of that; the "analysts" section there is based solely on emotions: a good example is "although it sounds far-fetched at first, remember that the FSB is simply the renamed KGB", so I vote strongly for removal the "analysys" from this edit; I did not understand as well the passage about "Putin's willingness to shut down Novaya Gazeta" -- Novaya Gazeta is alive and sound, and it was never shut down, so it's simply dis-informing Wikipedia readers.

This is about keeping the "Support" of FSB involvement theory. If you include "Criticism", we must also include "support" per WP:NPOV. And we should apply the same rules to the both sub-sections. Probably the best way is to briefly summarize the arguments rather than simply words "I think so" by the both sides. I can try to do it. But remember: "FSB is simply the renamed KGB" (and so on) is precisely the argument by the author ("they did it in the past, so they did it again"). This can be re-worded of course.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hear arguments of supporters of that theory. But I hate to hear just more of Russophobic claims. "FSB the heir of KGB" is the standard mantra of a bunch of Russophobic journalists. I don't see why do we have to store such contents here.

The problem is, that even if FSB were the old KGB, it wouldn't explain anything. KGB did not explode houses in the Soviet Union, right? ellol (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You can not selectively exclude arguments by simply claiming author to be "Russophobic". Why the claim "FSB the heir of KGB" is Russophobic? What this has to do with ethnicity? I have to look at the source, but the answer is obvious. Arranging terrorism acts worldwide through their own agents and proxy organization was one of KGB specialities. And they conducted Great Terror and other official terrorism campaigns within the country.Biophys (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Why the claim "FSB the heir of KGB" is Russophobic?" Because it exhibits the fear before the Russia, and ignores positive changes in the Russian society, such as the policies of democratization, unveiling the information about NKVD crimes (such as GULAG), which took place in late 1980-s/early 1990-s and cleaned, cured the Russian society, in particular from fear before the formerly totalitarian government (and KGB was exactly the symbol of totalitarian repression).

Again, in any case, KGB did not explode houses in the Soviet Union. Even in that time it would have been too a monstrous crime. Nobody says it was white and fluffy -- it's ridiculous. But it did not do monstrous stuff like that. So "doing it again" is far-fetched. ellol (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

People from the FSB and SVR proudly consider themselves heirs of not only KGB, but even CheKa. Did not you know? As about the source, yes, it makes the point that there is no difference between KGB and FSB based on the analogy of murders of Markov and Litvinenko, both in London. This argument is now widespread: remember the title of the book by Goldfarb "...and return of the KGB". You probably do not know, but KGB conducted bombings in Moscow metro in 1975 to blame it on Armenian nationalists. And creating "fake rebels" (like controlling some Chechen groups) was also their favorite. They did such things to fight Basmachi and Stepan Bandera.Biophys (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I know of the bombings in 1975, and I've never heard of serious sources which blame them on KGB. Indeed, the information about the bombings was not open, i.e. the event was not officially reported, it gained no public attention. The bombings had practically no effect on the society, so KGB wouldn't have benefited of it.

But it's well known (I can provide sources), that Berezovsky sponsored Basayev. He used the pretext of buying out Russian captives. Well, but any way, Basayev got money from Berezovsky. ellol (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(the original issue). I trimmed down and moved around some parts of support, but the KGB argument was written precisely as stated in original source. If you have objections, please modify this per source.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• [11] I disagree with providing details on Felshtinsky/Pribylovsky theory, as "they did not provide any direct evidence to back up their claims about FSB involvement in the bombings", as one of commentors say; so, the passage edited in this edit should be removed.

Yes, we can tell in this section something like this: "there is no direct evidence of FSB involvement". Would that be OK? But we must describe what the theory claims prior to providing arguments pro and contra. This part can be reworded.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If it's explicitly stated (possibly in a stand-alone passage) that "there is no direct evidence of FSB involvement", immediately following Felshtinsky/Pribulovsky 's claims, then, why not? ellol (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• This edit, beyond simply rearranging stuff, removes an important claim: On September 2, Al-Khattab announced: "The mujahideen of Dagestan are going to carry out reprisals in various places across Russia."
• This edit removes an important claim by Basayev: In an interview to the Czech newspaper Lidove Noviny on September 9, Shamil Basayev denied responsibility, saying: "The latest blast in Moscow is not our work, but the work of the Dagestanis. Russia has been openly terrorizing Dagestan, it encircled three villages in the centre of Dagestan, did not allow women and children to leave."

Do you agree that they both denied responsibility? If so, what's the reason for keeping this? But no problem, let's keep it.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It's worth of keeping, because Basayev claimed that Dagestanis did the bombings. It's an important fact, and for example, Dr. Robert Bruce Ware referred to it. ellol (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• This edit: while proving chronology is generally a good idea, this edit fails to pass as a fair depiction.

Please be more specific. I can guess and fix what you mean of course.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose to introduce into this article the translation of the Chronology of Events Of June-September 1999 from the Russian wiki entry of this article. It's a thorough description, and I can do the translation. ellol (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Trimmed down. Please do what you suggested about ruwiki.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• Regards, ellol (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we can fix everything later.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Biophys, I reverted your last edits, because of the massive POv-ed changes, especially, in the introduction. Hope for your understanding. Since your major concern is how the conspiracy theory is viewed, I propose to leave the body of the article above the conspiracy theory intact so far. For example, I can't agree that changes made into the section "Claims and denials of responsibility" are fair and NPOV.

Then, I object 1) inclusion of the section with books reviews (we have bibliography, that's enough; but you can provide links to reviews made by professional reviewers), 2) inclusion of the chronology in its current state (only selected events, no sources provided).

I noticed, that you have removed the sentence "Mr. Kovalev said, in 2002, that the theory of the FSB involvement published in the book of Litvinenko and Felshtinsky seemed to be doubtful." Why?

This is new issue which we should fix in current version. Because that is selective citation out of context and an arbitrary interpretation.Biophys (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In this article it's claimed that Kovalev said that the version about training excercise in Ryazan is not true. He did say that. But why it's not stated that his own version was that it was an FSB propaganda operation to picture FSB agents as rescuers of that house? "Взрыв дома не планировался, но и учений не планировалось." "Explosion of a house was not planned, but trainings were also not planned." [same 2002 interview] ellol (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Regards, ellol (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? I talk about the most recent report dated 2008. It does not tell this at all. I provided Russian text in footnote to be completely sure.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not understand. I corrected everything yesterday to fulfill every your request. The only outstanding issue was the single phrase in introduction. Why did you revert everything instead of correcting one phrase?Biophys (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, your intent was, as far as I can remember, to provide points of support of the conspiracy theory. That's what we mainly discussed. Now you are wondering why your changes not related to the conspiracy theory gets reverted. Fine, let's discuss that. ellol (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, absolutely not; I do not care about any conspiracy theories. I asked you to provide all your points of disagreements with the whole current version. You provided them and I fixed everything. Now I also fixed the phrase in Introduction almost as you wanted. Sure, we have a lot other things to fix, but let's do it in the the last version created two days ago. Biophys (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, I disagree with viewing the conspiracy theory in the introduction. It's only a conspiracy theory, as even Kovalev admitted, we can't give it equal weight as the mainstream view. There's a separate secion to view the conspiracy theory, what else would you wish? ellol (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In particular, I disagree with your claim to use your version as a starting point. You made quite a number of controversial edits. Let's start with Offliner's version as the starting point. ellol (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You did not tell about this yesterday. If I made a number of controversial edits, you had an opportunity to note all of them yesterday (and you still can continue today). Do you agree to start from current version after I corrected everything you asked about yesterday?. If you agree, please self-revert, and we can start discussions and corrections today. If you do not, I am not sure this makes any sense.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Let's start with Offliner's version (or your "intermediate version" [12]). ellol (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I brought any misunderstanding, but I only showed how controversial was your version. Great many objections. ellol (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry man, but I spent many hours yesterday to discuss all issues with you and correct them. You noted all of them; they are now fixed, and you still revert to an older version?.Biophys (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It were only some of the issues. Besides, I am not serving you, you are not serving me. But we are trying to positively communicate to improve the project. In particular, I disagree with your view of the introduction. We don't have to say that people accused of the bombings did not take responsibility, at least, we don't have to say that in the introduction. Similarly, we don't have to mention the conspiracy theory in the introduction. It's the pure conspiracy, as even Kovalev commented. ellol (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, if you suggest any specific new changes today, let's discuss them today. But all changes we agreed about yesterday must be kept (self-revert, please). Wasting many hours for nothing is something I can not afford.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What did we agree on? I showed you some problems with your version. Mostly your edits are just rearranging stuff. You contributed something only in regards of the views of the conspiracy theory. I propose to discuss it better and make the necessary amendments into the article. If you believe that editing Wikipedia is a waste of your time, please, do not bring it into the Wikipedia. Regards, ellol (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a series of 10 edits I made yesterday: [13]. Each of them was making changes according to your suggestions yesterday (Galkin removed and so on, see this talk page above). Your response? You reverted everything. Sorry, but it was not me who does not want to work toward a compromise.Biophys (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, I believe that you can be a very positive Wikipedia contributor but not with ways like these. Per your request, I showed you some problems with your edits. Those were serious problems, but it doesn't mean they were the only problems with your edits. That's why I propose to start with the non-controversial version, as the one proposed by Offliner. Regards, ellol (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and support of FSB involvement theory

I am checking all references here and to focus on arguments by sides rather than on names of people who made the claims (we do not have articles about most of them any way). One very strange argument by Pankratov:

"Finally. Had FSB any need to declare this a “training exercise”, if it wasn’t one, thus arising suspicion and controversy? No. It was much easier to show great relief that the bomb has been discovered and didn’t explode, and continue trying to find the “perpetrators” of bombing attempt."

What this suppose to mean? The “perpetrators” were caught, so who they were going to find? Biophys (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Another question. Should we even note the ridiculous discussions about the non-existing Liberation Army of Dagestan? The existence of such organization was officially disproved by Russian authorities (and rightly so), as well as by all supporters of FSB involvement theory.Biophys (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no response here, no constructive editing to include any missing information, just a blind revert to a very old version. Please note that I trimmed down the part with Support of FSB involvement theory recently, and I did not touch your "criticism" section yet.Biophys (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, of course, the Support section must be included per NPOV policy. Regards, ellol (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No man, you just reverted this article to your old version, many days and 64 edits away. That's not the way.Biophys (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your criticism. But, this article deals with both facts and theories. Imho, it's necessary to keep all the facts within the body of this article. While the ways theories are explained are not that important. I'm afraid that some of your edits do not help to keep all the facts in this article. Regards, ellol (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, I can't agree to your breaking the chronological order in the "Claims and denials of responsibility" section: "Chechen warlords Ibn Al-Khattab and Shamil Basayev denied involvement in the bombings, saying "We would not like to be akin to those who kill sleeping civilians with bombs and shells." ... Al-Khattab also said earlier: "The mujahideen of Dagestan are going to carry out reprisals in various places across Russia."" ellol (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What exactly facts did I exclude?. If any facts were excluded, let's place them back.Biophys (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of your edits, like this in my example, did not hide any fact, but obstructed the natural flow of the events (such as breaking the chronological order), which can hardly be agreeable. Regards, ellol (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with this particular section, let's restore old version here, instead of reverting everything. I have no objections. BTW, you failed to mention any facts that I allegedly removed.Biophys (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, you have removed the contents of the section "Suspects and accused". I believe, that it belongs to the article. ellol (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Which specific facts were not laid out in the previous sections? All factual information about the suspects and accused was included except their plain list, which is a copy-paste from another article and belong to "lists" per WP:MOS. Also, if you disagree with this, why did you revert to much older version?Biophys (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, I included this phrase by Khattab and improved a section about factual events in Ryzan using an additional book by Edward Lucas. This is now described on the hour-by-hour basis. Plus, I also quoted Putin and FSB to NPOV. Just stop your blind reverts, please.Biophys (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, you are very welcome to edit Wikipedia, yet, the list of convicts and accused is not a copy-paste from a different article (it's you who created a fork article with a list in March 2008 [14]). It well belongs to this article, because it's the factual information about the topic. Thanks for your participating, ellol (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The other objection is, that the conspiracy theory shouldn't be viewed before the major block of facts is laid out. Regards, ellol (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Theory of Mukhin and Pelevin

The most serious question for me is, why the Theory of Mukhin and Pelevin is not viewed in this article?

Yury Mukhin is a talented Russian investigator who promoted an idea that Yeltsin died in 1996, and was replaced by a ringer (Mukhin counted up to 3 different Yeltsin's ringers). Mukhin proves his considerations with factual findings based on the form on Yeltsin's ear rim: [15]

“ If you will be fed with suggestions — such as, like, Yeltsin's ears changed because of his illness — clarify: ears are not clips, people do not attach them at morning to any sort of neck-ties. ”

There are many more facts to prove Mukhin's theory, which can be found in his book "Code of Yeltsin".

Mukhin ran a newspaper which was closed by the authorities. Mukhin himself is a political prisoner, convicted to a term of two years under the pretexts of "inciting ethnic hatred".

Viktor Pelevin is a Russian mainstream author who suggested in his 1999 novel that Yeltsin died in 1996 and was replaced by a 3D computer image. According to Pelevin's theory revealed in his "Generation P", there are no politicians in Russia. All politicians are 3D images, and the only thing that citizens can see are images of politicians broadcast by the national TV. Since politicians do not exist in real life, there's a special organization "Народная воля" ("People's will") whose aim is to maintain the myth and members of which have an agenda to tell people that they have "just 10 minutes ago" seen a politician in a real life.

In a successive novel "Empire V" published in 2005 Pelevin completed his theory, claiming that Russia is actually ruled by a group of vampires, whose aim is to maintain the consumerist society in Russia.

The works of Mukhin and Pelevin were published in a far greater number of copies that any publications devoted to the Conspiracy theory of FSB bombings.

As Sergei Kovalev noted, any theory must be verified against facts, no matter how bizarre might it be looking. That's why I propose that at least 1/4 of this article shall be devoted to view this theory.

Thank you, ellol (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do you mean that Pelevin wrote in "Generation P" about the bombings? Biophys (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, Putin could not "capture power" because he (or any different politician) does not exist (what you call "Putin" is only a 3D model, per Pelevin). FSB could not bomb houses, because Russia is ruled by vampires rather than FSB. And it's a 100% logically strict consideration. Yet, it lacks of a small detail called "common sense", but it looks, that we don't care of it either way. ellol (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I believe that at least one of the 2 authors you mentions did not claim that the events he described happened in reality. But both theories have little in common with the main article. They do not aim at linking, highlighting the events related to the bombings into a scheme. Finally, the main article presents independent investigations whose participants did not claim any agenda. Remember the residents of the spared Ryazan building who converged at the NTV talk show to voice their concern over handling the alleged training exercises. Or the killings of those who questioned the government's role. This is not quite the same as building far-fetching theories. Your point on Kovalyov's intention to verify facts does not explain why he received meaningless answers from the official bodies. --ilgiz (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ilgiz, OK. You are a reasonable person. Then why not to write something like what Russians have in their Wikipedia entry on Apartment bombings, in the introduction?

“ Различными деятелями и организациями выдвигаются также версии, согласно которым Владимиру Путину могли быть выгодны взрывы жилых домов: для создания благоприятного общественного мнения перед вводом войск в Чечню, поднятия предвыборного рейтинга и обеспечения победы на президентских выборах. Люди, придерживающиеся этих версий, считают, что карачаевские террористы, перевозившие взрывчатку, являлись сторонниками чеченских сепаратистов и действительно хотели осуществить взрывы в Москве и Волгодонске. Но взрывы не жилых домов, а военных и административных объектов. При этом, как предполагают эти версии, агенты ФСБ ввели их в заблуждение и использовали перевозимую ими взрывчатку для подрыва домов. ”

“ Various activists and organizations introduced also versions, according to which apartment bombing could be favourable for Vladimir Putin: to create favourable public opinion prior to moving troops in Chechnya, to raise pre-election rating and secure the victory in the presidential election. People, adhering to these versions believe that Karachai terrorists who transported explosives took the side of Chechen separatists and actually intended to perform explosions in Moscow and Volgodonsk. But explosions not of apartments, but military and administrative objects. With that, as these versions suggest, FSB agents disoriented them and used the explosives they transported to explode houses. ”

ellol (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Proposing to insert a section with "Mukhin and Pelevin" theory was a joke. I'm not that much a nut. Regards, ellol (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There one "little" problem: this is not what they tell. According to supporters of the theory, the explosions were planned by the FSB, and not by the Chechen separatists. It were FSB man who came and asked these guys to transport the explosives from the army/FSB facilities, according to this version. Why did they ask instead of transporting themselves? Obviously to set up the guys, according to this version. Not mentioning that none of the convicts or accused was an ethnic Chechen.Biophys (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Take two

Why do not we ask Alex to comment as you suggested? Let's do the following. 1. We make a list of our disagreements. One can start and another can add as many as he wants. 2. We keep last non-reverted version of the article, but all disputed matters are included as in your version (the theory of FSB involvement is not included in the introduction, and so on). 3. Alex goes through the list of issues and tells his opinion (anyone else is also welcome). Yes, I will listen. Would that be OK? Biophys (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's get started. I can see the following disagreements based on our comments above:

• Should we mention the FSB involvement theory in introduction?

Yes, we should, because it now occupies a significant part of the article, maybe ~30%. We should mention what the theory states (one-two phrases), and maybe define the theory as "alternative" rather than a "conspiracy theory", because the latter is inconsistent with majority of sources.Biophys (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we should not. I made these points already but they were ignored.

1) There is no direct evidence unambiguously proving the Conspiracy Theory.

2) A reader should be first of all allowed to learn all the facts. Only then shall we allow interpretations.

3) Sergei Kovalev -- an authority among Russian human rights defenders -- referred to the theory as a "pure conspiracy". By the way, I don't like that this quotation of him was removed.

ellol (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Should we include the list of the suspects and convicts in this article?

No, we should not, because everything about these suspects has been already fully described in the text of this article. If something was not, let's add. But the lists belong to a separate article-list that we already have. This is per WP:MOS. Biophys (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I already made a point on this subject, and it was ignored. The list of suspects and convicts is factual information about the Apartment bombings, and as such it certainly belongs to the article.

You made a point that the list adds nothing to the description. But I can hardly agree. Indeed, it's not merely a list, but the role of this or that person is also detailed. For example, there are police people who were bribed to help the terrorists. There are people involved in these or those operations, etc.

Contrary to what you are claiming in the edit summary, the "list of the suspects" is not a copy-paste from a different article, but that other article was created as a fork article by you in March 2008 (prooflink). If the operation of copy-paste occurred, it were you who did it, and the source was this article and the destination was the fork article.

Regards, ellol (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is already too big. Therefore, some parts can and should be moved to sub-articles per WP:MOS.17:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, I agree that it may be reasonable to shorten this article. But this shall not be done at the expense of the factual information. Or we won't be Wikipedia, but a rumours gathering. ellol (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But all suspects are already described in the text. We do not loose any factual information. If we missed anyone, let's include him in the text per WP:MOS.Biophys (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Rewording your statement, we don't need a list in the article, because we have all information from that list in the article already. I agree with the article version which has all information from the list. This means, an article WITH the list. ellol (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not you understand: we have the same information included twice with the list.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How would you estimate the amount of information included twice, compared to the whole information from the list? I guess it is about 0.1, and 0.1 is almost negligibly small compared to 1. ellol (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Should we include the "testimony of Galkin" in Related events?
  • Yes, we should, because supporters of FSB involvement theory refer to his testimony in multiple books. But it's better to be described as a separate factual section. Biophys (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • There are three issues:

1) Factual issue. Evidence obtained under torture can't be treated as such. Being tortured enough, a captive would say anything to please his captors. And Galkin was tortured quite enough, it's well documented.

2) Ethical issue. Wikipedia is not a place for evidence obtained under torture, regardless of who was tortured, whether did you like one or not.

3) Moral issue. Galkin is a victim, essentially like the GULAG prisoners who were tortured to obtain false evidence about political anti-Stalin conspiracies. It's an exact situational match. That's why I vote strongly against inclusion of Galkin's "testimony", and if you know the feeling of remorse, you should act the same way. ellol (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Any statement may be included, such as those made under the alleged torture and those made to refute the former. You forgot that the statements included into the main article are not presented as an absolute truth. It is the editors' responsibility to attribute the statements to their authors and contexts. By bringing the question of morale you imply that Galkin's post-capture refutation was true. --ilgiz (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Okey, but IMHO that does damned matter. And if you insist that Galkin's "testimony" must appear (what I still disagree with), I will review in this article every bruise obtained by Galkin while in captivity, his every broken bone, and I will provide a detailed account of how did he suffer of those broken bones which weren't allowed to be cured. ellol (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Please do. Keep in mind that the editors may only refer to published sources. --ilgiz (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• All these subjects are currently resolved in your favor. So, please stop reverts and add other subjects in this list if needed.Biophys (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, I fail to see what way is your version more neutral. Would you please care to explain your point? ellol (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do you agree to create a list of our disagreements to be checked by Alex or other outside reviewers? Yes or no, please. I also do not see any your objections with regard to three points included in the list so far. As I said, all these issues were currently resolved in your favor. So, I am not even sure what you are talking about. Biophys (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely I agree to discuss and to invite "outside" reviewers. Surely I do not agree to stop reverting until the discussions result in some conclusions. Surely I will not revert anything that a society agrees on. ellol (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That is your response. Since you did not comment about these three specific points above and did not extend this list any further, I assume that you have nothing to tell, and that we do not have other disagreements.Biophys (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, since there was no objections, let's fix it.Biophys (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait. No, there are objections. As for disagreements, I am well contented with the last version by Ilgiz. If you believe there are more problems with that version, please, sound your concerns. Thanks, ellol (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All edits made by Ilgiz are included in the last version. No, I do not have any problems with his edits.Biophys (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Then, why do you insist to make the unreviewed changes to the last Ilgiz'es version? ellol (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

We have three points of disagreement so far. I asked Alex to review this matter as soon as he can.Biophys (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You imply that I agree to the changes you made to the last version by Ilgiz. But that implication is not true. ellol (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with anything else, please add your disagreements to the list.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, add your disagreements to the list if you disagree with anything else in the last version by Ilgiz. I did not do unrevised changes, so, please, care to explain your suggestions. ellol (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Way forward

How about the following approach? You made a number of changes yesterday to improve this article. This is good. Let's keep your changes (and they are currently kept). Ilgiz made improvements a couple of days ago. We keep them. But the same should apply to changes I did: the better description of events in Ryazan, and so on. Please do not revert them. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

An official KGB FSB investigation.

Claims and denials of responsibility.

And other issues which I can explain if you like. ellol (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you just go and fix whatever you want to fix in last version? "FSB", and so on and so on. That would save a lot of time.Biophys (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okey. ellol (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I mean you should not just delete what I did, but fix it. For example, replace "FSB investigation" by "... investigation" after looking in the sources which organization(s) were officially responsible for investigation, and so on. I will look at your changes and discuss if I strongly disagree with something.Biophys (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues in the introduction

• "...the bombings caused the Russian Federation to start the Second Chechen War on September 30." This is a far-fetched statement, given that "The Second Chechen War, in a later phase better known as the War in the North Caucasus[21] was launched by the Russian Federation starting August 26, 1999, in response to the Invasion of Dagestan by the IIPB." It's more adequate to say that "... the bombings caused the Russian Federation to intensify the Second Chechen war."

Why do you think war started at August 26? First aerial bombings were conducted on September 23, after the events in Ryzan. Ground operations started on October 1. This is according to all books. We might tell: "... which was used by Russian government as a casus belli to start aerial bombing and ground operations in Chechnya", for example. See how this is corrected in version below. Biophys (talk)

Russia acknowledges bombing raids in Chechnya, August 26, 1999, CNN. ellol (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• "The Chechen militants and secessionist authorities, however, have denied their involvement in the bombing campaign." This sentense does not make sense in the context of the article and shall be removed, because the official investigation did not find "Chechen militants and secessionist authorities" guilty. Instead "According to the Russian State Prosecutor office, all apartment bombings were executed under command of ethnic Karachay Achemez Gochiyayev. The operations were planned by Ibn al-Khattab and Abu Omar al-Saif, Arab militants fighting in Chechnya on the side of Chechen insurgents."

Yes, they denied involvement, and this is important to tell. The denial by Maskhadov (an official Chechen representative) was important because the bombings were used as a reason to start the war. Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The official investigation concluded that Khattab is responsible. The official investigation did not conclude that Chechen authorities (Maskhadov) were responsible. So, there's nothing to deny. Speaking of Khattab, it's unfair to claim that he denied responsibility without acknowledging that in some previous interviews he acknowledged responsibility. It's also necessary to say that he was recognized by the United States as a terrorist. ellol (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

In other terms, Chechen authorities were not responsible of the Apartment Bombings, that's the official position of Russia. You can't deny that position, but you can confirm it. ellol (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Two other bombs planted in apartment blocks were defused in Moscow on September 13 and in Ryazan on September 22. The local police caught three Federal Security Service (FSB) agents suspected of planting the bomb in Ryazan shortly afterwards. On September 24 FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev announced that the Ryazan incident had been a training exercise. Contrary to this, the police explosives expert who defused the Ryazan bomb, insisted that it was real." Handy. But the "official version" is not shown adequately, IMHO. According to the official publicly available documents, [16]

“ Проведенным расследованием установлено, что во исполнение отдельных положений совместного приказа Директора ФСБ и Министра внутренних дел России о проведении операции "Вихрь-Антитеррор", командование спецподразделе- ния ФСБ России 20.09.99 г. утвердило план-задание, предусматривающее в целях проверки состояния охраны объектов жизнеобеспечения и жилых зданий, оценки эффективности предпринятых оперативно-розыскных и режимных мер, направленных на недопущение террористических актов, создание и направление в отдельные областные центры групп условных террористов.

Для направления в г.Рязань была сформирована группа из трех человек, перед которыми были поставлены задачи: прибыть в город, изучить оперативную обстановку, оценить предпринятые местными правоохранительными органами меры по противодействию возможным актам терроризма. А также подобрать места удобные для совершения "диверсии" (квартиры первого или второго этажа многоквартирных домов, подвальные или иные помещения в жилых зданиях), закупить от 3 до 5 мешков сахара и складировать их на выбранном месте, при этом изготовить и установить на мешках имитатор инициирующего устройства.

”

I suppose to write something like "According to the official investigation, command of an FSB special unit sent a group of three in Ryazan to "evaluate measures taken by the local law defense bodies to prevent possible terrorist acts", to find a proper place for a fake diversion, buy three to five sacks of sugar and store them there, produce detonator imitations and install them on sugar sacks."

This portion should simply summarize the events in Ryzan as described in the body of the article. What had happened, in chronological order? 1. A device identified as a bomb was found. 2. State officials including Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians. 3. Three FSB officers who planted this device were arrested by local police while attempting to escape the city. 4. This all was declared to be a training exercise. This should simply be described.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The official position is not that it was a training excercise, but a test to check capabilities of the local militia. This view is not reflected in the introduction. ellol (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• "An official FSB investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and ..." As far as I understand, the body responsible for the investigation was the General Prosecutor's Office of Russia, while the bulk job was done by the official investigation by the Investigation Directorate of the Federal Security Service. I propose to write simply "Investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002".

I agree if you show me refs telling that investigation was conducted by the prosecutor's office. Who has actually conducted it? This is fixed.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• "However, many observers, including State Duma deputies Yuri Shchekochikhin, Sergei Kovalev and Sergei Yushenkov, cast doubts on the official version and sought an independent investigation. Some others, including David Satter, Yury Felshtinsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky and Alexander Litvinenko, as well as the secessionist Chechen authorities, claimed that the 1999 bombings were a false flag attack coordinated by the FSB in order to win public support for a new full-scale war in Chechnya, which boosted Prime Minister and former FSB Director Vladimir Putin's popularity, brought the pro-war Unity Party to the State Duma and him to the presidency within a few months." I oppose including this statement into the introduction, per previous discussion.

This should be included simply per WP:MOS. We have at least 20-30% of article dedicated to this theory. OK, I made it much shorter and removed names of supporters of the theory. Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okey, per MOS, I propose to put a single statement: "Some reviewers propose a conspiracy theory which states that the bombings were favourable to Vladimir Putin." ellol (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

These are all my disagreements with the Introduction section. ellol (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's wait for 3rd opinions (e.g. by Alex, Ilgiz, other suggestions?). In any case, this is not a justification to revert whole article.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How about posting an official request for 3rd opinions in "History" or "Politics" section.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

New version of introduction

Let's try a longer version and modify it. Note that abstract ends by the official version of events, which makes it more conclusive, but everything else was described as well. Importantly, everything was described in chronological order. Note that FSB involvement theory was downscaled.

The Russian apartment bombings were a series of explosions that hit four apartment blocks in the Russian cities of Buynaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk in September 1999, killing 293 and injuring 651 people and spreading a wave of fear across the country. The bombings, together with the Dagestan War, led the country into the Second Chechen War.

The blasts hit Buynaksk on September 4, Moscow on September 9 and September 13 and Volgodonsk on September 16. A similar explosive device was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 22. Next day Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryzanians and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War. A few hours later, three FSB agents who had planted this device were arrested by the local police. The incident was declared to be a training exercise. These events led to allegations that the bombings were a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin to power.

Russian Parliament member Yuri Shchekochikhin filed two motions for a parliamentary investigation of the events, but the motions were rejected by the Russian Duma in March 2000. An independent public commission to investigate the bombings was chaired by Duma deputy Sergei Kovalev. The commission was rendered ineffective because of government refusal to respond to its inquiries. Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin have since died in apparent assassinations. The Commission's lawyer Mikhail Trepashkin was arrested.

An official investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and concluded that all the bombings were organized and led by Achemez Gochiyaev who remains at large, and ordered by Islamist warlords Ibn Al-Khattab and Abu Omar al-Saif who have been killed. Five other suspects have been killed and six have been convicted by Russian courts on terrorism-related charges.

Biophys (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Khattab is a field Commander and although in later interviews he denied responsibility, he acknowledged responsibility in previous interviews. It's unfair to suggest that only his last words matter, as we do not follow the same line in regards of e.g. Ryazan incident. Maskhadov was not found guilty of Apartment Bombings by the official investigation, and it's important to say that if we are speaking of his guilt. ellol (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The view that "Next day Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryzanians and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War." is contradictory with the generally accepted view that the war started on August 26 with air bombings of Chechnya. ellol (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what cited book claimed. Most sources count the beginning of the war from the ground operations (October 1) or missile attacks (after the events in Ryazan). This can be modified.Biophys (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, in this case different sources cite different dates. ellol (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose a compromise version of the introduction, which gives voice to one of the accused people, provides information about failure of the independent investigation and mentions the conspiracy theory. ellol (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to modify current version, not to make revert to very old version: [17]. I know what you suppose to think assuming AGF on your part. That was said by Kovalev during one of his older interviews: "I do not want to believe that the bombings were committed by our services, because if this is all true, one can not live in this country, even for one day" [but he wants to stay, so ...]. But there is such thing as verifiability/falsifiability of a theory. I mean any theory, from physics to sociology. If a theory was correct, the more experiments or facts you collect, the more they support the theory. The more we are working on this article, the more it will be obvious that the bombings have in fact been committed by the FSB. This is not because I am clever, but because that's the law of nature.Biophys (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are a very interesting personality. Now you are talking that you can collect evidence in favour of the conspiracy theory of Russian Government involvement. Fine. But if you care, that's what I called you to do since your first edits this season.

Besides, I did not make a mere revert, but attempted to make some progress. ellol (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• You first agreed to modify current version but then reverted everything. Why is that? Biophys (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's discuss issues, not personalities. ellol (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What personalities? You first agreed to work with last current version: [18], but then reverted everything.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, explain what objections against the current version do you have. My version has a compromise introduction. As agreed, I reverted "Claims and denials". Regarding the Ryazan incident, I don't understand why a lot of related information is removed in your version, please, explain. ellol (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's work on a compromise version of the introduction but keep the remainder of the article as it was in the most recent version, rather than as it was several weeks ago. Would you agree?Biophys (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryazan is a separate question. I removed nothing. If there is anything I removed, let's place it back. What is it?Biophys (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I self-reverted that section. ellol (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How about main question: Let's work on a compromise version of the introduction but keep the remainder of the article as it was in the most recent version, rather than as it was several weeks ago. Would you agree?Biophys (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, I self-reverted the "Ryazan incident" section, I respect your labor to improve Wikipedia. ellol (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But I made a lot of other changes in other parts of the article.Biophys (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides, there's a trouble with your description of the Ryazan Incident. As reported by Kommersant, "В Рязани в отличие от других городов обезвреживанием бомб занимаются не специалисты ФСБ, а муниципалы." "Unlike other cities, in Ryazan it's the local administration that's engaged in defusing bombs, rather than FSB experts". [19] ellol (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, you are highly welcome to edit Wikipedia, to improve it, but how is it called, when other people have to clean-up your editions after you? In my opinion, that's not quite good. When you visit a bathroom in your house, do you leave it clean after yourself? Then why do you think you can treat Wikipedia differently? ellol (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lost pieces

A few items seem to be missing in the new version.

(a) Mikhail Trepashkin's finding that the composite sketch changed after the first few days and Mark Blumenfeld's statement on FSB "talking him into" changing his testimony. Perhaps, the open letter to President Medvedev by Tatyana and Alyona Morozovs[20] and the famous GQ article could be referenced, too.

(b) The timeline on August 22-September 24, 1999.

(c) The list of books and films about the events. Perhaps, these could be moved into another article.

Let me know if the above items need to be restored. --ilgiz (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything is reasonable. Yes, perphaps (b) and (c) can be made as two additional, separate pages and removed from this article. This article is too big. Could you make it?Biophys (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Ilgiz, I do not object against any reasonable edits, you know. ellol (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, your revert was not explained at this talk page, contrary to what you stated in the edit summary. ellol (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to state, that botching the investigation isn't the same thing as committing the crime. Claiming that because FSB may have botched the investigation, they committed the bombings, is ridiculous. Bush botched the Hurrican Katrina rescue, but no one is arguing that Bush conspired with Hurricane Katrina to hit New Orleans. Ilgiz, I would also be very curious to see a list of films about the events, as to date I have not seen anything that made sense, but ultimately Ellol is right, the books, films and timeline should be in another article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The dispute about possible FSB involvement is tangential to the article edits. If there is a notable statement for or against the theory, such a statement may be added to the article.--ilgiz (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FSB involvement in what? In possibly botching the investigation - maybe. In carrying out the bombings? No. You don't need to bomb to promote a war that is already popular. Additionally, there are numerous sources, such as Khattab's earlier statements, about who did it. As I pointed out several times: Saudi born terrorist, Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab, states that he will fly planes into buildings blow up apartments in Russia, if the Al Qaeda Wahhabist bases are hit. Because these bases are used for armed incursion, they are hit. The buildings apartments are blown up. Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab takes responsibility for the bombings. As a result, people hate him even more. After finding that out, Ibn-Al Khattab stands up and says "I didn't do it, honest!" And instanly the Berezovksy clique yells "it was Putin's FSB!" HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Last edits

We now have three disagreements [21], in addition to other disagreement discussed above.

1. The abstract. We must describe all important factual events in chronological order (the bombings -> the appearance of FSB involvement theory as a result of events in Ryzan (this should be mentioned in intro) -> attempts at independent investigation -> completion of the official investigation. This is all in chronological order. If we do not tell about the FSB involvement theory and where it came from, it became totally unclear why Schekochikhin and others requested the independent investigation. If we can't agree on that, let's ask someone else. Biophys (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with purely chronological order for this case, but think that logical order is better for understanding (Facts of bombings -> Official results -> Mentions of whichever facts that caused people to think different). ellol (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Huge quotation that you inserted (see diff above). What was quoted can be described by one sentence (and it has been already described): the events in Ryazan were declared to be a training exercise. What else? If there is anything else, let's briefly summarize it. We should not dilute the article with meaningless quotes.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It can be explained in one sentence, but can't be reduced to one sentence. For example, it explains their actions with high precision (date, time, action), it explains that they did not know what to do if they are unveiled, so they continued playing terrorists until they were caught -- a number of such nuances. These nuances are important, because the controversy section is a large discussion of related nuances. ellol (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

3. Your version of chronology. Why should we describe in great detail something that had happened long before the bombings? Once again, let's not dilute the article with irrelevant materials.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not diluting the article, because it does not mix with the contents. But it's some additional material that an average reader can poke into after one has read all the information that's somewhat more directly related. ellol (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. I think we could save a lot of time by finding someone else (better an admin) who would look at the content issues and decided them one way or another (see your talk page).Biophys (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, specify what exactly do you disagree with and for which reason. Of course, other people, especially admins, are more than welcome to come and express their opinions, but you did not make your own position clear. ellol (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to start from something, I insist on the version of Introduction described above for the reasons described above (all events in chronological order, etc.). First thing, we would ask the outside reviewer, which version he prefers (or something in between).Biophys (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)