Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings

Pointing to Putin

The conspiracy theory I gathered was that prime minister Vladimir Putin had nothing to show in the coming elections. His policy was showing no good results. After the bombings and the war answer, Putin's new party successfully passed over any of the candidates. Can this theory be attributed to anyone, so that it is put in the article? --Error 01:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

From all appearances, this is most likely what happened in short and in all clumsiness and insolence in the making of the Kremlin politics recently given that there is a team rather than one man to be blamed for although he must be involved in everything but as a cover.--BIR 07:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

References

Any references on the official (Amir Khattab and Gochijaev) version? Did they suggest any other suspects later? Why Litvinenko books were not cited? Are they considered a reliable source? Biophys 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How and when all these terrorists were convicted? I was waiting for a month. There are no any references in the official part of the story. Should the unreferenced statements be deleted? Biophys 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The Russian language version of this article does have some references, perhaps a Russian speaking editor could look at them :-). According to policy things should be verifiable by sources other than Wikipedia. It looks as though the English version mirrors the Russian article and that article and hence this one is thin on references. I would try and get some references rather than delete it as the conviction's are central to the article and it wouldn't make sense without reference to them. Alex Sims 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I could only find the official answer from the general prosecutor's office to a Duma member, in Russian and its computer translation. ilgiz 10:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, probably this is it. However source says that all claims about these people are made by prosection or investigators. It seems that all or most of these people were not convicted in a court. If this is indeed the case (is it?), nobody can say that "The following people either delivered explosives, stored them, or harbored other suspects", as written in this article. Any opinions? Biophys 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a 1.5 month trial in the end of 2003.[1] computer translation, [2] computer translation The press was not allowed, so the journalists had to resort to intermediary sources. The verdict was public. [3] computer translation ilgiz 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Litvinenko

Article is missing information about Alexander Litvinenko --Lee Hunter 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC) BBC journalist Martin Sixsmith went with the Litvinenko assertion on BBC Radio Four, broadcast on 12th April 2007.Jatrius 15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to know if anyone has any verifiable sources to back up the comment aboveMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Counterarguments to FSB theory

The Russian article has a section on counterarguments to the theory on FSB involvement. I think it needs to be translated - I'd do it myself but it mentions a lot of names that I don't know how to translate. Esn 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think this should be translated? Could you just briefly summarize here the conterarguments from this Russian text? If there is anything, we can write it down. But I found only one thing. They say that the original chemical test was declared inaccurate due to contamination of the analysis apparatus from a previous test. But this has been already stated in this English article. Biophys 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is computer translation. The article is being updated these days, and the pro and contra arguments are scattered around all sections. ilgiz 04:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The best way to organize material is to have all pro arguments in one section and all contra arguments in another section (as it is right now). I agree that the governmental version looks too weak. It is supported by only one reference, whereas the opposite verison is supported by 21 references. If someone could provide more good references about different people mentioned in the governmental version who were convicted or killed - that would be great (I could not find anything!). Also, more can be said about Gochiyaev - who he was and what he claimed. Another interesting question is about 3 FSB persons who conducted the "exercise" in Ryazan. I remember their photos. What are their names? Are they still alive or dead? That would be important to include. Biophys 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry, the official version was supported by four references. Still, could be more. Biophys 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

(Fixed the computer translation link). I saw the photo-robots of the 3 suspects in a short video clip on Google that seemed to be a part of the "FSB blows up Russia" narrated documentary.ilgiz 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are the screen shots from the advocacy documentary "Assassination of Russia" by Transparence Production, parts of which were re-published in "Crimes of the Kremlin" by Journeyman Pictures. ilgiz 11:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So, are they alive or dead? Obviously, they worked for FSB if the claim by Patrushev about the "exercise" was true (and they also worked in FSB if the alternative version is correct). Can we include some of these images in the article? Biophys 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A staged interview with one of the imitation perpetrators was shown later, but the interviewed man was shown from the back. I added the screen shot below. I haven't investigated any news on Gochiyaev or the FSB version's participants. I marked the screen shots with the {{promophoto}} template. I believe a fair use clause might apply to these screen shots, but the drop-down list of licence types in the upload page doesn't have such option. Perhaps, the "fair use" clause wasn't considered precise enough. ilgiz 08:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a translation of the Counterarguments section in the Russian article, but I would like to have it approved here before adding it, as this is clearly a sensitive issue:

"Officially, Trepashkin was charged with keeping official documents at home (thus breaching security) and not over accusing FSB of the bombings. His conviction had no connection to the bombings.

A parliamentary enquiry was made to the Prosecutor General of Russia; the response was that the events in Ryazan were indeed a training exercise. According to the Prosecutor General, initial investigations included an attempt of a controlled explosion of 3 kilograms of the substance from the sacks. The substance failed to detonate. The more detailed investigation ordered by the Prosecutor General concluded, on the basis of a pyrotechnical analysis, that:

The sacks contained sucrose — a disaccharide based on glucose and fructose. No traces of explosive substances (trotyl, hexogen, octogen, tannerite?, nytroglycerine, tetryl, and picric acid) were detected. An investigation of the clock, the batteries, the detonator, the lamp, and the wires showed that although this itemd constituted a single electronic device, it was not, however, capable of producing an electric discharge at the signal from the alarm clock and was not an explosive device.

It was also noted that:

...the operation in Ryazan was planned and executed in an inappropriate way. In particular, the matter of the limits of the operation was not looked into. There was no contingency plan of informing the local authorities and the police of the training nature of the operation. in case of its detection.

Critics of the FSB involvement theory suggest that Novaya Gazeta is funded by George Soros via the Open Society (Otkrytoe obshchestvo) fund and the journalists' views are therefore biased."

My opinion is that this should be added, for although it does look somewhat weak, it is nevertheless a sourced opinion, an official opinion I might add. Without it, the article looks too POV. --AVIosad^(talk) 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The official charges are described on the "Charges" page of the trepashkin.ru web site. I have noticed that the prosecutor ("обвинение") and the inquiry, or enquiry, ("следствие") took the same side in finding that Trepashkin had disclosed state secrets. Because the conviction mentioned only an internal information disclosure, I believe that the judges have apparently demoted or disqualified the former charge. I could not understand what exactly was considered a state secret.

По версии обвинения, проходя с 1984 по 1997 год службу в органах безопасности КГБ СССР и ФСБ РФ, Трепашкин копировал служебные документы, которые в дальнейшем незаконно хранил у себя дома.

Разглашением сведений, составляющих гостайну, следствие считало передачу Трепашкиным своему бывшему коллеге - полковнику ФСБ Виктору Шебалину - материалов старых сводок прослушивания телефонных переговоров членов гольяновской объединенной преступной группировки (в них, по мнению следствия, содержались данные о методах работы ФСБ).

"According to the prosecutor, Trepashkin had been illegally copying office documentation and storing it at home when employed by KGB and FSB from 1984 to 1997.

"The inquiry considered a state secret disclosure the fact that Trepashkin had passed wiretaps of the Goliyanov gang to his former colleague, FSB colonel Victor Shebalin. The inquiry believed the wiretaps contained sensitive details about the FSB investigation techniques".

Details on the sentence are given further on the same page.

Первый процесс Трепашкина проходил в Московском окружном военном суде с декабря 2003 года по 19 мая 2004 года. Трепашкин был признан виновным в разглашении секретных сведений без признаков гостайны и незаконном хранении боеприпасов. Обвинение в злоупотреблении должностными полномочиями (по ч. 3 ст.285 УК РФ) было прекращено в связи с истечением срока давности. Подсудимый не признал своей вины по всем пунктам и заявил, что дело в отношении него было сфабриковано. Он был приговорен к 4 годам лишения свободы в колонии-поселении.

"The first Trepashkin's trial took place in the Moscow circuit military court between December 2003 and May 2004. Trepashkin was found guilty of disclosing internal information and illegal storage of arms. Another charge of office power abuse (part 3, article 285 of Criminal Code of Russian Federation) was lifted because of expiry. The convicted did not acknowledge his guilt on any charge and stated that the case was fabricated. He was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment in a penal colony".

My translation above may not be correct or accurate.ilgiz 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Novaya Gazeta, Trepashkin was convicted with "illegal acquisition and storage of arms" (article 222, part 1) and "disclosure of information that is a state secret, without the signs of treason" (article 283, part 1).[4] ilgiz 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I can translate the Russian section if desired, but there are no strong counterarguments in it. Just insistance by the FSB that the bag contained sucrose, and that Trepashkin was charged for revealing state secrets, again by the FSB. Should one expect that as a counterargument? Doing so would be based on the presumption that the FSB, if guilty of the bombings, would have charged him with their tru grievance, namely that he inteferred with an FSB cover-up operation. This beggars belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.217.3 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 23 March 2007

Old news reports from RIA Novosti on Trepashkin, re-published by the Moscow circuit military court in the section "Press about us":

• The Moscow circuit military court will announce a verdict in the case of Mikhail Trepashkin, 19 May 2004. Machine translation.
• The court will carry a verdict in the case of Trepashkin on 15 April, 12 April 2005. Machine translation.

It is uncomfortable to know that the court published news articles on its decisions but did not publish all the decisions themselves. I could not find any official verdicts on Trepashkin at movs.ru. ilgiz 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Found the official documents (the year 2004 verdict, the year 2005 appeal and the decision on it) at the Radio Liberty's Yekaterinburg edition's web site.[5] Computer translation ilgiz 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Snapshots from the Assassination of Russia film

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list published after Ryazan incident, 1999.]]	[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list, photo-robot 1 of 3, 1999.]]
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list, photo-robot 2 of 3.]]	[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list, photo-robot 3 of 3.]]
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|Yuriy Tkachenko, an explosives technician who removed the wires from one of the bags.]]	[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The mechanism removed by Yuriy Tkachenko from one of the bags, according to the documentary.]]
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|Nadezhda Yukhnova, an telephone station operator who intercepted the suspicious conversation with a Moscow number starting with 224, the Lubyanka (FSB) exchange.]]	[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|Aleksey Kartofel'nikov, the alert resident who noticed people carrying bags from a car into the basement.]]
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|Interior minister Vladimir Rushailo reports on a diverted apartment bombing attack in Ryazan. 24 September 1999. Putin would give the same explanation some time later.]]	[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|FSB director Nikolay Patrushev reports on an emergency readiness exercise in Ryazan. 24 September 1999, 30 minutes after Rushailo's report.]]
[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|FSB's proof of the Ryazan training exercise. The man shown from the back in an interview was presented as one of the mock perpetrators.]]

• The images not included into the article will be automatically deleted on 21st.ilgiz 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Some references (Russian)

• What Gochiyaev said
• What Berezovsky said
• Gochiyaev - update
• What Krymshakhmalov and Batchaev (Крымшамхалов и Батчаев) said
• What Felshtinsky said

Biophys 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting source: Who is Mr. Putin? (Russian) by Pribylovsky and FelshtinskyBiophys 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It says (Russian):"Теракт в Буйнакске 4 сентября был подготовлен и осуществлен Главным разведывательным управлением Генштаба РФ во главе с генерал-полковником Корабельнико-вым. Операцией руководил начальник 14-го управления Главного разведывательного управления генерал-лейтенант Костечко. Осуществлением теракта занималась группа офицеров ГРУ из двенадцати человек, посланная для этого в командировку в Дагестан."Biophys 05:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

---

1. On 20 May 2004, an article in the Los Angeles Times described the conviction on an unrelated state secret charge of Mikhail Trepashkin, ... I couldn't find the LA Times article, but this Guardian article essentially says enough to cover the first two citation demands of that paragraph.

2. In fact, Seleznyov was referring to an unrelated explosion which indeed happened in Volgodonsk three days earlier - This is a very strong statement, as it presents a statement by one of the interested parties, Genprokuratura, without proper attribution. Besides, the provided source states that the explosive device in question was hand-grenade based... --Illythr 23:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page references

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilgiz (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

False flag theories for 9/11 and these events

Why are theories, stating that USA authorities are resposible for 9/11 teracts, all marked "conspiracy" and placed in tiny paragraph in the second half of 9/11 article, while in this article, the similar theory is placed in front of article as competent point of view? Dims 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is little "similarity" between 9/11 attacks and the earlier Russian apartment bombings.

The suspicion of FSB involvement is mentioned in the beginning probably because the mainstream media and researchers do consider the theory credible. And the murders of the main opponents to the government's explanations, banning the book and ignoring the public commission did not help dispel the suspicion.

As for 9/11 attacks, one might see a complete article devoted to the 9/11 conspiracy theories (see the link to the main article in the "tiny paragraph").

The word "conspiracy" by itself is marginalizing some of the theories, including Chomsky's opinions was that the 9/11 attacks were a response, first in its kind, to the civilized world's wars waged against other countries and that the attacks will be used as a justification by other countries such as Russia in their escalation of wars, such as the war in Chechnya.ilgiz 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

And maybe also because no FBI agents were arrested by the police during any "vigilance exercises" during or imeediatelly after the events of 9/11 (I mean the Ryazan incident, where the FSB agents were caught planting a bomb their superiors later said declared "fake" against the police statement, and after a manhunt captured by a pure chance by the regular Russian cops with the great help of civilians).

The 9/11 theories were also widely discredited, from the completely false rumour about the Jews failing to come to the work (implicating "the Jews did the WTC", of course), to the silly pseudo-experiments done by a bunch of complete amatours. I've seen a bit of this "Loose Change" movie (the one with the "B52 in 1945" claim), and I couldn't stand the nerd voice of the seemingly teenage narrator. --HanzoHattori 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronology of events- Are you kidding me!?

So , I added a NPOV tag to the section here is my reasoning behind it:

Looking through the section I saw that, it lists the dates for the bombings, which is good ,I have no problems with that. But it also lists dates for various developments in Putin's career. Now, is would be the purpose to include those? I think it is obviously to infer motive for the bombings. Basically it is saying shows that the bombings happened after Putin came to power, and also he got some "perks" from the bombings (ie getting reelected and the second war in Chechnya). This is done to imply that Putin is connected to the bombings, and is an obvious POV push. I mean come on, same excuse is used by Sep 11 conspiracy theories. They claim that after 9/11 Bush could invade Iraq, pass Patriot Act,take away civil liberties... SO therefore he must have cause the attacks (or at least knowingly failed to prevent them). This is obviously just a theory, and NOT a fact.

So should we also put in a chronology of events into the [September 11, 2001 attacks] article showing how "convenient" the timing of the attacks was in Bush's political career. Obviously not,maybe they would belong in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, but not in the main article. Same thing for this article that table should only list dates relevant to the ACTUAL event not a THEORY about the event. Actually half of this article is dedicated to a conpiracy theory instead of describing the actual event, but I will get to that later.

Anyway,my rant is over. I propose to remove all the dates that have nothing to do with the bombings (ie everything about Putin). What do you guys think? PolkovnikKGB (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There doesn't seem to be anything to tie Putin to this bombing, so I don't see why he should be mentioned in this article. Amaliq (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Elected, not reelected. Also your "PolkovnikKGB" name explains much. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that sources implicate Putin personally in organization of the bombings (this needs to be checked). But the sources implicate FSB and Patrushev in that. So, the timeline describing the alleged coming of FSB people to power is relevant.Biophys (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry , I didn't mean to say that it was him personally, but regardless, the time line should be about the relevant to the actual events, and not an alternate/conspiracy theory.

I don't have the time to check the sources now, I will maybe tomorrow. But I think, if the source DOES use the chronology of events in his FSB theory, then I can see an argument for keeping it. But it should not be a separate section, instead it should be in the FSB theory section (because that is the only thing that it's relevant to). Also it should be noted that the source uses the dates in his theory, that is why they are there. Now,if he does NOT use the dates then they definitely should be removed. Because you are making an inference. Basically it's like this: I see that this guy has a theory that FSB did the bombings, and I agree with him. So I am going to put together this table of dates to better prove his point, even though he ( the source) does NOT rely on dates himself.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Good sources

Good video sources about these bombings (Russian):

• Part1
• Part2
• Part3
• Part 4. Biophys (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• A kind of summary. Biophys (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it a conspiracy theory?

There are repated attempts to describe this as a "conspiracy theory". Conspiracy theory or not should be decided by sources. FSB involvement in the bombing is a majority view - based on sources. The involvement of FSB has been described in several books published by David Satter, Alexander Litvinenko, Yuri Felshtinsky, Alex Goldfarb, Vladimir Pribylovsky and numerous TV interviews and articles (many references are already included in this article; I can bring more). Hence there are multiple reliable primary and secondary sources claiming the involvemnt of FSB to be true. But I would like to see an equally impressive list of reliable English language sources (so a reader can check) that claim the opposite. There are no such in my knowledge. I found only a couple of Russian sources where the governmental position has been described in sufficient detail.Biophys (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No country government has accused Russia of orchestrating the apartment bombings. There are also many books and TV interviews and articles asserting that the moon landings were fake and September 11 was orchestrated by the US government.--Miyokan (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You said: "No country government has accused Russia of orchestrating the apartment bombings". Of course they did not, because they never do! Why should they bother about citizens of other countries? They have been elected by citizens of their own countries to protect interests of their own citizens. UK would extradite Berezovsky and Zakayev in 5 minutes, unless UK court decided otherwise. You know that UK and US governments extradited almost a million of Russians to Stalin after WWII and most of them were sent to Gulag.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything must be supported by sources. Please provide your sources claiming this to be a conspiracy theory.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided 8 references that have referred to it as a conspiracy theory.--Miyokan (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of non-notable journalists claim this to be a "conspiracy theory" simply because this seems improbable for them.

This qualifies the case as a "controversy", not as a "conspiracy theory". So, let's not define this a "conspiracy theory" in Introduction, but include this as a separate section. We do not make any judgements in introductions on controversial subjects. We only should explain in Introduction what the controversy is.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's really no point about adding how observers describe it as a "conspiracy theory". So what? - PietervHuis (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So, let's summarize "Pro" and "Contra" views".

Pro

Several notable proffessionals claiming the involvenet of FSB to be the case: 1 - FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, 2 - Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter, 3 - member of Russian Duma Sergei Yushenkov, 4 notable historian Felshtinsky, 5 - political scientist Pribylovsky. 6 In addition, we have U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John McCain telling that " There remain credible allegations that Russia's FSB had a hand in carrying out these attacks" [6]. Some of these people have written books on the sibject and they are notable experts.

Contra

A bunch of non-notable journalists claim this to be a "conspiracy theory" simply because this seems improbable for them.

This qualifies the case as a "controversy", not as a "conspiracy theory". So, let's not define this a "conspiracy theory" in Introduction, but include this as a separate section. We do not make any judgements in introductions on controversial subjects. We only should explain in Introduction what the controversy is.Biophys (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact

Whether or not it is a conspiracy is not the issue, however the DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact, supported by many sources, much much more credible than Alexander Litvinenko and co., including

• The Washinton Times,
• The New York Times,
• The Times,
• Princeton University, etc.

have referred to it as a "conspiracy theory".--Miyokan (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I d like to add to "Contra" the fact, that all of these notable Russian experts even written a book were sponsored by Berezowski so they are anything but independent.

Sources providing this information were already given in the SecChWar article Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.--Miyokan (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe the expression "conspiracy theory" has two meanings, and it might be better to stick to more precise (and fortunately or not, less striking) terms. The straightforward meaning is a theory that describes a plot. The ironic meaning is a fringe theory, the one that is built on shallow allegations.

In my understanding, had the government been honestly interested in resolving the controversy, any new evidence would be either refuted by a solid evidence or accepted as a solid evidence, even when the latter points fingers at a federal agency.

Below is my quick review of the references attached to the claim that the theory of FSB involvement was widely described as a "conspiracy theory".

• The article in The Times is not an editorial. It is a professional writer's opinion (a) that average Britons would not believe the allegations of corruption and inhumanity in FSB much exceeding that of KGB and (b) that Litvinenko and other immigrants should assimilate and forget the "horrifying" past of their home countries. The articles from The Washington Post and The New York Times did not refute the allegations either. The New Statesman article gave its highest suspicion rate (70%) to the allegations of FSB involvement.
• The excerpt from the book by MacKinnon[7] uses the term in a straightforward way. No refutation is asserted by the author.
• The article by the Agence France-Presse journalist Olga Nedbayeva does not offer counter-arguments other than quoting an FSB spokesman who said that Litvinenko's evidence "cannot be taken seriously".
• The article by Ira Straus starts with a premise that Muslims and the West conspired against Serbia. The author attributes to "Russians and Serbs" a belief that Bosnian Muslims staged massacres by killing their own people. (The article does not point to any evidence of that). Then the author supposes that "some Russians" decided to use the same trick by bombing apartment buildings to draw world's sympathy in their conflict with Chechen rebels. The author's point remains unclear to me. Its headline does not seem to correspond to its ending. Any comments would be welcome.
• The summary of a conference at Princeton 3-4 March 2000 does not refute the "conspiracy theory". It said there was no evidence (at the time) supporting either the official or the opposing theory.
• I read an excerpt from Inside Putin's Russia by Andrew Jack (pp.103-141) in Google Book Search and found his analysis well-researched. The author considers the strong and weak points of the conspiracy theory of FSB involvement and the official theory of Chechen rebel involvement. He points out that "confirming any fact in Russia is difficult", but mentions the opinion of an expert on Dagestan Robert Bruce Ware. Jack points that Ware's opinion on Wahhabis as the most likely culprits coincides with the results of the official investigation which focused on young radicals from Karachaevo-Cherkessia recruited by Achemez Gochiyaev. Jack writes that the findings were embarrassing for the Kremlin as they did not provide justification for a second war.

Labeling the anti-government theory as a "conspiracy theory" in the main article seems to assume the ironic meaning of the term while the references supplied to support the statement operate the term in its straightforward meaning. Therefore, the shallow generalization of the provided secondary sources seems unjustified to me.ilgiz (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What are you disputing? The article is not asserting as fact that it is a conspiracy theory, however the DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact, which every single one of those sources does:

• Mackinnon's book: But if the conspiracy theory–that all the bombings were the work of government agents–was right, Russia was backsliding quickly toward autocracy.
• The Times: His biggest revelation centred on the conspiracy theory that the FSB was involved in a string of bombing attacks that levelled apartment buildings across Russia in the autumn of 1999.
• New Statesman: Conspiracy theories: a guide
• Terror99: Conspiracy theories on Russia's 1999 bombings gain ground
• Russia Journal: Conspiracy theories run into cold facts Let us examine the alleged conspiracies and conspiracy theories.
• Princeton University: yet neither is there any evidence to support the "conspiracy theory" that ties responsibility to the Russian FSB
• The Washington Times: most dismiss the involvement of the Russian government in the apartment bombings as an unsupported conspiracy theory though it has received widespread attention--Miyokan (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________

Why even bother writing about how "observers describe it as a conspiracy theory". That's the same as describing the theory of relativity as a "science theory", or the theory of God's existance as a "unfounded theory". There's absolutely no reason to write about this in the article. Let people who read this article draw their own conclusions. - PietervHuis (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? Why don't we just remove the accusations by Litvinenko and co. then and leave the evidence? Being repeatedly called a "conspiracy theory" establishes that this is often considered a WP:FRINGE theory, and that the claims by Litvinenko and co. are not widely held. The Washington Times summarises it best - "most dismiss the theory as an unsupported conspiracy theory though it has received widespread attention".--Miyokan (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all there's absolutely no evidence released to the public so stop saying there is. Also the fact that a journalist of the new york times describes it as a conspiracy theory doesn't make it universal. Anyway what does it matter. If it was the work of Russia it was indeed a conspiracy.

This article needs cleanup, the introduction should be shorter and allegations / investigations should be seperated. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said that evidence was released, I was referring to the "evidence" that the "conspiracy theorists" rely on. If you want to remove "observers describe it as a conspiracy theory" then you would have to remove Former KGB/FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter,[3], Russian lawmaker Sergei Yushenkov, historian Felshtinsky, and political scientist Pribylovsky asserted that the bombings were in fact a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB (successor to the KGB) in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and brin - because that is their opinion, you would just have to leave the evidence that they base it on.--Miyokan (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to know, why almost everybody here ignores the involvement of Berezowski? It is a fact he sponsored the investigation, so it is obvious, that the investigation was neither independent, nor impartial. The goal was not to uncover the truth, but to accuse the government. The other fact, that 4.ex many western newspapers prefer to ignore Berezowski' background and his invocations for even a revolution in Russia he is ready to pay for, and to present him as a dissident does not make their statements more credibleCaesar Augustvs (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Caesar, I encourage you to add this information to balance the article.--Miyokan (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure if my english is good enough for such mission :) As there is much to change in the "theory of the FSB involvement" than...really much.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I have included one phrase about this this in Introduction - as a compromise. But this should be described in a separate section (I made one and included some materials there).Biophys (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

• 1. the act of conspiring.
• 2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
• 3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
• 4.Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
• 5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

The answer, by dictionary definition, is yes.

Wikipedia says::"A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations. "

The answer, by what wikipedia considers a "conspiracy theory", is yes. Now that, on top of the fact that it's widely regarded by most notable publications as a conspiracy theory, and I think the answer is pretty much crystal clear. it IS a conspiracy theory. I renamed the section for accuracy, and arguments that it isn't are completely unfounded and unsupported. Krawndawg (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • Come on, calling them "Claims" is just as accurate. "Conspiracy theory" automatically suggests the statements are outlandish, which they are not. It is not the most neutral word we could use, so lets say "claim" - which itself suggests that what is said has not been proven. This would be the most accurate and fair way to describe it. Malick78 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

BUT IT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY! Just like how the 9/11 attacks have their own CONSPIRACY THEORY section. It implies exactly what it is, a conspiracy theory. Krawndawg (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• BUT "CLAIM" IS JUST AS ACCURATE! So, erm, what's wrong with using that? The fact is that the 9/11 perpetrators have been identified and convicted (where they are alive) so any other theories are obviously outlandish and so the generally-pejoratively-used term "conspiracy theory" is fair. These bombings have not been solved to an extent that satisfies international standards of justice, so alternate theories are not as absurd, since no proper guilty party has so far been found. Alternate versions of events therefore have a validity that 9/11 alternative versions do not have. You still have not said why "claim" would not be the best compromise though. Please do:) Malick78 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This is your personal opinion. Most sources written by notable people tell the bombings were organized by the FSB. If FBI officers were caught while planting the bombs in New York (like FSB officers were caught in Ryzan), the 911 story would be very different.Biophys (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's not my personal opinion. It's a fact that cannot be argued, just like the fact that the sky is blue and fire is hot. All significant media considers the allegations to be a conspiracy theory, just like someone pointed out earlier in the discussion. You're simply lying by saying that. Krawndawg (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wikidictionary says:

conspiracy theory (plural conspiracy theories)

1. A belief in or allegation of a group conspiring, or having conspired, to commit an illegal or wrongful act, or to cover up such an act; especially, such a belief that is rejected by mainstream sources.

2. (dismissive) Hence, any belief that is considered far-fetched by the mainstream; a crackpot theory.

Note number 2. This is not a neutral word and we should aim for neutrality - we all know that. The most neutral word is "claim". Let's not have to take this to adjudication, let's be sensible about it:))))) Malick78 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Contra III: The Alien Wars== already has a page why PRO/CONTRA not Pro/CON symmantics nothing right no the truth is that NBC ABC CNN want to work in Russia so saying Russia killed 500 people would lose them access to Russia so no news outlet will do it. Govorments will not do it eiter because Russia is still a world power be it one that believes its people are dumb and want the USSR years back. The USSR had the gulags killed millions in the Holodomor in Ukraine and that sows willingness on a scale bigger ten almost Mao in the 20th century.

Criticism of FSB involvement theory

Now this is not about "conspiracy theory". This is about proper placing of material. Russian version of this artivle included "Criticism of FSB involvement theory" section (see discussion in the beginning of this talk page), and rightly so. So, all materials of that kind should be placed there. We can not describe all "pro" and "contra" in the introduction.Biophys (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked two of several sources provided by Myokan. One of them does not tell anything about these bombings but only discuss Litvinenko case and descibe his murder as a "conspiracy". Another tells that the "theory" may be true. I provided some direct citation to exclude any claims that I misinterpret something.Biophys (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please describe correctly what the sources tell. That is why we need a separate section.Biophys (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.izvestia.ru/investigation/article3102993/ here you have about Felshtinsky, Goldfarb and Litvinenko, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/news/newsid_2957000/2957473.stm this one is about Juschenkow- as you see, he was killed just a short time after they decided to count out mr. Berezowsky (curious fact, isn’t it?) Here a link about Kovalev http://niiss.ru/d_kovalev.shtml his behaviour during the conflict same as the decoration as "Knight of Honour" from Dudaev directly makes him not really credible regarding questions about Chechnya. Further Trepashkin was as we all know the other former FSB agent taking part in this notable press conference with Beresowski and Litivnenko.

Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

O'K, all links that you provided are probably valid sources. That is how Russian state-controlled media describe "enemies of the people". However, there is nothing there about these apartment bombings. Caesar, do you really believe that Russian apartment bombings were not committed by FSB and GRU spetsnaz? That was highly proffesional job and clearly something extremely damaging for the Chechen cause (small Chechnya can not win a war with Russia - everyone understands that). The more you and Miyokan are trying to prove this to be a conspiracy theory, the more it is clear that the involvement of FSB was real. There is a lot of things to be described here - the Gochyaev ordeal (it is shame - we do not have an article about him), the closed trails of Chechen suspects who were not involved in the bombings whatsoever; the murder of Romanovich at Ciprus, the words of Trepashkin when he came back from prison, etc. So, if you want this to be described, let's go ahead.Biophys (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Biophys admission that he strongly believes bombings were work of Russian government

You have just admitted that you strongly believe that the bombings were orchestrated by Russia, declaring your bias for all to see, so please cease your deletions/manipulations/hiding away of the counterargument as you are violating WP:NPOV.

Please do not misinterpret my words. I only asked Caesar Augustvs what he really thinks about it and suggested that WP articles on this subject should be improved. Please also stop reverting a lot of other people work without any justification or discussion. It seems there is a lot of things to be done here, just as I said.Biophys (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You can try to deny it all you like but the proof is there for all to see - Caesar, do you really believe that Russian apartment bombings were not committed by FSB and GRU spetsnaz? That was highly proffesional job and clearly something extremely damaging for the Chechen cause (small Chechnya can not win a war with Russia - everyone understands that). The more you and Miyokan are trying to prove this to be a conspiracy theory, the more it is clear that the involvement of FSB was real.--Miyokan (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well if you ask me: this job was not more professional than the 9/11 there is nothing about professionalism in there...give me some bags with explosives, and you will see I can blow any apartment you like in Germany (figurative meaning of course). The damage of the Chechen cause is not worse, than the hostage taking of Beslan or the Nord-Ost - not even really worse than the same in Budenovsk. As you remember, many Chechen leaders (especially Bassajew) often proclaimed "to take the war to the Russian home country". So, why all these qualms about their possible involvement?

Yes indeed, in my sources you do not see concrete details about the bombing itself as I was asked to show sources about the connections between the "independent investigation of notable experts" and Beresowski. If you ask me, there is a much easier explanation for the closed trials and so on. For the FSB it was very hard to explain, why they were not able to prevent these events, as you cannot simply say "hey guys we can't post guards to every cellar of every building in the country", same as it was hard to explain, why nobody was able to prevent the terrorists to get all these explosives (as it is equal to the confession -"actually we do not have any control about the market of these things") Now about Trepashkin and co. of course they say such things, as they have to earn money for living and Berezowski is not social welfareCaesar Augustvs (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Biophys can believe all he wants to believe. Miyokan are you trying to say that you're not working from a pov? You are the least pov persion I see working here, and your previous claims that you are a "payed member of a kgb troll squad" backs that up.

His idea that Russians blew up those buildings is as believable as your idea that Chechens blew up those buildings.

You're trying to to convert this article (and many other articles) into a pro-putin article, there's no need to keep callings critics "conspiracy theorists" all the time. I'll work on it later and devide the article with critics and counter-criticism seperated. The introduction for example is way too long - PietervHuis (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to make a balanced article, presenting both sides and unlike Biophys, I am neither convinced that the Chechens are to blame nor the Russian government. In case you haven't noticed, Biophys is the one removing and manipulating counterarguments, and removing counterarguments from the lead, while I haven't touched the information that asserts Russian gov. involvement. You are the least pov persion I see working here, and your previous claims that you are a "payed member of a kgb troll squad" backs that up. LOL. Yes Pietervhuis, that tongue-in-cheek infobox that I inserted proves that I am a "paid member of a kgb troll squad" *sarcasm*. Biophys has been the one deleting counterarguments, trying to remove the well sourced statement that it has been "described as a conspiracy theory" violating WP:NPOV, I am not the one deleting information.--Miyokan (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that people call it a conspiracy theory change anything about the reliability of such statements? It's a Theory indeed. A theory about what? A conspiracy. Of course it's factually a conspiracy theory. So what? If I'm correct you also removed arguments with the title "if you want to place them back feel fro to do it". I'm not trying to say that you're not welcome to participate in wikipedia articles, but you are in no position to discredit Biophys. And no I don't believe you are "payed", but the fact that you subscribed to such a stroll squad and that you don't seem to be AT ALL critical of anything concerning Russia tells me that you are nowhere less biased than Biophys. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Miyokan, the fact that Biophys is biased is neither here nor there, it's his edits that count. We all have opinions on Wikipedia and I'm sure you are no different. If you have a problem with his edits, find a good rationale for your complaint, not something as petty as what you have brought up here. Malick78 (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have explained the rationale numerous times in my edit summaries - "sentence remains unsupported after I have continually readded that fact tag to it and being deleted by Biophys" "however" is on wikipedia's list of words to avoid - Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#However.2C_although.2C_whereas.2C_despite, "fact tags should never be removed"; "the sources refer to Russian involvement in apartment bombings as a "conspiracy theory", not Litvinenko's, etc assertions"; "unjustified deletion of Washington Times quote";"the apartment bombings were not the only reason for the invasion of Chechnya, it was this plus the Chechen invasion of Dagestan"; "why did you remove the fact that Death of a Dissident was published by Litvinenko's wife" - but Biophys has ignored these comments and persisted in his deletion/manipulation/removal-from-the-lead of the counterarguments. What is one supposed to think about such actions when Biophys admits he believes that the Russian government orchestrated the bombings?--Miyokan (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan the washington post article you found states that "While most dismiss the story as an unsupported conspiracy theory, it has received widespread attention". "Most of what? Russian politicians? Russian journalists? Journalists worldwide? It does not provide any original research on what "most" think. When you're using it in this article it creates an atmosphere as if the criticsims are only made by a minority of people and we don't know that.

There's also no reason to add about the invasion of Dagestan or put emphasis on it. It's already handled on the Second Chechen War page. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What confusion? Since they did not say a specific group (ie they did not say "most Russian journalists" or "most journalists worldwide", etc) it is quite clear that "most" refers to the majority of people worldwide who comment on the issue. There is no "emphasis" put on the invasion of Dagestan, it is a fact that the Chechen invasion of Dagestan was one of the factors leading to the invasion of Chechnya, the apartment bombings weren't the sole reason for the invasion of Chechnya. It is simply wrong to state that the apartment bombings were the sole reason for the invasion of Chechnya.--Miyokan (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How the hell did a journalist from the washington times draw a conclusion that "most" dismiss the story? He didn't provide any original research along with it, therefore we cant present it as a fact on an encyclopedia.

Also it's fine to mention the invasion as an issue, but not as detailed as now. Just a link to the Invasion of Dagestan page is fine. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I made a compromise version where all sourced content by Myokan, except this Dagestan war, has been included. However it is properly arranged by sections.Biophys (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced paragraph

The "official investigation" paragraph includes the following:

The explosives were prepared at a fertilizer factory in Urus-Martan, Chechnya, by mixing hexogen, TNT, aluminium powder and nitre with sugar. From there they were sent to a food storage facility in Kislovodsk, which was managed by an uncle of one of the terrorists, Yusuf Krymshakhalov. Another conspirator, Ruslan Magayayev, had leased a KamAZ truck in which the sacks were stored for two months. After everything was planned, the participants were organized into several groups which then transported the explosives to different cities. Most of the people participating were not ethnic Chechens.

Where it came from? Text in official statement by a prosecutor includes only the following (Russian):

В ходе допросов Искендеров показал, что 13 сентября 1999 года на стоянке грузового автотранспорта Волгодонска он познакомился с тремя лицами, выходцами из народностей Северного Кавказа, прибывшими в город на автомобиле "КАМАЗ", якобы для продажи картофеля. Они купили у него автомобиль, объяснив, что он необходим для доставки на рынки города более 10 тонн картофеля. В этот же день они передали Искендерову в качестве оплаты 300 долларов США и 2200 рублей. Оформление сделки купли-продажи должно было состояться 16 сентября.

Как установлено следствием, в этот же день, на территории автоколонны #2070 г.Волгодонска в будку автомашины было перегружено взрывчатое вешест-во и установлено взрывное устройство, все это было сверху замаскировано россыпью картофеля.

15 сентября 1999 года Искендеров по просьбе покупателей отогнал автомобиль на обычное место к своему дому, чтобы утром следующего дня отвести картофель на рынок,

This is about bombing in Volgodonsk and tells completely different things. I checked another source (the book by Goldfarb) and it also tells something different. I will correct this ASAP.Biophys (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) O'K, I found it: [8] Biophys (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw. another curious fact, in the web you seem only be able to find two versions of how this happened: the one of the FSB, and the other sponsored by Berezowski...Mostly other sources only refer to one of these, so I really do not see any reason why the version of Berezowski should be more credible.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

structure of the new paragraphs

I think not very good sectioning in there...

First- in the main part- the theory of the FSB involvement you should exclude any support or critics of the theory itself, otherwise you only repeat the same information in other words in the part "support". Further, I’ve read the text of the McCain speech... Actually I do not see any reason to give him a more important role as a source than a usual newspaper. In the context it rather seems he only refer to some information he got from the same "notable Russian experts"- probably the same as we have. (Cause in his speech he never says something about facts, but mentions things like "State Duma deputy Yuri Shendoshokhtin, who had been looking into the role of the FSB in the Moscow bombings as well as a scandal surrounding the involvement of FSB officers in illegal trade, was also killed in mysterious circumstances" just few lines before his statement about "credible allegations". Btw. as he put the UDSSR in the same box with Tzaristic Russia- calling them both "continuation of 400 years of autocratic state control, and repression" I actually tend to think he is a russophobe (do not know if this word is the same in english) and for this reason not very credible in questions about Russia at allCaesar Augustvs (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "theory of FSB involvement" and "support" should not have any content overlap. I thought they did not. The opinion of John McCain is notable because he is a US presidential candidate and a well known politician.Biophys (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You prefer to ignore the doubtful statement of McCain about "400 years of terror" in Russia? Don't you think such radical position makes his credibility doubtful as well? Would you believe a German chancellor, saying "the USA is an example of continuation of 400 years of separatism"Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say this is a lie ;) ? - PietervHuis (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I added this plus his statement that Russia should be kicked out of the G8.--Miyokan (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup?

May I try to mediate the recent edit war by putting some arguments into respective sections? This will take me an hour or so. Feel free to revert my changes.ilgiz (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm done. Thanks.ilgiz (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Great job, thanks.--Miyokan (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan please stop adding information about chechen terrorist attacks. It has nothing to do with this article and only tries to put emphasis on "chechens are terrorists, therefore they must have done it!". It would be same as for me to list all the atrocities and near-genocide commited by Russia. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop committing vandalism and censoring information, it is much more relevant than entries like "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President.", etc - which has nothing to do with the chronology of the apartment bombings.--Miyokan (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So if you think irrelevant information is listed your idea is to add even more irrelevant information? That's quite a unique way of editing wikipedia. Also your allegations that I vandalize pages is unfounded. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to removed the irrelevant information but I was reverted, so I added other relevant information and I will reinsert this information just as the "Vladimir Putin wins Presidential election", etc, entries were reinserted. Also, please remain civil [9]--Miyokan (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't reverted by me so to accuse me of vandalism is rubbish. If you want to discuss if Putin's path to presidency should or should not be listed do it here instead of engaging in an edit war. I am more civil than you - PietervHuis (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted 2 of my entries just then. You can say that you are more civil but I am not the one that said "[my] allegations are pretty much bullshit".--Miyokan (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A revert isn't proof of vandalism. I am more civil than you because I don't accuse people of vandalism right away. I edited out "bullshit" which is of course a horrible offensive phrase along with some spelling errors, but I am sorry if I offended you. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As Ilgiz said, interpreting of the chronology is left to the reader. If you see that the chronology omits certain key events, please add these events.--Miyokan (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And how are hostage takings "key events" related to Russian apartment bombings? - PietervHuis (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

They show that Chechens have attacked civilian targets before and after. Now tell me how entries like "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President." are relevant.--Miyokan (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so because a few chechens attacked civilians, every chechen is suspect? should we remember how many russians attacked civillians and therefore all russians are suspect?

I think those entries are relevant because the events were described in this article. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say every Chechen is a suspect, those terrorist attack by Chechen separatists are facts, stop censoring information. Those events are not described in the article and you still haven't explained why they are relevant. I can make silly arguments too -"Because Vladimir Putin was an FSB chief and became president of Russia the FSB was responsible for the bombings?" --Miyokan (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh yes, that doesn't make it relevant. Attacks by Russians on civillians are also facts, no need to add those either. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacks by Russian on civilians have nothing to do with the bombings, no one is accusing Russian soldiers on the battleground in Chechnya of being implicated in the bombings, they are accusing the FSB.--Miyokan (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is accusing Russians of implicated in the bombings? That's pretty new to me. It's not just soldiers that murder civillians. Let's not forget the bombing of grozny of the first war which left as many dead as the atomic bomb dropped on nagasaki. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Read again, I said no one is accusing Russian soldiers on the battleground in Chechnya of being implicated in the bombings, they are accusing the FSB. Furthermore, in this case Russians were targeted, not Chechens, you would have to show where FSB has attacked Russian civilians before, not Chechens.--Miyokan (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on civillians by a few chechen chechen soldiers have absolutely nothing to do with this article. Both Chechen soldiers and Russian soldiers have carried out attacks on civillians, that's a fact. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those "few Chechen soldiers" numbered in the hundreds and were Chechen separatists, those who the official FSB investigation blamed the bombings on. In this case Russian civilians were targeted, not Chechen civilians, show me where Russian civilians have been killed by the FSB before.--Miyokan (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Russian government have attacked civillians before, see the first chechen war. I'm not even going to bother showing you, just check the casualty counts. It's not just the FSB that's being blamed but also the government. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

These bombings targeted Russian civilians, not Chechen civilians, show me specific incidents where the FSB has deliberately (not accidently) killed Russian civilians before. You have still not established why the "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President." entries are relevant.--Miyokan (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The bombings of Grozny also targeted Russian civilians. A huge amount actually. Also I really don't care about that list. All I care is that you don't add anything to this article that depicts all chechens or chechen seperatists as terrorists. - PietervHuis (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The bombings of Grozny were part of the Chechen war and targeted Chechen rebel strongholds, not Russian civilians. You have still not shown me a specific incident of the FSB deliberately killed Russian civilians and you have still not established why the "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President." entries are relevant. By deleting the information of the Chechen separatist targeting civilians, as in this case they were accused of, you are censoring information.--Miyokan (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha, Chechen rebel strongholds? Just like how the US bombed Nagasaki because it was full of Japanese soldiers? You're kidding me. I don't need to prove that the FSB kills russians civillians, as I already told you it's NOT JUST the fbs that are suspect but also the russian government, and the russian government doesn't care more about the lives of civillians than chechen seperatists. Therefore both the russian government and chechen seperatist have a reputation of being able to carry out these bombings and it's unfair to only list atrocities done by chechen seperatists. Also I'm not going to answer your question about how the other events are relevant because I already answered you, and because I don't care about the list and it might as well be deleted. - PietervHuis (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have again failed to cite specific incidents of FSB killing Russian civilians and failed to justify the inclusion of the other chronology information, so please stop censoring information. Also, the bombing of Grozny was not carried out by the FSB.--Miyokan (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to cite FSB atrocities or justify other peoples edits. I'll remove any irrelevant information youre trying to add. - PietervHuis (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yuri Tkachenko

На пресс-конференции О.М. Дуканов дал комментарий к публикациям в "Новой газете" и заявлению Бориса Березовского о причастности ФСБ к взрывам в Москве и Волгодонске и учениях Рязанского ФСБ. Начальник Рязанского управления ФСБ доказательно опроверг эти публикации в "Новой газете". Разъяснения по ситуации и фактам дал и эксперт Ю.В. Ткаченко, бывший начальник инженерно-технического отделения ОМОБ г.Рязани (сейчас сотрудник ОБОП). Он выезжал на место происшествия и проводил экспресс-анализ. Вот лишь два заключения эксперта. Во-первых, газовый анализатор не использовался. Во-вторых, якобы "взрыватель" (штатный) не что иное, как охотничий патрон, и он не может подорвать ни один из известных видов взрывчатого вещества.

[10]. SashaT (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually that was claimed by Ryzan FSB boss (see the title), not by Tkachenko who said something exactly opposite according to all other sources.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I think the Introduction is much worse than it was before, as a result of edit warring. The bombing led to Second Chechen war. Why? This should be explained. Why the bombings are notable? Not only because they led to Second Chechen war, but because they allegedly have been committed by the FSB to bring Putin to power. The allegations were based on numerous evidence (unlike 911 events in the US where evidence show the opposite) and made by numerous notable experts and politicians (unlike 911 in US). Furthermore, people who tried to investigate were arrested by FSB or killed (unlike in the case of 911 events). Russian Duma refused to investigate (Unlike US Congress that investigated 911). That should be explained - as it was in the previous version. Otherwise, it is not clear what is that all about.Biophys (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest to describe the events in chronological order. Otherwise, this is difficult to understand. Also, we only describe the events and key claims, without making any judgements.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The intro was removed for a reason, to prevent edit warring as occurred before, please don't restart an edit war, you, an editor who has admitted he believes the FSB involvement theory, have inserted a biased intro with no counterarguments, ALL of this information is already in the article. It is much better to separate the sections so that we don't edit war over what is included in the combined section.--Miyokan (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an intro, of course it contains information that's present on the rest of the article. The intro doesn't state arguments, it only states facts. Please discuss your issues here and don't delete information without question. That's considered vandalism and you (and I) can get blocked again - PietervHuis (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the article is blocked now, and this dispute is one of the reasons.

The intro as it stands now is too short. People need to have a brief introduction and decide themselves if they want to elaborate on it. Deleting the entire introduction is no fashion. You said that you find the introduction Biophys made was too POV, what exactly was wrong with it? - PietervHuis (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, the deletion of Abstract is completely unacceptable. Every article, and especially very long one (like that) must have an abstrct.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL It is "an *abstract* according to Biophys" with no counterarguments or criticism of the FSB theory. It is fine to just define the bombings, as it does now, many articles introductions simply define the topic. The Russian wikipedia article on this topic, which is also contentious, has done exactly the same. Once again, ALL of the information in Biophys introduction is already in the article, it is simply a double of the "Theory of FSB involvement" section.--Miyokan (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Example of introduction according to Biophys:

Former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter,[2], Russian lawmaker Sergei Yushenkov, historian Felshtinsky, and political scientist Pribylovsky asserted that the bombings were in fact a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB (successor to the KGB) in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin and the FSB to power -where is the criticism of this theory?

The Russian Duma rejected two motions for parliamentary investigation of the Ryazan incident. An independent public commission to investigate the bombings chaired by Duma deputy Sergei Kovalev was rendered ineffective because of government refusal to respond to its inquiries. Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin, both Duma members, have since died in apparent assassinations in April 2003 and July 2003 respectively. The Commission's lawyer Mikhail Trepashkin has been arrested in October 2003 to become one of the better-known political prisoners in Russia. -where is the criticism of these people?

If you insist on adding an introduction, by all means, I will insert this and other criticism to balance the article.

The involvement of the Russian government in the apartment bombings has been described as a "conspiracy theory" with its share of grounds and doubts.[64][65] In a May 2000 issue of The Washington Post Paul J. Saunders wrote that Putin's willing to shut down Novaya Gazeta could be understood because "most dismiss the involvement of the Russian government in the apartment bombings as an unsupported conspiracy theory though it has received widespread attention".[66]

Almost all the of the critics of the FSB theory, and the "independent investigation” have been directly linked with Boris Berezovsky, an outspoken critic of the administration of Vladimir Putin and allied in London with former Chechen rebel, Ahmed Zakayev.[69] Berezovsky said he was on a mission to oust Putin's government "by force", which prompted shark rebukes from the British government.[70][71] Russia has issued multiple warrants for Berezovsky's arrest and has repeatedly demanded that the U.K. extradite him, calls which have been ignored.[72] Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin, both Duma members, have been widely linked with Berezovsky [73] The public inquiry commission asked Mikhail Trepashkin,another former FSB-agent linked with Berezovsky[74] Yuri Felshtinsky- another confidant of Berezovsky[75] Sergei Kovalev, a well known opposer of the Chechen wars was decorated with the "order of Honor" from Dzhokhar Dudayev, the first President of the Chechen breakaway republic of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.[76]. Alexander Litvinenko worked for Boris Berezovsky and the latter bought a house for him. [77] The Commission's lawyer Mikhail Trepashkin is mostly known for his participation in the interview beside Berezovsky and Litvinenko when Litvinenko claimed he was advised to assassinate Berezovsky. --Miyokan (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We can not discuss any "pro" and "contra" in the Abstract. We can only briefly mention a few most important facts and claims. We can simply mention that claims by Litvinenko and others are unproven and were disputed (see the body of the text). Based on your reply, I have to focus exclusively on terrorism and other crimes committed by the Putin's regime.Biophys (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "the most important facts and claims" according to Biophys, an admitted pro-FSB theory supporter. You simply cannot insert the information that you did without the key criticism of the accusations.--Miyokan (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea I think it is a little too short. But a lot better than what it used to be at one point.The intro needs to be NPOV, especially for a controversial topic like this. Maybe have a summary of the ACTUAL events that happened (note no theories here just what actually happened) then later on introduce the conflicting theories (ie FSB involvement vs terrorist attack). These should be a few sentences tops, as opposed to making 3/4 of the intro about the alleged FSB involvement. Thats just my 2 cents on the issuePolkovnikKGB (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To resolve the disagreement, we could simply tell: "Litvinenko, Satter and others proposed a conspiracy theory that....". Would you agree on that? However there are different opinions by notable people on the subject (some think the theory is real). Thus, it qualifies only as a "controversy". It would be proper to tell: "Litvinenko, Satter and others proposed a controversial theory that...", or "Litvinenko, Satter and others proposed a theory that.... However this theory remains unproven."Biophys (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Polkovnik, have a summary of the ACTUAL events that happened with no theories here then later on introduce the conflicting theories. I suppose it would be ok to say this as long as it stays only this (ie these 2 sentences) - "Litvinenko, Satter and others proposed a controversial theory that the bombings were orchestrated by the FSB. However this theory remains unproven". If you start to blow this out then it would be unacceptable.--Miyokan (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If we all agree that Abstrct should include key factual events and claims (in chronological order), we can build consensus. As about your suggestion, it is not enough to tell that someone suggested "a theory". We should tell what the claim was about. Therefore, we must explain: "asserted that the bombings were in fact 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". That may be wrong, but that is what they claimed.Biophys (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to reorder the paragraphs in the intro , the official investigation should always go first no a conspiracy theory (or controversial theory,whatever floats your boat). So now matches the order of the sections of the article. Official Investigation->Attempts for independent investigation->FSB involvement theory. The intro still needs some work, but this should be a good start. PolkovnikKGB (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we are going to describe all events in chronological order to make the text more clear. First, the bombings took place. Second, the Ryazan episode happened. Third, the claimes about FSB were made. Fourth Russian Duma rejected the motions. Finally (only in 2002), the official investigation was completed and announced its results. Biophys (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are saying there, but I also think that the order of intro should follow the rest of the article. And also you can order by subject matter (ie official investigation then independent then other theories) I skimmed through some other articles 9/11 and London bombings and they follow this pattern. Right now FSB theory paragraph has no dates in it. In order to maybe make it less misleading chronology wise maybe add something like "Soon after the bombings XYZ proposed a controversial theory that..." to that paragraph? P.S. I didn't mean anything with the "Introduction according to Biophys" that was just the title of the section.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I made it shorter and rearranged material. The results of official investigation are now placed in the end, which makes them more convincing. It now reads as follows: yes, there were certain allegations, but the official investigation came to such and such conclutions in the end.Biophys (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Chronology section

I also don't know why you delete any information relating to Putin's rise to presidency from the chronology section. The events are discussed inside this article, and he is a suspect among the theorists. It also happened around the same time as the bombings. It's a good overview for people who want to see the events summed up in a simple way - PietervHuis (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Putin's rise to presidency has nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings and is OR. And it was not only Putin that was in the chronology but other irrelevant OR entries like September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia., * May 12 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia. By that logic we should also include the chronology of the Chechen separatist attacks against Russian civilians because the Chechen separatists are also "suspects".--Miyokan (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't only delete the "other irrelevant" entries but you also deleted any information about Putin. It is relevant to the bombings because according to the critics the apartment bombings played a large role in his rise to power.

Attacks by Chechen separatists that occured around the time of the bombings are already listed, (the IIPB invasion). You can't list any other attacks by chechen seperatists because they happened years before and after the apartment bombings. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly you said Putin is relevant because he is a "suspect", now you say its relevant because "the bombings played a large role in his rise to power", make up your mind. They have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings and are OR (Original Research). I could argue that attacks by chechen separatists are much more relevant because it shows that they have targeted Russian civilians before.--Miyokan (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this in a section above called "Chronology of events:Are you kidding Me?" , so you can see my aruments there. But in summary , if it is a general chronology of events, then there should be nothing about Putin in there.It should only have the chronology of actual events that took placePolkovnikKGB (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, this has already been discussed before, see "Chronology of events:Are you kidding Me?", and users (besides Biophys) agreed that it was irrelevant to the chronology of the bombings and an obvious POV push to infer motive for the bombings.--Miyokan (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If all that has to go, then the IPB's invasion would also have to go, and then we're left with nothing but the mention of the bombings. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it would be just a chronology of the bombings, and that is exactly what a "Chronology of Events" Section should look like.

I removed the two Putin references. I understand that they are a vital part of the conspiracy/controversial theory, but they do not belong in a chronology section, since this article is about the bombing not a theory. If you want you can place something in the section "Theory of FSB involvement" because that is the section that talks about the theory that these dates are part of.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with Caesar

Biophys, the problem in this and other articles is, that the one side (you, Pieter and so on) try to accuse the other side (Miyokan, Alaexis and me) of propaganda in favour of Putin, but at the same time you are not impartial as well, you simply prefer a different side. If you would try to look at the situation not only from the preferred side, I think we would have not so many problems. Simply example: You think the Chechens were not to blame for the bombings and suggest the FSB could be blamed instead. The other side might think -the Chechens are to blame for the bombings and the FSB certainly not.

I think now- what do these two POV's have in common? The answer -both, you and the others do not really know what happened. Nobody actually does, and those who even maybe know something, will never make it public. So THIS is the point to stress- and not the pro or contras, as you see you will never be able to prove the one or the other version for many years... If you wish to mention both versions, the style should be absolutely impartial w/o any support from the author of the article (this includes 4.ex phrasing as well) for one of them. I think after such a big discussion we saw enough facts arguing for the one and other for the other version. All the irresistible arguments from the “notable Russian experts” became much less credible after recognizing- Berezovski paid them for “investigating”. Same the nice explanation of the FSB is suspicious because of facts like catching the two agents planting something maybe explosives.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide any evidence that I accused you or Miyokan of "propaganda in favor of Putin". I did not. Accusing someone of such things without evidence is violation of WP:CIV. It is irrelevant "who thinks what" as long as everyone is working in a good faith to improve an article. No one should try to "prove" anything here.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Accusing is not always accusing directly- saying "I accuse you of...".

The other thing- why do you ignore the main part of my "contribution" :)?

The part about "you do not know, we do not know" so let's stop to insist "our truth is the real truth, or at least a bit more real than yours"

Exactly this is now taking place in the article.

The two chapters "the involvement of the FSB" and the "Criticism of the involvement of the FSB" are actually overlapping as the first chapter already contains half of the arguments supporting the theory, and the second one, which should rather be the counterpart to the previous begins with statements supporting it through denying Chechen involvement and describing FSB agents caught in Ryazan.

This is what I mean with “phrasing”- you are going to describe the theory of the involvement with all the details, but “forget” to mention same details describing the criticism of this theory.

I will show you what exactly this means by adding according information to the main chapter- take a look to the “attempt at independent investigation”Caesar Augustvs (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edit[11] does not cite its sources. The press-conference with Litvinenko and Trepashkin was not a "confessing", but rather disclosing criminal practice in the new FSB department. Trepashkin participated in the press-conference as an alleged potential victim of the department.[12]ilgiz (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Caesar, when you insert statemets that person X was funded by Berezovsky, please provide reference that tells just that. Otherwise this is OR.Biophys (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you name "poisoning"? maybe the same your side does in the chapter "criticism"?

regarding the sources- there are all sources to find in the discussion here...Biophys named them all "valid sources" don't knew I have to add this well known information twice.

But it was funny to see how quickly your reaction was when you became confronted with your own methodsCaesar Augustvs (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your diff: [13]. Let's consider this segment, for example:

"Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin, both Duma members, and widely linked with Berezovsky [14] have since died in apparent assassinations in April 2003 and July 2003 respectively" (your insertion indicated by bold).

There are two problems here. First, your reference does not tell that Yushenkov and Shekochikhin are servants of Berezovsky. If it does, please provide here the corresponding segment of Russian text. Second, please read about a propaganda technique called Poisoning the well. Actually, this is WP:SYN problem. You imply that these people are not trustworthy by including negative information about them which is completely irrelated to this article. This is also a "POV fork", which is explicitly discouraged by WP policies. We have already articles about Yushenkov and Shchekochikhin. If you want to write about them, please go to their articles. Your other insertions are similar. Also see the note by Ilgiz above.Biophys (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, this is vandalism! I gave all the sources for my claims, if you think the fact, that all the persons mentioned as the heads of the conspiracy theory are WIDELY linked with Berezovsky is not related in your eyes you are nothing but ignorant! Just for your information - В знак признательности за спасение своей жизни Березовский материально помогал Александру Литвиненко в Лондоне.

"Я платил ему около пяти тысяч фунтов стерлингов в месяц. Я купил ему дом, и хотя он был зарегистрирован на меня, там жил Александр вместе со своей семьей, и это был как будто его собственный дом", - сказал Березовский в интервью программе Newsnight. http://www.newsru.com/world/06feb2007/litv.htmlCaesar Augustvs (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar that someone received a medal from dudayev is a small detail that should be present on the pages of the persons themselves. There's nothing wrong with having received a medal from dudayev, even putin was and still is friends with people who fought together with Dudayev. Also your sources are often Russian newspapers, they aren't always considered reliable sources. Try to find other sources. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pieter, you are obviously wrong: look- what means "independent investigation"?- it means, that the investigators are absolutely impartial. If they are only independent from Kremlin- this is nothing. Mr.Kovalev received his medal not because of his big, blue eyes, but because of his engagement for the independence of Chechnya. Just read his biography. To say such a person is independent is same as if I would say, a historian, received a medal of honour from Bin Laden himself is independent in questions about Guantanamo or the war on terrorism. Finally- Dudaev was not a legal authority to accept honours issued by his government. If someone accepted them although- he is all but independentCaesar Augustvs (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I clicked Kovalev's biography and all I get to read about Chechnya is that he opposed Russia's military operation of the First Chechen War and worked as a journalist. There's nothing wrong with that, leader worldwide opposed the war. The bombings of Grozny are even considerd war crimes. As a politician and journalist he is allowed to have his opinion on the first war, and still be able to start an independent investigation on a terrorist attack. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Just have a look at this site http://niiss.ru/d_kovalev.shtml someone who is known for: С момента начала войны в Чечне С.А.Ковалев занял резко критическую позицию по отношению к официальному курсу в этом вопросе. На третий день боевых действий прибыл в Грозный, заявив, что не покинет город до тех пор, пока не начнутся мирные переговоры. Б.Н.Ельцин охарактеризовал деятельность С.А.Ковалева как “всхлипывания”.

Придерживался мнения, что ультиматум о разоружении, предъявленный правительством России Дудаеву, является бессмысленным, так как никакой приказ Дудаева не привел бы к разоружению до того, как будут достигнуты двухсторонние соглашения и получены гарантии того, что на переговорах будут поставлены многие другие вопросы. Нацеленность на безоговорочную капитуляцию чеченских бандформирований С.А.Ковалев считал неверной и высказывался за скорейшее прекращение боевых действий и вывод федеральных войск из Чечни.

В дальнейшем точка зрения С.А.Ковалева не изменилась.

is never impartial!Caesar Augustvs (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw. I m really glad, that there is definitely said "В дальнейшем точка зрения С.А.Ковалева не изменилась" otherwise you would again start to claim, that all these details are only about the first war and have nothing to do with questions after this war :/Caesar Augustvs (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PietervHuis can't read Russian, (note to Pietervhuis: google translator is no substitute). The information is directly relevant because it directly questions their impartiality, readers have to decide for themselves with all the information presented, not censored.--Miyokan (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but I don't speak Russian. Anyway, those details are already covered on the criticism page. There's no need to mention them every time those persons are mentioned. Informatio such as that should be present on the pages about those people, and is already present at the criticism section of this page. As Biophys already said: "this a propaganda technique called Poisoning the well. Actually, this is WP:SYN problem. You imply that these people are not trustworthy by including negative information about them which is completely irrelated to this article. This is also a "POV fork", which is explicitly discouraged by WP policies." - PietervHuis (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, "Poisoning the well" is not a wikipedia policy. Secondly, readers can decide for themselves whether to believe these people with all information presented to them without censorship.--Miyokan (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well ok, this is nothing about poisoning the well, as "being linked with Berezovski" is nothing inherently negative, the reader is able to decide for himself if it is negative or positive or neutral :) agree? But however, I agree the structure should be improved to avoid doubled informationCaesar Augustvs (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even if "poisoning the well" was wikipedia policy, which it isn't, there is nothing negative, readers can decide for themselves with the information presented to them. Yes we should avoid doubled information like the intro Biophys reinserted void of counterarguments which is just a double of the "Theory of FSB involvement" section.--Miyokan (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply made an Abstract of the article.Biophys (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Since it seems that there is edit warring between multiple parties, I have fully protected the page. Please build consensus and discuss changes here first instead of engaging in an edit war. --slakr^\ talk / 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One possible solution would be for two most active "warriers" who were blocked (Myokan and Peter) stop editing this article for a while. We do not want any escalation here. Do we? The escalation would lead to creation of new articles like Allegations of terrorism by Russian state, etc. As you know, many notable terrorism cases (including Litvinenko murder) have been allegedly committed by the Russian state. Although creation of such articles would improve WP content, I am not sure we all want to go there.Biophys (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes LOL - "Russia killed Litvinenko", one of the most laughable accusations I ever heard. I mean everybody who knows even a little about the situation would ask himself, why Russia should have killed Litvinenko with a dose of poison which costs about!!!30 million Euros!!! for the dose that was used to kill [15] and leaves a track through half Europe, but on the other hand is said to have killed Shchekochikhin much easier and without leaving any hints or tracks :) Further everybody should actually ask- why the FSB should kill Litvinenko, who was not more than a pawn in hands of Berezovski, but at the same time does no harm to Berezovski himself, though Lugovoi visited him with Litvinenko after already poisoned him (Berezovski claimed that his team found marks of radioactivity on the chair Lugovoi has taken) However, all these questions, same as the statement of Berezovski about an "Atomic suitcase" which was offered to him from a "unnamed source", and the fact, that Berezovski got much more profit from the death of Litvinenko than FSB could ever dream of, are significantly not so well published in the western mass mediaCaesar Augustvs (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's be constuctive here. Either we are trying to disengage in this and Litvinenko articles, or let's go ahead and develop this subject. There are numerous reliable references that FSB was behind a lot of terrorism acts: these bombings, Dagestan invasion, Moscow hostage crisis, many smaller bombings, murders of Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, Shchekochikhin and Yushenkov, poisoning of Gaidar, visit of Zawahiri, and so on. But everything depends on the focus. This could be a narrowly defined Alleged terrorism by Putin's government or a more general subject that begins from support of international terrorists by the KGB. Any suggestions are welcome.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for reminding about "nuclear suitcases"! That was also a notable controversy sourced by Lunev and others.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I d like to stay here :) but than we should keep in mind and in the article these details about Litvinenko and co. You can not expect from the usual reader to go deeper in the information to keep all the information about Litvinenkos and co. relation to Berezovski, or the relation of Kovalenko to the Chechen rebellion itself in the detail-article. I do not insist on the term "conspiration theory" 4.ex - but I insist to show the origin and at least a bit of the background of statements and claims same as you give them saying- "official investigation of the FSB". Thats why I do not agree with the term "independent investigation" as the only one this investigation was independent from was the Russian government. Further I insist the proportion of the information shoud be at least equal- means, you can't widely describe the accusations and statements of somebody, and than shortly mention at the end of the chapter "oh, btw. he was a little bit linked with Berezowski" as if it doesn't really matterCaesar Augustvs (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Miyokan ignored the suggestion how to stop RR warring above.Biophys (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Same as you ignore my proposialsCaesar Augustvs (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

People "linked to Berezovsky"

Caesar Augustvs, could you please provide any sources here that Schekochikin, Yushekov and others were "people of Berezovsky" as your insertions suggest? Biophys (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is this. If you want to criticize these people, we have a special "Criticism" part for that. Please insert your information there.Biophys (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, this is really annoying now: I gave you the sourses, you say "well they all seems to be valid sources", than you simply delete the parts I ve included and ask for sources again! There are ALL the sources given, just have a look to the version where I wrote this. About Yushenkov- just remember, he was one of the Chairmen of the Berezovski sponsored "Liberal Russia" and significatly killed soon after his conflict with Berezovski (where he said the party refuses the money from Berezovski from now on and is going to decide about his position as another chairmen of the party... Caesar Augustvs (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First, all such materials belong to "Criticism" section. Second, please provide sources claiming that Schekochikhin was "connected" to Berezovsky. Third, all these "connection" speculations are OR and WP:SYN. Yes, his party was allegedly partly funded by Berezovsky. Hence (you conclude) his views about Russian apartment bombings are unreliable. This is WP:SYN.Biophys (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So...First -dear Biophys, finally you do not deny all the others except Schekochikin were linked with Berezovski? Second- what is about "unreliable? Does a connection with Berezovski make someone’s POV more or less reliable? Actually not at all- maybe it's your POV but others appreciate such connections with a very notable businessman! ;) So you see- this information is important and not bad or good, it is simply information. Criticism is a single chapter, pretty far to the end of the article. You can not expect a hasty reader to go so far. On the other hand, without mentioning this criticism in the introducing makes the theory of the involvement of the FSB looking much more serious than it is comparing to the criticism

Caesar Augustvs (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever these critics receive money from is a detail. It can be added to the article, but not in the introduction. I made a compromise version - PietervHuis (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not just detail! Or should we mention all the participants of the official investigation also with their names and titels only and hereby forget to mention they all work for the governent??? Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They work for the government, Berezovski doesn't work for anyone. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course he does! He works for himself, and people receiving money from him work for him. If someone is linked with Berezovksi via other connections, like co.chairmanship of a party, business contacts and so on, he maybe is not necessarily working for Berezovski, but is however linked with him. These are facts, you like it or not.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm yes and how does it matter? It's the same as mentioning he has blue eyes or something. - - PietervHuis (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just a simple comparison, if you remember the time of WW2 you could find a lot of important people with important sounding titles supporting Hitler everywhere they could - just think about what would change in the PoV ot the world, if you forget to mention they all were parts of the Nazi ideology? Similar situation is here- Berezovski is not a simple, small businessman not caring about anything but making money- he is a politician with high ambitions, he is ready to support even a revolution in Russia, means he is up to use nearly ANY methods to achieve his aims. Dont you remember him confessing of necessity of a sacral sacrifice? After all this, you can not insist, people working for him, having other relations with him (as here - "fighting alonside with him" against the government") have actually nothing to do with his aims :)Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

None of reliable sources claims that Schekochikhin or even Yushenkov "worked for Berezovsky". For example, someone (e.g. Soros) can donate money to US Democratic Party, but no one tells that "Clinton works for Soros". The apartment fee of Litvineko in London was funded through a grant from a fund ("Civil liberties") established by Berezovsky. If my scientific work if funded through a grant established by Mr. Wallgreen, it does not mean that I "work for Mr. Wallgreen".Biophys (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bio you re really funny now :) Berezovksi himself said he paid Litvinenko an amount of 5000 pounds a month for rescuing his life, and bought him a house, and you now say such funny things :) I already told you- just try to read the sources I gave you, not just the headlines. I hadn't have said all of them WORKED for Berezovki, I said most of them were LINKED with Berezovski, and this is a cool fact. If you will continue to ignore facts like the support for a revolution in Russia, necessity of a sacral sacrifice mentioned by Berezovksi ...and so on and so on and prefer not to see any connections between his behavior and such of the people he sponsored or supported, or prefer to say this connections are not that important... I will be sure- you do not want to describe the true situation here, you just want to push your own PoV- this would be nothing but ignoranceCaesar Augustvs (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Look- my main intention is to underline- the INDEPENDENT investigation was neither impartial nor really independent, the people participating in this investigation were not mainly seeking the truth but working for someones interests, same as you suggest the FSB did during its own investigation Btw here you have a link about Novaya Gazeta and accordingliy Schekochikhin http://www.smi.ru/text/02/02/20/3708.html Caesar Augustvs (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"the people participating in this investigation were not mainly seeking the truth but working for someones interest" That's just your own speculation. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like that- it is a logical conclusion, as you should actually know about the political ambitions and the history of the Soros-foundation on the territory of the former Sowjet Union, same as the statements of McCain or Berezovski. Finally - do you say: "these people were not mostly linked to Berezovski?" if yes- just ignorant, if not- than what is our discussion about? It is a fact and is important enough to be mentioned.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your logical conclusion and therefore should be deleted as WP:SYN and OR.Biophys (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all as I have not included this conclusion in the article- I only gave the information about the backround of the "Independent investigators"- this is something you can not deny- so you have no reason to delete it!Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry Caesar, but your argument doesn't hold water. Firstly, you keep adding a bad link (no one is called Berezovski) - and you don't even add his first name - Boris. You have to consider the audience - will they know him? If not, then there is not enough room to describe him in the intro.
• Secondly, when did these people work/have links to Berezovsky? At the time (the date isn't given in the intro), later, earlier... when? You also give no refs. The work is not up to scratch, gives no context, and is too detailed for the intro. Please add it later in an appropriate place. Malick78 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Malick- if you would have read the discussion here, or the previous version of the article, you would have seen - I gave all the sources - they are also still given in the following chapters. However I agree to current Biophys proposalCaesar Augustvs (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• The refs should be in the article at the time - I shouldn't have to look for them in a previous version. They should also be given as early as possible - this includes the intro. The article is such a mess I couldn't have easily found them later on in it, I think. Malick78 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Malick, thank you for criticism of Introduction. Could you also look through the entire article and correct whatever you think should be corrected? Some parts of this article are definitely a mess because of the poor English and other problems.Biophys (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I will try to do more when I find time:) Malick78 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

Current version includes a very long list of pure speculations by a single person. Should it be resized or deleted?

The text:

In his book Inside Putin's Russia Andrew Jack mentions several aspects in favour and against the conspiracy theory.[74] The counter-arguments included the following.

• Kremlin hardliners would take "considerable risks" of a wide-range Muslim insurgency had they planned Basayev's incursion to Dagestan.
• The Ryazan incident might have been an attempt by FSB to claim success in discovering another bomb. This would boost FSB's budget, reputation and power grip.
• An information leak on the alleged conspiracy would be used by a competing clan. Quoting Yegor Gaidar, "if there was a plot, the information would have leaked out and been used by Yeltsin's enemies".
• High loss of life in three month fighting following the bombings could damage chances of the pro-government party in December elections and those of Putin in subsequent presidential elections. Jack quotes an anonymous "very senior official" as saying, "if the FSB did blow up apartments, it was not to make Putin president. War was an enormous threat to the elections".
• Jack notes little credibility in Russian media reports on "conspiracies" at the time. Confirming any fact in Russia and, especially, in Chechnya was difficult, in his opinion.
• An expert on Dagestan Robert Bruce Ware believed the Wahhabis were the most likely culprits.
• Jack personally met Berezovsky in exile when the latter said, according to the author, that he had no information on the alleged FSB plot. The author concluded that Berezovsky "failed to produce any significant proof" of the plot in his further investigation."Biophys (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless you have some direct information (ie you yourself overheard some FSB officers planning the bombing) then anything and everything is a speculation , right? It is true some speculations are better than others. Content wise it fits pretty well with the rest of the article. Meaning that the two sections (FSB theory and counter-FSB theory) both contain just single quote speculations from some people. McCain offers no reasons for his speculations in his little blurb. So I don't see a problem there. If the bulleted list format and the length bothers you ( I agree it does jump out as compared to the rest of the section) then I might suggest keeping some of the more relevant points and changing it to a sentence format.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think these points are all important and not more speculative than the theory of BerezovskyCaesar Augustvs (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is "undue weight" (please see WP:NPOV). We have a very brief statement of John McCain who is a Senator and US presidential candidate versus a ten times loger statement of a person who does not even have a WP article. Therefore, this is against WP:NPOV policy.Biophys (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I left his arguments but made them more concise and clear, so a reader can understand. Dagestan war is irrelevant here. Which "competing clan"? Primakov? That was so puzzling - I could not even understand the argument.Biophys (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

interesting fact about the public commission

I ve found an interesting statement about the theory of the FSB involvement from the number 3 of this commission- Levinson Its in russian, but I will translate http://mn.ru/issue.php?2003-35-30 "- А версия "ФСБ взрывает Россию" рассматривалась вами?

- Здесь еще больше сомнений, чем в "чеченском следе". Не хочется давать оценки, но многие выводы Фельштинского - Литвиненко основаны на предположениях. Подчас - весьма вольных.

- Вы говорите, что вашей комиссии не дают материалы об учениях в Рязани. Может быть, не имеют права?

- Как раз эти материалы не должны быть секретными. Но, с другой стороны, эти документы были предоставлены представителям прессы. Главный редактор одной из газет написал на основе этих документов большую статью, из которой следовало, что это все же были учения, хоть и плохо организованные. Ему эти бумаги дали, а депутату Государственной думы - нет."

"-Have you also analyzed the version "the FSB blows up Russia"?

-it is even more doubtful than the "Chechen sign". I do not want to give a rating, but many conclusions of Felshtinsky- Litvinenko are only build on speculations, sometimes very questionable (actually the word "free" is used, but in Russian a free speculations means a questionable/doubtful speculation)

- you say your commission could not get access to the documents about the "exercise in Ryazan"? Maybe they are not allowed to give such access?

-Actually even THESE documents have not to be declared as "secret information". On the other hand, these documents were given to the representatives of the media. A chief editor of a newspaper wrote a big contribution on the basis of these documents. Following to this contribution it was an exercise indeed, even though badly organized. Well, these papers were given to him, but to a member of Duma."Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above about the "undue weight". We can not collect here hundreds of outdated opinions by non-notable journalists and others. I think all opinions of non-notable people (who have no WP articles about them) and who were not directly involved in the bombings or their investigation should be removed. They do not belong to Encyclopedia.Biophys (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see it here, this one was on the third place of the comission - Shekoshihin was on the 20th http://terror99.grani.ru/commission.htm I think this makes him important enoughCaesar Augustvs (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he was actually a secretary of this Commission (someone who did paper work). All other members but him are notable (Zolotukhin, Vaksberg, etc.). However only Yushenkov and Shekochikhin investigated anything at all. Others were just sitting and waiting for something.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you really that naive? If a secretary (chief or executive -and this is how his title is described in the official statment of the commission) is someone who does nothing but paper work I wonder why mrs Rice travels so much around the world!Caesar Augustvs (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wrong translation and citation out of context

Secterary of the UN (for example) and a secretatry in an office are two different positions. Fine, we can include his opinion but only in appropriate section. Most important, he told a completely different thing. Please post here the segment of Russian text where he tells that FSB was not involved. In the cited source, he tells about failure of his Commission, due to the refusal of Russian government to cooperate.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean the segment "Здесь еще больше сомнений, чем в "чеченском следе" from this passage:

А версия "ФСБ взрывает Россию" рассматривалась вами?

- Здесь еще больше сомнений, чем в "чеченском следе". Не хочется давать оценки, но многие выводы Фельштинского - Литвиненко основаны на предположениях. Подчас - весьма вольных.

Translation: "The version by Litvinenko casts even more doubts than version about the "Chechen trace". But this is citation out of context. He tels about failure of his Commission, due to the refusal of Russian government to cooperate in this interview.Biophys (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And what's wrong with this citation? It is clearly said - the version of Litvinenko is even more doubtful - this is said. Even if he said the government hampered them during the investigation further- this changes nothing in his statement about the Litvinenko theory.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this is wrong translation and citation out of context, hence against WP policies. Please stop RR warring. Biophys (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if you write this in even larger letters- I asked you a question, had mr.Levinson said this words? Had he said this in the meaning I translated? If not- please give a better understanding of his words. Until you do- stop deleting facts.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he did not. You included the following text: "Lev Levinson also admitted after one year of the investigation- the "FSB involvement theory" is even more doubtful. But in fact he said the following: "The version by Litvinenko casts even more doubts than version about the "Chechen trace". What does it mean? What version by Litvinenko? Version of what? What "Chechen trace"? Why he thinks that the official vesion ("Chechen trace") is wrong?. One have to write an article to explain. Such indiscriminate citation makes articles non-readable.Biophys (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Biophys, once more I see you seems to prefer not to read the parts of the source you do not like to exist- The question in the interview was made clearly about the "FSB blows up Russia" - this is the name of Litvinenkos book - and the answer was as clear as the question was -so far.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how to call this. I provided original of the Russian text and its literal translation to English. But you continue inserting incorrect translation out of context. So far, I met only one user who did such things, and that was User:Vlad fedorov.Biophys (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And who is this Vlad Fedorov? However, if you think the meaning will change through change the wording- no problem- changed it to your translation :) satisfied now?Caesar Augustvs (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Kovalev commission did not produce any final conclusion. This man simply tells that he knows nothing. Introduction is not an appropriate place to include such empty-worded statements. We included official conclusion by official commission.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will ask for arbitration if you continue this way - you delete important information in the intro. just because you do not like it, but if I delete equal information based on your own argumentation- you restore it. As the Kovalev commission never made an official conclusion- the words of Levinson are of the same importance as mentioning "the government hampered the investigation". So you should really decide either you insert both statements, or delete them both leaving the detailed information in the according chapters.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• I get the feeling that there is a general consensus against the info's inclusion. Sorry. I also feel that any arbitration will deem your edit to be unhelpful - only a commission's final conclusions can be notable. That is obvious. Malick78 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Malick78. You are very welcome to ask for any WP:Conflict resolution steps including arbitration because the community input is always helpful. We always include most important facts in introductions of articles and exclude empty-worded statements (like "I do not know anything about it") by non-notable persons like this technical ("executive") secretary.Biophys (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I ll try to explain till I ask for arbitration:

Let's see what we have: mentioning of the accusations of Litvinenko- in details, mentioning of an "independent commission" -in partly details. This gives the impression the government version is wrong, as it hampered the investigation (or at least the commission is tending to thing so) but says nothing about the commissions opinion regarding the version of Litvinenko. Thats why I think we have to include either both statements or exclude both- to stay impartial. Your thinking Levinson is not notable just because he has the word "secretary" in his title is pretty strange. I really hope it is not your true opinion. Just because he was not killed, or never supported Berezovsky's theories does not make him unimportant.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple. We have already included official final conclusion by official commission in Introduction. You insist that we must also include a final conclusion made by inofficial (Kovalev) commission. But Kovalev commission was unable to produce any findings according to all sources including your source. What exactly were findings by Kovalev commision? That "the version by Litvinenko casts even more doubts than version about the "Chechen trace". That is not a finding and not a conclusion. One can not even understand what it means. If you find any source where Kovalev (the head of this comission) tells: "we worked and we made such and such findings" (for example that "FSB was involved" or that "FSB was not involved"), that could be included in Introduction.Biophys (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this all might be true- for someone who really knows about the material - but what he needs the Wikipedia article than for? If you write "the investigation of an INDEPENDENT was hampered by the government" (according to their own statements) and wrote the Litvinenko accusations just a line before but says nothing about the very comparable commission statements about his theory further- there IS AN IMPRESSION given as if the commission either regarded the official investigation only, or found the Litvinenko theory not to be critiqued or more credible. A simplified example-

• If I write about a murder following:
• Person A investigated the murder and said the guilty is person XY
• Person B said in truth it was Person A who committed the murder
• Independent investigation of Person C was hampered by Person A.

The conclusion is as simple as it is wrong - person A was afraid of person C would find out person A is guilty indeed.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. If you provide any source with official and final conclusions of Kovalev commission, we can describe them.Biophys (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how you can be unsure. Just have a look at the simplified example once more and imagine the situation. There IS nothing said about an "official final conclusion of the independent person C" and this is the clue, as the describing of hampering of person A plays the role of this final conclusion though all statements about the governments hampering the investigation were also made DURING the investigation and had no official nature...in the meaning you used the term "official" of course. In simple words:

• how do we now the government hampered their investigation?
• from their own statements.
• were these statements parts of an "official, final conclusion"?
• no they were not.
• do we have any other statements of the commission about the Litvinenko theory except the words of Levinson?
• no we have not.

So what are we discussing about? His words have/have not the same legitimation like the statements about the governments behaviour towards the commissionCaesar Augustvs (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Your language is a little unclear so I will guess at what you mean - correct me if I am wrong: you say that if there was no final conclusion then we cannot say the investigation was hampered. That is absurd. The hampering stopped a final, definitive conclusion being made. Therefore, we can mention it was hampered, but it would be foolish to quote in the intro the comment made during the investigation that there was no FSB involvement, when this view could have changed later on. Your logic is highly flawed. Malick78 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if my language is a bit unclear- my examples are not! So NO you are wrong, my statement means sth completely different. I really wonder how you came to this conclusion! I ask you once more to read the two examples- if you still do not understand what I would like to change- it is really not my fault. The examples are as simple as only possible.

Once more: I say it is necessary to include the statement of Levinson in the introduction of the article, as it is not less important than those statements the mention about the "hampering" is based on. If we leave all as it is now the reader will get an impression as if the government committed the bombings, and Litvinenko's theory is true.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Caesar Augustvs provided a link to a Russian language source (an interview with the secretary). This is probably a valid source. The secretary tells the following: (a) the work of this commission was hampered by the government stonewalling (exactly as written in the Introduction); and (b) that they could not come up with any conclusion or obtain any evidence because of the stonewalling, and because two key members of their commissions were killed. This supports our existing text in Introduction. So, we can simply make a reference in Introduction to this source but discuss it in more detail in appropriate section, as in the present version.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention "c" - the journalist asked if they are only investigating the "Chechen Trace"- and the Secretary told that no, they also investigate the Litvinenko Theory of "FSB blows up Russia", and that this theory casts even more doubts than the "Chechen Trace".Caesar Augustvs (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• "a" and "b" were true and didn't change. While "c" was true at that point, it may have changed. We don't know and can only know if we see the final conclusion. That is why this source is bad for this aspect of the case. Malick78 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And who gave you the authorization to decide what is bad and what is good? As there was NO final statement where the members of the Kovalev commission said: we will stop our investigation as the government is hampering it, any statement was preliminary as well. I think Berezovsky/Litvinenko were not hampering the investigation of their theory... Finally- I found the source saying it was true. Until you find another source, claiming something different you have no right to delete this statement.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• This person views have been already described in the Summary of this article and in the body of this article per WP:NPOV. The citation you are trying to insert is taken out of context and do not belong to Introduction. It has been cited in the body of the article. Please stop edit warring about this nonsense.Biophys (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And what now? Kovalevs views have been already described in the according chapter as well, why do you insist to leave information based on his statements in the intro? There is no context in the source I gave this citation could be taken out of. It is a simply question/answer there. This is up to you to stop warring as you began itCaesar Augustvs (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

______

Theres not much about politkovskiya to find anymore, even though she also believed the bombings were the work of fsb and pro-moscow chechens. I don't know if she wrote about it but she said so in an interview, I can retreive it if anyone wants. - - PietervHuis (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, could you please retrieve the source? I have not seen anything she said about these bombings.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Was Politkovskaya a member of this commission? :)Caesar Augustvs (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why should she have to be Caesar? She was a respected and authoritative journalist. Her opinion would be notable. Malick78 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Cause we are talking about an impartial presentation of the commissions opinion. The way this opinion is described now is all but impartial. Please decide finally - either you delete the mentioning of statements about governments hampering, or stop deleting my informationCaesar Augustvs (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Politkovskaya's opinion would be something concise and exact. The fact that the commission was hampered is true and that wouldn't be subject to change. The fact that after a year they didn't have info to back up the FSB theory was subject to change - the next week they could have found something that proved it. Hence your edit that they found nothing is worthless as regards it being a 'fact'. The other two things, however, are much less likely/impossible to have then been superseded by different info. This is not difficult to understand.

Furthermore, the fact is that two or three independent (of each other) editors dislike your edits due to their unreliable factual basis. Maybe in the future this will change but at the moment the info you want to add is not wanted. That is the nature of consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malick78 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed she was, but not a member of the "independent commission" - so what are we talking about? Surely not about opinions of single journalists- only if they represent an organisation or sth. similar. And no- they said not "we haven't info to back up the FSB theory" in spite you would like to misinterpret it- he said, the version of the FSB theory casts more doubts compared to the official theory - this is a clear statement. If it was a subject to change or not- it has not changed. This is a fact- or have you found any different information?

Yes indeed- there are exactly three writers disliking my edits -you, Biophys and Pieter - and there are two who like my edits (Miyokan and Alaexis) - what now? If you three start to insist the Earth is the middle of the universe and the sun turns around it- will it become truth? :D Let us see what we have on your arguments against my information:

• first you tried to persuade the reader- Lev Levinson was someone nobody ever heard of - so his opinion is not important.
• than, after I presented to you the info about mr.Levinson- you started to argue his opinion is not important because he is a "SECRETARY" - really lol
• after I presented to you the info he was not A SECRETARY, but the Executive SECRETARY you stopped to insist on it, but now say - the info might have changed...

well - but it has not! All you presented as counter-arguments are not facts- not even real arguments, but only hampering of the work here! As there was no final conclusion, any preliminary info is equal and valid until you have some different info published later than the first one. BUT YOU prefer to include it only partly - those parts you like, giving the impression the commission acutally would accuse the government in the bombings if they only got access to the necessary documents! I will not allow such manipulationCaesar Augustvs (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Caesar Augustvs, please follow WP:consensus and WP:dispute resolution rules.Biophys (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• "he said, the version of the FSB theory casts more doubts compared to the official theory - this is a clear statement. If it was a subject to change or not- it has not changed." But you need a reference for "it has not changed." That's my whole problem - how do we know? We have to take your word for it. As for Politkovskaya, her view would be notable because of who she was. We don't have to just mention the commission's views - any notable ones are worthy of note. Malick78 (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • FYO Caesar, Miyokan and Alaexis have made no comments in this section on this detail. Why are you claiming their non-spoken opinions as being part of a consensus in favour of your actions? This section contains opinions of four people, 3 against the edit, 1 (you) for it. That suggests consensus against this particular edit. Malick78 (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

Following the rules I just started the request for arbitration. You two have obviously forgotten about the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

• I have a source and information
• you are deleting this information though the info you used for your statement is based on nearly the same source.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Kovalevs statement about Litvinenkos theory

Btw. thanks to another wikipedia user here you have some information from the chairman of the commission: I hope this will be enough for you to stop your "counter-arguments" http://beta.echo.msk.ru/programs/beseda/19169/

Я не стану уж говорить о том, что в самой книге, по тем эпизодам, которые мне как участнику хорошо известны, невероятное количество фантазии. Например, Буденновск. Это чистый вымысел, и ни одной ссылки, заметьте. Так не пишутся серьезные книги, претендующие на достоверность.

Well finally in the book itself, regarding the situations well known to me as I was a participant is an incredible large amount of fancy. Budenovsk 4.ex. This is a pure fiction, and not even one source as you might have noticed. Seriouse books, claiming to be true are not written this way.

this translation is not literal, but gives an exact understanding of his intention.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• And serious translations do not use "4.ex." for "for example". It took me a while to work out what that was. However, I looked at your source and noticed:

"Фельштинский, Литвиненко утверждают: "ФСБ взрывает Россию". Мне не хочется в это верить, но я стараюсь быть непредвзятым человеком и я эту версию тоже не исключаю. Я никакую не исключаю, ни чеченского следа, ни следа ФСБ, ни каких бы то ни было промежуточных вариантов, а они тоже могут быть. Опыт показывает, что это часто бывает. Я, вообще, не большой сторонник теории заговоров. А ведь версия Литвиненко и Фельштинского чистый заговор."

"Fel'shtinskij, Litvinenko claim: "The FSB is blowing up Russia". I find that difficult to believe, but I try to be a non-prejudiced person and do not rule out this version. I rule out nothing, not Chechen involvement, not FSB involvement, nor any possible variants, and they are also possible. Experience shows, that anything is possible. I, basically, am not a great supporter of the conspiracy theory. And Fel'shtinskij and Litvinenko's version is pure conspiracy theory. (my bolding)

Hence, he may not like Fel'shtinskij and Litvinenko's version (in 2002) but he doesn't exclude the FSB plot theory in general. Malick78 (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, thats why I do not insist to write: "the independent commission declared the Litvinenkos theory a lie"- but we have now two statements of the commission declaring them having many doubts about the theory of FSB involvement - btw. if you have read the source carefully - he writes about what HE thinks happened there. How many sources you have providing the information the commission have changed its opinion about the theory of Litvinenko? Hmm I think none.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what Kovalev said in 2002. But another member of this Commission, Yushenkov, said something entirely different. According to Kovalev, "Я думаю, что результатом работы комиссии, оправдывающим ее существование, будет скучный, подробный и чрезвычайно аргументированный доклад о разных обстоятельствах дела". So, he promised to issue a final report by their Commission. Where is this report? Without such final report, any preliminary claims are of very little significance. Rihgt now Kovalev would tell something different. Biophys (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Two things Caesar: first, he has doubts about "Fel'shtinskij and Litvinenko's version" of events - not all theories of FSB involvement. He says those are not discounted. Maybe however, F&S's version is more fanciful than other people's version of events and thus he doesn't like it. But don't extrapolate that to mean he discounts all FSB theories - he specifically says he doesn't.

Second, we don't have to provide a single source to say the commission changed its view since this opinion was voiced. You have to provide a reliable source to say that this was their most definitive opinion. I think you are yet to manage that. Malick78 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically, Kovalev and his secretary simply said they have no idea who comitted the bombings if one reads the entire texts of the interviews. They had no idea in 2002. But maybe they had a better idea after investigation by Trepashkin in 2003, or after murder of Litvinenko in 2006? Who knows. Without any final conclusion, all of that is hardly notable.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So, I re-edited the "Independent investigation" part to remove all duplicate and irrelevant statements. All sources are included, and the text is consistent with sources. Main problem however is "FSB involvement theory" chapter. It should describe the sequenve of the events according to David Satter- Litvinenko- Felshtinsky - Pribylovsky version (all these people except Litvinenko are notable scholars - so that is a majority academic version). Even title "FSB involvement" is wrong (this should be "Government involvement" or "FSB and GRU involvement"). I will try to improve this using a new reliable secondary source - book "Age of assassins" - a couple of weeks later, since I am busy in "real life" right now.Biophys (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A bit strange proposal of you, Malik

• How should I provide you information about somebody haven't published another information??? Maybe I should also provide you information about no aliens in the universe existing?

It is a same strange suggestion as if I would ask you to provide me information about Bush haven't ever said he likes to eat a living rat sometimes! I'm really curious if you find any information in the web proving this words to be a lie.

• I have presented to you two sources backing up my statements, you wasn't able to present even one saying something different!

The theory of the FSB involvement is mostly based on the Book of Litvinenko and Felshtinsky - many other supporters of the theory (like McCain 4.ex) refers to it in their statements.

• At least- just answer, where do you have the information about the government hampered their investigation? Maybe some final conclusion published by the commission?

Further- you seems to have overseen Kovalevs OWN theory of what happened in Ryazan 4.ex.

Мне представляется вполне правдоподобной следующая версия. Взрыв дома не планировался, но и учений не планировалось. Планировалась акция следующего рода, пропагандистская акция, скажем так. Во-первых, показать обывателям, что террористам неймется, что они не отказались от своих убийственных планов, а одновременно убить второго зайца, показать, что доблестные органы отлично справляются со своими задачами и спасают жителей, обнаруживая злодейский замысел. Чем не версия? Этот план, быть может, был и провалился. As you all seems to understand Russian I will not translate for now. An FSB plot like described here is sth. different to a plot described by Litvinenko but you two prefer to ignore thisCaesar Augustvs (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation: The Ryazan incident might have been an attempt by the FSB to stage a bombing in order to boost FSB's budget, reputation and power grip. But that is already included in this article (in the end of "Cricism" section).Biophys (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

View by Politkovskaya

Hey biophys, you asked for a source of Anna's statement about the bombings. You can see it in this documentary[16] at about 29:10. The rest is also very interesting give it a chance. The docu is dutch with subtitles but I figured you can understand the interviews in it. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems she said this in an interview. She was very careful not to write or tell anything about these bombings because she knew that would be a death sentence, exactly as Litvinenko said in the same video.Biophys (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The list of suspects/convicts in this article does not look good (the hidden list should be avoided per WP recommendations). I think about making List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings. The list would also include Putin, Patrushev and others - per reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation arguments continue

Bio, please stop with your wrong translations: If someone says on the one hand the government refuses to give him access to some documents and he does not understand why and on the other hands say the theory in Litvinenko's book is in parts nothing but fancy, (4.ex in such important parts like Budenovsk) and that serious books claiming to describe the truth are not written this way" this does not mean "he has no evidence to support any theory". Same is when Levinson says that compared to the "Chechen trace" the Litvinenko theory casts even more doubts - this does not mean he has no information to support any of the theories- this means, that if the "Chechen trace" is doubtful, than the "FSB blows up Russia" is even more doubtful. There was really no context that could relativise these statements. If you two would like to point to his statement "he can not rule out the FSB theory completely" - of course not, but the context and the meaning of this statement is the same as when a n astronomer says, he can not rule out existence of aliens somewhere in the universe.

• Further, regarding the "double information" - the introduction is a short summary of the article- is it obvious that ANY information in there will be repeated laterCaesar Augustvs (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your unilateral (against consensus) insertion of this non-notable and outdated (2002) quote out of context. The claim made in this source has been already described in Summary and in the body of text.Biophys (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Please finally answer where do you have the information about government hampered their investigation actually from?
• the statement "I have no evidence to back up any of these theories" and the statement "I have no evidence to back up any of these theories, but theory A casts even more doubts than theory B" are different things with different meaning, but for some reason you insist to include this statement in the first, biased form only
• Outdated? Have they published sth else later? As the answer is no - there is nothing about "outdated"Caesar Augustvs (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Current text of this article tells: "was hampered by government refusal to respond to its inquiries [6]". So please see ref [6].
• Please read the entire text. He said that they have no evidence and no idea who committed the bombings. Citation out of context (as you do) is inacceptable, since this is distortion of someone's view.
• A lot of articles and books were published since 2002 on this subject. So, your source is outdated. But what difference does it make if we included it any way? Biophys (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• I ve read the entire text- in other words- yes he says that he has no evidence to SUPPORT any of these theories, but if you ask him which is even more fancy than he would say - the theory of Litvinenko, don't you see the difference between this and the statement you prefer?
• Well, if you do not understand: all these books and articles published after 2002/2003 (as one source is from 2003) are based on the statements of the commission given in those years, so they are same "outdated" if we follow your suggestion.
• You ask what difference it is? Well, I ve already described the difference in my "simplified example" a bit earlier in the discussion. I think it is very simple to understandCaesar Augustvs (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You said: "all these books and articles published after 2002/2003 are based on the statements of the commission". No, they do not. If fact, most recent secondary source (book "The age of assassins") does not mention this commission at all, because this commission did not produce any results.Biophys (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me??? How can a book describe hampering of the commission w/o mentioning it??? And if it is not describing the hampering, what does this mean regarding our discussion? I was talking about "where do you have the information about government hampered Kovalevs investigation"...I hope you will understand and answer at least now :)Caesar Augustvs (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can repeat this again. Current text of this article tells: "was hampered by government refusal to respond to its inquiries [6]". So please see ref [6]. It is all there. This is already ref. [7]. Biophys (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I really wonder what do you want me to see in my own source, I gave a time before? According to you, it is the "outdated information"Caesar Augustvs (talk) 07:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Caesar, it's simple: once something is hampered, it has always been hampered. Nothing can change that. The info cannot be out-of-date. HOWEVER, info that there "is no evidence..." can change if evidence is found. Therefore that comment is subject to change - and so we should use the most up-to-date info. YOUR SOURCE is good for the first point, but not for the second. Please, we are going round in circles - we cannot convince you, you cannot convince us. Let someone else arbitrate if you really want to continue this - but I say again - CONSENSUS is AGAINST your edit in this single case. Malick78 (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mlick, the point is- I m sure you understand the logic of my statement as well as Bio does- you simply do not want to acknowledge this here.

I try to describe it as simple as possible: If I investigate a murder and say- well no evidences found, than- a year later 4.ex I decide to stop my investigation w/o publishing any other statement...you cant say after 5 years- hey, his statment about "no evidence" is not valid information and outdated as I might have found AND PUBLISHED sth later we just have never ever seen. Same I could tell you- "sure for the first time the government has hampered their investigation, but maybe a day after this commission published the info about them being hampered, and this information was adopted by all the News Agencies and other secondary sources -the government gave them all they needed, they just have never published it for some reason...or they have- and we simply do not find it...see now? :) Wikipedia has to use facts, and you seems tp prefer to use suggestions in this case...for some reasons.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

I think we should re-write the "FSB involvement theory". Current text simply does not explain what the theory is. It also duplicate some other parts of this article. I can try to correct this later.Biophys (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.Biophys (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is extremely POV

Why does the opening paragraph read like an Anna Politkovskaya book? Almost the entire paragraph talks about the "alleged" and "suspicious" actions, most of it speculation. It seems to be coarcing the reader into believing the conspiracies instead of taking a neutral approach to the event. What's the deal? This article is terribly biased. Raiseranch (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What Politkovskaya book you are talking about? Could you please provide a precise reference? She wrote very little about these bombings. As about neutral approach, I would rather work with a "Criticism and support" section, which helps to describe everything in a more neutral fashion, as usual.Biophys (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean it reads like one of her books. I just mean it seems one sided. Like a book written by somebody who thinks the government did the bombings and is trying to convince everyone else of it. For example, why is all of that "suspicion" stuff in the opening paragraph, but nothing to counter it until later on deep in the article? Either show both sides or take all of the speculation out completely. Lots of people just read the opening paragraph to get briefed on a subject and don't bother to read the whole thing, this one is obviously in favor of the conspiracies. Also, why isn't it mentioned that government involvement is regarded as a conspiracy by most media (like someone pointed out in a discussion earlier). Raiseranch (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Two first paragraphs of Introduction provide factual information about circumstances of the bombings. Third paragraph describes notable claims with regard to these events. Last, concluding paragraph tells that an official investigation have been conducted and concluded that the allegations are unfounded. How this can be biased? Biophys (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It does not tell that government involvement is regarded as a "fringe theory" by most media for two reasons. First, we prefer using reliable secondary sources (books published by experts) rather than media reports per WP:verifiability, and a majoity of such sources tell that FSB did staged the bombings. Second, even a majority of news reports do not cosider this to be a "fringe theory" (to show that one needs to improve "criticism and support section" as I suggested above). If you disagree, please provide here good scholarly sources that claim it to be a "fringe theory". They should be included in the article.Biophys (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No one writes books about things they don't think happened. That's not a very good argument. There are far more books about how aliens abduct people than how aliens don't abduct people. That doesn't mean it's a majority view.

And why exactly do you prefer secondary sources to media? The media at least has an obligation to try and get the facts straight, while books can say whatever they want and no one gets held responsible for any false information in them. Just because important well known author says he thinks X happened doesn't mean X happened. On the other hand, when the BBC says X happened, it becomes accepted by most everyone that X happened. There is no reason why you shouldn't mention the fact that most media considers it a conspiracy theory. Don't you think an article that only cites books that are for the conspiracies and doesn't even acknowledge official media might be a little biased? It sure as heck shows. Raiseranch (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

These are not fiction books. These are non-fiction books written by political scientists, historians, FSB experts, etc. ("The age of assassins", "Darkness at Dawn", "Blowing up Russia: Terror from within" and others). Authors of the books are notable experts; all of them are described in WP BLP articles about them. These books tell about things that had happened, but they provide interpretations in addition to bare facts, as almost any books. Please read WP:Source. It explains why secondary sources are much better than primary sources. If you think that article is biased, please provide your reliable scholarly sources that tell something different.Biophys (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You want me to find a reliable scholarly source that tells you that this article is biased? Or do you want me to find one that says the bombings weren't done by the government? I thought I already explained that people don't usually write books about things that didn't happen. No one writes books about how no one ever gets abducted by aliens, just like no one writes books about why the bombings weren't done by the government. Understand?

Well I can already tell from your replies in this discussion and earlier ones that you're a biased editor, and admittedly so, which explains why this article is such a laughable mess. I'm not going to bother arguing anymore, I was just pointing out my observations about this article and you have not convinced me to change my mind, and likely will not. Raiseranch (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean any book that describes this bombing story in sufficient detail rather than briefly mentioning it.Biophys (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Raiseranch, please keep cool:) I just reread the intro and one paragraph (or rather, two thirds of the third para) on alternative theories seems fair, especially when talking about a country like Russia that isn't governed by the rule of law. Malick78 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"especially when talking about a country like Russia that isn't governed by the rule of law."

Oh wow. This explains everything. Raiseranch (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Craig Murray's view

From here I found the following view of Craig Murray, Britain's ex-Ambassador to Uzbekistan. I think it shows that it's not just 'conspiracy theorists' that believe the FSB was involved:

"It was not only Politkovskaya and Litvinenko who believed that the Russian security services carried out the bombings of apartment blocks in 2000 which justified that attack. I can tell you for certain that many professionals in the FCO believe it too, and I personally read reporting from our Embassy in Moscow which took it very seriously indeed. As highly respected Russia expert David Satter, who at the time of the bombings was Moscow Correspondent of the Financial Times, wrote in his book Darkness at Dawn: Both the logic of the political situation and the weight of the evidence lead overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the Russian leadership itself was responsible for the bombings of the apartment buildings."

This perhaps can be cited in "support" section. Unfotunately, he does not provide any new factual information. If you could clean this article up and check English, that would be great. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

One of users repeatedly removed professions/credentials of people (like "journalist", etc.). That is important to mention, so a reader can judge immediately who is telling what. Also, a new section "confession under torure" was created about an episod that had been already described in article Aleksey Galkin. This hardly deserves a separate section.Biophys (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we have a problem here. Previous credentials of creators of "FSB murderers" theory IMHO have little to do with event we discuss. They were and/or are historians, politicos and such but within confines of main event discussed in article they are anti-Putin activists. No less, but no more. Their regalia had been earned in other areas. They did not become prominent on the back of discussed theory. On the flip side, alleged torture of Galkin is extremely relevant to the article, as his confessions are presented in it front and centre nor less than 3 times. And you wish to bury it in personal article on Galkin, who was not prominent person before or after discussed event. Moreover, being a researcher, you are aware that description of methodology used to gather data is an integral part of research. If research includes data obtained from KGB archives, it should be stated. If research includes data obtained under torture, it should be stated. Why did your scientific background fail so profoundly here? RJ CG (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

O'K, let's describe the episode with Galkin in a separate section as a factual event. As about profession - this is really important. A reader should know who is making a claim: a professional historian, a politician, a journalist, or a person from the street. This is WP:Verifiability matter. Biophys (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of the professional credentials had been discussed to the death in different sections of Wikipedia, my favourite example being Robert Conquest. There's always problem what part of credentials editor chooses to use in order to boost/discount opinion of a person. I am sure you understand difference between "according to famous researcher Conquest" and "according to professional anti-Soviet agitator Conquest". And you know the funniest part of this excercise? Both statements are 100% verifiable truth. I see only one way out of this controversy and this is avoiding credentials of anyone worthy of WP page. Are you interested in background of person making statement? Click the linky and enlighten yourself. This is the beauty of hyperlinks. RJ CG (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Now let's continue our discussion of the placement of Galkin's saga. Let's use scientific approach again. What do we have here? Event (bombing) and two versions (let's call them "Chechen" and "FSB") of whodunit. Are Galkin's confession and circumstances surrounding it important for the main event? IMHO not particularly. Buildings blew up before he made and revoked his statement. Is Galkin's saga important for "Chechen" version? Absolutely not. It is not used by either proponents or opponents of it. Is it important for "FSB" version? Yes it is. As far as I can tell from the article, proponents of "FSB" theory repeat Galkin's confession word by word. So, where should it be? Right, under "FSB" theory, exactly where I placed it. Now let's talk about section's name. Is it important for the article that it was Galkin and not Vasya Pupkin who said that he was tortured/ Nope, what is important for the theory that it allegedly used data obtained under torture. That's why I named section as I did instead of warm snot of "Statement of Galkin". And last but not least, I do not like your preaching of "looking for consensus" combined with summarily reversal without previous discussion. RJ CG (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing? I agreed with some of your changes but you reverted a compromise version without any discussion. Please stop RR warringBiophys (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought I explained my edits before, but if I accidentally deleted something unexplained, please accept my apologies. RJ CG (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree to keep Galkin's story as a separate section (as you suggested), but this then should be described as a factual story/controversy: he was taken by rebels, he gave an interview, he then escaped and told he was tortured. Then we would mention in "FSB theory" that the involvement of GRU in Byinaksk was partly based on Galkin's words). Is it a reasonable compromise?Biophys (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not being abundantly clear, but I proposed to have Galkin's story as subsection under "FSB theory" section, as it does not add anything (or deducts from anything) in other parts of the article. And, despite your severe disappointment that theory you clearly favour is probably partially based on information obtained under torture (this is talk page so I guess I'm free to express my deepest conviction that "alleged" is really ambiguous here, guy suffered 4 broken ribs and his jaw was broken trice), I would really prefer to mention torture in subsection header. RJ CG (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not good. Right now it tells: "This is partly based on a testimony of a GRU officer Aleksey Galkin (we should add: "see below" - this is bad). We should either combine both parts together in "FSB theory" ("This is partly based on a testimony of a GRU officer Aleksey Galkin and then tell his story, but he was tortured, etc., which requires a whole paragraph at least), or we can make an independent section about him, considering that his story was important. Second way is a better structuring of material, so it is preferred.Biophys (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I made version (a) as a compromise. But I still insist that we must define people who make important claims as "political scientist", "journalist", writer, etc. PietervHuis, what do you think about it?Biophys (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think that allegation of torture (from guy with numerous broken bones in his body) deserves more prominent coverage than three short sentences in the end of one subsection? And why should we define people as "political scientist" instead of "torturer's accomplice", as both seem to be easily applicable to the same person? RJ CG (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want a more prominent coverage, we can make this a separate section after description of all other events, as I did previously but you reverted (version (b)). "Political scientist" or journalist is simply a profession, this is not charged and perfectly NPOV. Who is "torturer's accomplice"? Robert Young Pelton?Biophys (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You still did not tell why Galkin's story (relevant only to one section of the article) should not be subsection of this section, but must be placed as far apart from section it relevant to as to maximize chances of the casual reader not linking them in a single event they were. Speaking about "professions", it is slippery path as I said. Very moniker "scientist" assumes analytical approach and impartiality, which is very heavily questioned in this particular case by great many people. That is why I proposed complete elimination of credentials, as each and every person mentioned here has WP page devoted to him. RJ CG (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of "torturer's accomplice" moniker (although "torturer's own scribe" seems more correct to me), you may want to familiarize yourself with Walter Duranty and how his critics described him for his reporting (for taking "confessions" of Stalin's victims at face value). Why shouldn't we apply same approach to Pelton? RJ CG (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking that Robert Young Pelton is a "torturer's accomplice"? Yes or no, please. What is your argument to remove people's profession/background? So far I do not see any. Certainly, we are not going to discuss here Holodomor denial and other controversial articles. If you want to refer to something, please refer to WP guidelines.Biophys (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No answer here?Biophys (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you stop to drink brandy in the morning? Yes or no, please. Same type of question. Besides, my personal opinion of Pelton is my POV and absolutely irrelevant here. I deliberately sharpened the point to demonstrate potential pitfalls of using credentials. I see even more potential problems when credentials are used to boost controversial theories but not really related to this theory. It is as to say that New Chronology theory comes from great scientist Fomenko and omit a detail that he actually great mathematician, not historian. Devil is in details, humankind came to this conclusion for a reason. RJ CG (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It is always helpful to tell who makes a claim. If a crazy academician like Trofim Lysenko promotes a pseudoscience, we can tell "this academician said Genetics is wrong". Please do not make edit summaries like "No one of those ppl got their credentials for their work on the theory, so it is not appropriate to use credentials to boost the theory." to justify your deletions of people's backgrounds (this has been already discussed above). People gain their credentials (like PhD degree) and training during all their life, not during writing a specific article on the subject. Main point is that Litvinenko, Felshtinsky, Trepashkin, Satter and others made an extensive research and prepared a number of publications on this subject (which could be emphasized).Biophys (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Galkin story

RJ CG just moved the paragraph telling in edit comment that "Galkin's story is chapter of "FSB involvement" theory, as discussed on talk page." No, it is not. Please read WP:NPOV#a simple formulation. It askes to separate opinions and facts, and emphasize facts. The ordeal of Galkin is fact and should be described together with other facts ("The bombings", "Ryazan incident" and so on). Theory of Russian government involvement is mostly an interpretation. Hence it can refer to facts (described in the article before). Only such solution is consistent with WP:NPOV and makes everything in logical order.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as soon as clear link between Galkin's story and Buynaksk is established. RJ CG (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Casus Belli

Quick question here. I myself haven't read much about the Casus belli of the 2nd war. Did the Kremlin even bother to blame Ichkeria's government? All I've seen is Putin say that he felt like "killing terrorists while they were taking a dump" or something, and then he attacked Chechnya. The investigation doesn't even mention Maskhadov or government officials though. Is there a report in Russian by the government about the exact reasons why Russia launched the war?

(A fun fact is that Maskhadov was one of the first to mention the possibility that the FSB was behind the bombings [17]).

Same goes for the Dagestan War. Did they even bother arguing that Maskhadov and Khattab/Basayev were co-operating? - PietervHuis (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember bombings were pushed back by the Basayev's Dagestan trip. It was something like "They invaded our Homeland _{(oh, and bombed civilians in Moscow and other places too)}" Makhadov's position was pictured as irrelevant by the Russian media, who portrayed him as nothing more than talking head of warring clans, devoid of any real influence over the course of events. RJ CG (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As written in this article, "Russian military analyst Pavel Fengelhauer noted "The FSB accused Khattab and Gochiyaev, but oddly they did not point the finger at Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov's regime, which is what the war was launched against" [ref].". Yes, the investigation (which was completed only in 2002!) does not mention Maskhadov. And Khattab did not ever obey any orders from Maskhadov, being "an independent terrorist". This is like United States luanching a war against the State of Michigan, because a dangerous terrorist (like Khattab) operates from Michigan territory, and not notifying the governor of Michigan. That is if Chechnya was a part of Russia, which I think it was. I can look at sources, but only later.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya it was still a part of Russia, but was 'de facto' independent, yet Maskhadov was recognized as its president. The khasavyurt accord said they would discuss the future status of chechnya 5 years from the signing. I read how one of Yeltsins parliament members predicted how negotiations would be extremely hard, but said that they would eventually have to recognize its independence. I can't find the source quickly. Thanks for the answers. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course Maskhadov was very much relevant as de facto and de juro (according to Hassvurt accord) president-elect of Chechnya. He was the person in charge, someone to negotiate with, and a very moderate separatist. His control over big gangs in Chechnya was limited, in part because these gangs, like Barayev and others, have been supported from Moscow (there are many sources). As about Basayev who befriended Khattab, he received a couple of millions from Russian government through Berezovsky (who admitted this), and could feel very independent of Maskhadov. The control of Russian secret services over Chechens was significant, and they proved it by easily killing Khattab, Arbi Barayev, Maskhadov, and Saidullaev when they were not needed any more in their political games. Basayev was still needed as an examplory terrorist and "enemy of the state", and he died in an accident.Biophys (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A quote

[18]: Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russian Duma : "Remember Gennadiy Nikolaevich how you told us that a house has been blown up in Volgodonsk, three days prior to the blast? How should we interpret this? State Duma knows that the house was destroyed on Monday, and it has indeed been blown up on Thursday [same week]. ... How come, ... the state authorities of Rostov region were not warned in advance [about the future bombing], although it was reported to us? Everyone is sleeping, the house was destroyed three days later, and now we must take urgent measures..." [Seleznev turns his microphone off].

ЖИРИНОВСКИЙ В. В., руководитель фракции Либерально-демократической партии России. Я думаю, отсутствие инициатора вопроса лучше всего говорит о том, что вопрос лишний, ненужный. Оставьте в покое сегодня наших министров. Видите, что происходит в стране?! Вспомните, Геннадий Николаевич, вы нам в понедельник сказали, что дом в Волгодонске взорван, за три дня до взрыва.

Это же можно как провокацию расценивать: если Государственная дума знает, что дом уже взорван якобы в понедельник, а его взрывают в четверг. И в это время мы с вами занимаемся совсем другими делами. Давайте этим займемся лучше. Как это произошло: вам докладывают, что в 11 утра в понедельник взорван дом, а администрация Ростовской области не знала о том, что вам об этом доложили? Все спят, через три дня взрывают, тогда начинают принимать меры. Biophys (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up

People, don't forget comas when editing. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

"The largest terrorist attack in Russia's history"?

Really? How as this measured? Certainly not by deaths (it's Beslan) - by all casualties? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's hard to measure. Whatever writer calls it that simply speaks his opinion. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So let's remove the claim. Especially since it's not necessarily a 'terrorist' attack. Malick78 (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The was undeniably a terrorist attack; the only controversy is who those terrorists were. The cited book (a reliable secondary source) claims this to be biggest terrorist attack in Russia's history. This is not OR. This sounds right to me. Only Beslan claimed a similarly large number of victims in Russia. That was also a most significant series of multiple well coordinated attacks. It had huge political consequences, probably bigger than any other terrorist attack in Russia history. But most important, that is something claimed by a secondary source. Unless someone provides other sources claiming the opposite, this must stay. What you are telling here is only your personal opinion.Biophys (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Rushed clean-up

I remember at the time of the attacks in a paper it was mentioned that the authorities cleared the bombing sites very quickly - quicker than is usual according to international standards. I can't remember where I read this but has anyone else heard about this? If it were confirmed it would suggest the authorities had little interest in conducting a proper investigation. Malick78 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is right, and many sources claim exactly that. Probably this should be included.Biophys (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in few days. Also I remember the FBI offered to help and this was rejected. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Biophys would you mind if I placed the list of suspects back in the article? The second page kinda repeats everything that's said in this article. It used to look bad here because it had a lot of dead links, but it's quite an important list and this article isn't too long. I'll place it back unless you jest. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to put back whole list or only a part of it? I have no objections except readibility of this article. You can try to do it, and then we can look and think.Biophys (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I only mean the names of the suspects they are pretty important and people can check out their background and stuff (there's more information on them that we can collect, some were on the run for prosecution and stuff). I'm not sure if the extra page is necessary, you can decide on that. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Galkin again

The text by RG_CG and Krawdang includes the following assertion:

Galkin stated that he was forced to read before cameras "rubbish I had never written" and that he invented tall tales to avoid more torture.

I did not find this in Russian source (article in Novaya gazeta). Please cite where it was. Furthermore, main point here is that he did not tell anything at all about the GRU operation. Hence Felshtinsky wrote that he "did not deny it". If he denied the operation, please cite the source.Biophys (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First, no one agreed to removing all third party references confirming that he was tortured, and there is no reason to do so. It is important to know that doctors confirmed that he was tortured. Second, you reverted someones edits without explanation and without coming to the talk page to let them explain the edits. Please use the talk page first. You can ask RJ CG about his edits, rather than rudely reverting them in a manner that gives one the impression that you think you own the article. No one is going to die because one sentence was left in an article for a few hours. It's better you ask these questions first and revert later if need be, as to avoid an edit war. Krawndawg (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not remove any references. The text about medical expertise is there. There was no reverts from my side yet, but you reverted me twice. So far no one provided the required citation.Biophys (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

call for investigation by relatives

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121209647875130625.html - PietervHuis (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"A test detonation of 3 kilograms of the substance was conducted later, but failed to produce an explosion."

It was conducted/announced by whom and when? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a Russian source that claims the tests to be conducted by Tkachev (the police expert in Ryzan) soon after the explosion, without providing much detail. More reliable sources (books in English, such as "New Cold War") tell that the test has been conducted by FSB people rather than Tkachev in a special "firing range" and wonder why they tried to blow up the SUGAR. The official conclusion by the FSB issued a couple years later also mentioned testing at the range by FSB people. The immediate test by Tkachev seems to be poorly sourced, and yes, I would rather remove this claim.Biophys (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Or at least not present it as fact. - Pieter_v (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked at a few Russian sources. This is really strange. A "correspondent" not identified by name tells that first test was conducted by the "municipal police" (probably meaning Tkachenko), but Tkachenko himself did not tell anything about this later and insisted that the bomb was real. Another official tells that everything was send for expertise to Moscow... I think this should be deleted, especially since this episode is insignificant. Only final conclusion by the FSB is important, and it has been cited. Biophys (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Не нужно удалять информацию, обеспеченную несколькими источниками [19][20][21][22]. Пробный подрыв вещества из мешков действительно был, он был произведён утром 23 сентября 1999 рязанскими милиционерами, и он действительно был неудачным. Это ключевой момент, подтверждающий официальную версию рязанских событий. Насчёт Ткаченко: если вы до сих пор не в курсе, он отказался от тех слов, которые ему приписали Литвиненко, Фельштинский и "Новая газета" [23]. В общем, я возвращаю информацию, подтверждённую авторитетными источниками. Ravalpindi (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Конкретные цитаты:

• Однако пробный подрыв трех килограммов вещества, взятого из мешков, оказался неудачен - взрыва не произошло. [24]
• Как сообщили Интерфаксу в УВД Рязанской области, хотя при проверке мешков и были «обнаружены пары гексагена, однако при подрыве не было никакой детонации». [25]
• Взрывотехники муниципальной милиции сразу же провели тест на взрывоопасность, но смесь не сдетонировала. Сейчас мешки направлены на экспертизу. [26]
• Сомнение у оперативников вызывает и версия о наличии гексогена в смеси, находящейся в обнаруженных мешках: "хотя и были обнаружены пары этого вещества, однако при подрыве не было никакой детонации". В этой связи оперативники считают, что либо в смеси находился не гексоген, либо его количество было очень незначительным. [27]

Все четыре ссылки говорят о событиях 23 сентября 1999. Ravalpindi (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Tkachenko did not retract his statements. What you cite is a claim of an FSB general printed in a local Russian newspaper; not a statement by Tkachenko. Second, could you please answer the questions asked by "Captain" above: (1) who conducted the test (e.g. was it Tkachenko or not), and (2) when and where it has been conducted? Since the cited sources did not answer these questions, this should be treated as something doubtful.Biophys (talk) 20:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Кем было произведено? "Рязанскими взрывотехниками" [28]. Ткаченко это был или кто другой - источники не сообщают.
• Когда это произошло? Конкретного времени нет, но можно с уверенностью сказать, что после обнаружения мешков (поздний вечер 22 сентября 1999) до 9:00 23 сентября 1999 (время выхода программы ОРТ с сообщением о неудавшейся попытке подрыва мешков [29]).
• Где это произошло? Точно не известно. Но учитывая, что подрыв произведён рязанскими милиционерами, значит в Рязанской области.
• Про Ткаченко: "Разъяснения по ситуации и фактам дал и эксперт Ю.В. Ткаченко, бывший начальник инженерно-технического отделения ОМОБ г.Рязани (сейчас сотрудник ОБОП). Он выезжал на место происшествия и проводил экспресс-анализ. Вот лишь два заключения эксперта. Во-первых, газовый анализатор не использовался. Во-вторых, якобы "взрыватель" (штатный) не что иное, как охотничий патрон, и он не может подорвать ни один из известных видов взрывчатого вещества.".[30] - это именно опровержение утверждений о том, что в мешках находилась настоящая бомба. Пустышка это была, по словам Ткаченко. Ravalpindi (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is English WP. Please use English if you want to argue, so others can judge what you are talking about. I checked your "sources". One link does not work. Others are various local Russian language sites that cause strong doubts. Most important, you have cited certain claims, but who said that?. I do not see any reputable names. There are only anonymous "correspondents" and an FSB general.Biophys (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Я же знаю, что вы прекрасно понимаете по-русски. Но могу писать по-английски через автопереводчик. Мои источники вполне авторитетные. Вы просто в них не разбираетесь. Англоязычные источники по этой теме - сплошная пропаганда и вымысел, который выдумывается Березовским и компанией. Какая ссылка у вас не работает? PS Сообщения СМИ в российских сайтах никогда не подписываются и вы это прекрасно должны знать. Тем не менее - это самые авторитетные источники по теме, поскольку вероятность подтасовок в них исчезающе мала.
• My very authoritative sources. You just do not versed in them. English-speaking sources on the subject - solid propaganda and fiction, who invent Berezovsky and the company. What is the link you do not work? PS Reports in Russian media sites never signed and you should know this well. Nevertheless - this is the most authoritative sources on the topic, since the likelihood of fraud in them vanishingly small. Ravalpindi (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not for me. This is for others who can verify what we are talking about. You can use Russian at my personal talk page but not here. This link "traps" my browser. Biophys (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Reports in reputable Russian newspapers are usually signed. People always need to know who is talking.Biophys (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• У меня эта ссылка открывается без проблем [31]. То, о чём я говорю, не газеты, а новостные сообщения. Вот последнее сообщение агенства РИА Новости [32]. Никакой подписи не видно, хотя вряд ли кто-то скажет, что это не авторитетный источник. I have this link opens without problems [33]. What I say, not newspapers and news reports. Here's last message agency RIA Novosti [34]. No signature is not visible, although unlikely someone will say that this is not an authoritative source. Ravalpindi (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
• В архиве интернета сохранилась копия, может она откроется [35]. The archive preserved copy of the Internet, it can be opened. Ravalpindi (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

O'K, this new link is working. This is web site of a "Political Technology Center", a private "consulting company" (диверсифицированная консалтинговая компания) that works for many clients including Russian presidential administration, as stated at their site. The article was signed by someone Sokolov. Do you know who that Sokolov is? I believe such "sources" should be posted at WP:RS noticeboard. If others tell: "this is a reliable source", let's use it. But I strongly feel this is not reliable.Biophys (talk) 21:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So, their business includes "PR campaigns" to create a public opinion favorable for their clients (формирование общественного мнения). This sounds as a professional disinformation agency to me...Biophys (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's an original source and details now, write that "according to the [date] statement by the FSB General [name], a test detonation of 3 kilograms of the substance was conducted [where] by [whom] on [date], but failed to produce an explosion." If not, remove this claim. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Saunders & Vanora Bennett

Write who thery are, as they have no articles. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also Andrew Jack. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Vanora Bennett is apparently this women. Do you suggest to remove opinions of all these people as not-notable per "due weight" criteria? I have no objections. We have enough more important materials in this article.Biophys (talk) 17:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's still keep this, as not to cause objections. I included who they are.Biophys (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I meant: write in the article. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Nice image of the site of the buynask bombing.[36] The two images we have now are of the same site in Moscow. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There should be an article about the 1996 apartment bombing in Buynask too. There's a striking similarity between that terrorist attack and these terrorist attacks. It was also often blamed on rebels, but investigators say it's likely commited by some kind of fish maffia. Strangely there's not much material about this bombing. - Pieter_v (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This chain of terrorism acts actually started from the failed bombing in Moscow in 1994, which was conducted by Maxim Lazovsky and his FSB colleagues.Biophys (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not an article, but a collection of conspiracy theories

I am sorry. I am an Spaniard and hold no position on these attacks, but the article currently reads as a collection of conspiracy theories rather than a factual explanation. Perhaps you could consider to create a parallel article "Conspiracy theories about the Russian apartment bombings" and clean up this one, as it is done in many other articles with alternative points of view. Greetings. --MaeseLeon (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Unless someone puts some sources in English (this is the English language edition after all, and foreign language quotes are uncheckable to the average reader), I will scatter the article with [citation needed] tags, and if not forthcoming IN ENGLISH, I will be engaging in deletions of unsupported information. Put all the "allegedly" stuff in a separate article which is clearly identified as speculation about the incident rather than facts about the incident itselfMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Basayev 2004

We are not related to the apartment bombings in Moscow and Volgodonsk, but we can take responsibility for this in an acceptable way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis#Motives_and_demands --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RDX

From my talk page:

Are such tangentially relevant remarks helpful? Colchicum (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean I am not good in communicating with hot-tempered people, so could you please try to persuade her to move this stuff to RDX? Colchicum (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Colchium. There is no need in this article to go into the fine details of abusing RDX in India, etc. If this is a bit of general knowledge it should go into RDX. If it suppose to prove one hypothesis of the apartment bombing over another it should be spelled out and referenced to some notable source otherwise it is a original research Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Sakwa directly addresses the point in Chechnya: From Past To Future p.94 -95, and makes the point that Menon (I still don't know who he is - Mariya) says that RDX is manufactured under tight security in very few locations in Russia. Is that the same as the article that says it is only made in Perm. 'One' does not seem to be the same as 'very few'.

It was apparently made[37] in (p.17) 1984 in Tshapaevsk, Kuybyshev Region, and in ( p.21) 1988 in Dzerzhinsk, Gorky region, as well. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help with this edit please - dates of Chechen war/moscow bombings and refs.

Seeing as some people seem excited by by editing, even when I am correcting what must be accepted by all rational observers as a misleading position, can anyone help me with this? The claim is made at the start of the article that the bombings were a joint cause of the 2nd Chechen war. When I inserted a fact tag (for some evidence to back up this claim), it was deleted.
Perhaps someone could explain to me why.
When I re-inserted the tag, finally a reference was given. However, I have a reference that makes no mention of the Bombing as a cause of the war, just listing the dagestan incursion.
How can I include this reference, as there is clearly a difference of published opinion as to the causes of the war?
Furthermore, perhaps someone can explain to me why the Wikipedia page on the 2nd Chechen war says it started in August, but here it is the bombings in september which are quoted as being the joint cause of it. It would seem to me that one or other of the two wikipedia pages has made an error with the dates, or one or more of the sources has. Perhaps several dates and sources need to be included, and several points of view need to be reflected, rather than the current position which seems to draw very heavily on the work by Satter (what are you opinions on whether it has been peer-reviewed?), rather than reflecting a wider range of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 06:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have inserted your reference and slightly change the sentence so not to state as a fact that the bombing was a cause of the Second Chechen War. As a matter of fact I find division of the Second Chechen War onto the Daghestan War and the proper Second Chechen War to be quite artificial. It is like sepapating the Great Patriotic War into the Soviet War (on the Soviet territory) and the German War (on the German territory). Suggestions to improve the article are welcome Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Did Yeltsin do it.

I chucked in 3 CONTEMPORARY sources. At the time, it seems, quite a few folk thought Yeltsin may have been implicated rether than Putin. Hope these sources satisafy. The Los Angeles Times and CNN are usually thought to be mainstream, rather than having a particular axe to grind. It is also verifiable.
I'm not the best at quoting refs, so if someone would like to tidy them up a bit, I would be very grateful
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your version tells: a "false flag" attack perpetrated to keep Yeltsin[6][7][8] in power. This is absurd. Yelstin resigned soon after the events. If that was a plot, it succeeded to remove Yelsin from power before the expiration of presidential term. If he knew about the plot is another matter.Biophys (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Now YOUR analysis seems like a bit of WP:OR. The "Berezovsky narrative" is not the only one, and the sources quoted, right, or wrong (which is not AFAIK the primary issue) are reputable. Tough Luck.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC) I particularly suggest you read the Evangelista source for clarification of the Yeltsin/Luzhov angle.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC) And - while I'm here, here is an OR thought for you to think about. Your OR says it can't have been Yeltsin because he resigned. Well, are you trying to tell me that no politician has every made a really stupid mistake and had to resign before, so something that was supposed to help them ended up finishing their career (Watergate, anyone, just for starters)

Additionally, a link to the Yeltsin angle seems to actually be quoted much lower down the article (ref 41, as at now - an MP ref quoted from "Darkness at Dawn"). So not ridiculous at the time. Just not Berezovsky's view.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

AS a further note, Putin was not in a position to order the bombing to be re-elected, even if he was involved, he had to have the support of several others. This link [38] names some of the people who were involved in Putins rise, including Beresovsky, who played an important part in ensuring Putin's election (apparently a man of very diverse interests!!!!)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a motive for Yeltsin's involvement - well his political opponents had said that he would be tried for curruption etc. after they were elected.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The recent edit to Yeltsin's role contains the WP:OR conclusion even though he resigned immediately after the bombings which is NOT the context the event is presented in from the sources! Would the editor who added this please adjust it to a source-supported positionMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC) P.s. I hope everyone learnt something from this. It is not a good idea to tell someone their concept is absurd without checking one's facts. It only makes one look rather silly ;)
Maria - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this document[39] (prepared for the Ministry of Defence in Great Britain), the President (i.e. Yeltsin) was legally the head of the FSB in Russia, not the Director of the FSB (i.e. Putin). therefore Yeltsin was constitutionally and legally entitled to order FSB operations (through the FSB generals) without consulting or informing Putin. So, if the FSB were involved, it does not automatically imply that Putin was involved, or even knew about it in advance. The same would of course be true for the alleged hit squad of FSB men (of which Litvenyenko claims he was a part) - it could have been ordered by Yeltsin without Putin's knowledge. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose an analogy could be made with Nazi Germany, where soldiers took a personal oath to Adolf Hitler, not the constitution, parliament, or army.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the CIA

I have ONE source mentioning the CIA. I'm trying to find a second. I bet the 9/11 conspiracy oddballs would back that one.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dagestanis did it? - perhaps it was a legit terrorist attck after all

I have a very good source for this one - with analysis, and quotes from various key individuals. I don't have time to put it in now, but it will be appearing shortly. I don't really understand why, other than blatant bias, so little has appeared about the Dagestani angle before.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Sakwa (Chechnya: From Past To Future, p.93), on the 9th September, Shamil Basaev said, in an interview, "The latest blast in Moscow is not our work, but the work of the Dagestanis" and Basaev then goes on to equate Russian civilian deaths with "'Russians dropping bombs from their aircraft over Karamakhi and killing 10-20 children. Where's the difference'" On 15 th September, in an interview with Greg Myre, an Associated Press reporter, Khattab makes similar comments about targeting Russian civilians and cities. Sakwa also notes that in a later interview with Interfax, Khattab says that he will not be targetting civilians.
After dismissing the RDX arguments of Satter and Menon (who is Menon? - _Mariya), Sakwa goes onto conclude (p.95) that the most likely candidates are Wahhabis from Dagestan. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Murphy, in his book The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror, Pub. Brassey's, 2004 ISBN 1574888307, 9781574888300 [40] says on page 106 "The evidence that Khattab was responsible for the apartment bombings in Moscow is clear". He also makes the point on the same page that the Berezovsky story is that the FSB did it for Putin, BUT WITHOUT PUTIN'S KNOWLEDGE!!! (the capitalisation is mine). Murphy implies this is Berezovsky's story is a fantasy, and mentions what he calls a "second fantasy", that Basayev was really a GRU agent, and he did it for them using explosives from the GRU stockpile in Moscow.

Murphy also describes (p.104) the 9th September interview with Basayev, which Murphy says was with Czech newspaper Lidove Noviny, and that the words were "the work of Dagestanis - not our work".
Murphy also says (p. 105) that the Moscow bombings were "claimed" on 15th September by the "Islamic Liberation Army of Dagestan".
Murphy also gives the date of the Borisovskiye Prudy Ulitsa bomb that he says was found and difused by the Police, as September 14th, not the 13th as given in the article.
On Page 118, Murphy says that in June 2000, "the Russian police in Stavropol caught five of Khattab's graduates red-handed with explosives, detonators and equipment they were readying for more apartment bombings in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. The police found additional explosives already in Moscow". So it looks like the bombing campaign didn't stop after Ryazan - there were a few street and subways bombs after the Ryazan incident, anyway.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lorenzo Vidino [41] also blames the bombings on Khattab

With these intentions, Khattab announced the mujahideen’s new strategy after the Dagestani debacle. He was soon successful. In the three weeks following the defeat in Dagestan, a series of bombings ravaged apartment complexes and shopping centers inside Russia, killing more than 300 people. Russian investigators arrested the perpetrators who were mostly Chechens and Dagestanis and had received training in explosives in Khattab’s camps. Some of them confessed to personally receiving several hundred thousand dollars from Khattab to carry out the attacks.

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliabability of sources. Propose a List of Sources here, and chance to debate them.

Since (according to the article) Goldfarb and Litvinyenko are(was for Mr L) paid by Borozovsky, and Satter uses mainly Borosovsky sponsored research, the independence of some of the corroborating sources seems to be questionable.
So really, they sould all be replaced by "according to Berezovsky", as a single source, rather than listing his proxies individually. It is clear to anyone who looks that Berezovsky's fingerprints are all over the "Putin did it" case (I seem to remember it was Berezovsky that first claimed Putin was the perpetrator).
Easy to work out why Mr B pushes that argument, too.
But that in itself does not make Putin either guilty or innocent.
But it is just as possible that several other "independent" sources are co-related to Mr B or to another individual, group of individuals, political party, etc. etc.
So how about we list, and debate, our sources here, on the talk page. We can argue away, politely, one would hope, in an attempt to distinguish how many INDEPENDENT sources there are, and what evidence they seem to be using.

No, Satter did not use any "Borosovsky sponsored research" (as you said). His book "Darkness at Dawn" does not make a single reference to any claims by Berezovsky with regard to the bombings. The book "The Age of Assassins" was written by Vladimir Pribylovsky and Yuri Felshtinsky.So, this is not "according to Berezovsky". Please read the sources if you are going to dispute them.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting from the main article attached to this talk page. If you disagree with the info, perhaps you should take it up with the person who put it there, and/or edit it and/or it. I didn't mention the other two. Not sure why you brought them up.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On a wider note, Lenin's remark about 90% of the media being owned by capitalists seems particularly apt.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The books have been published by independent and reputable journalist(s), historians and experts. These authors have nothing to do with "capitalism", "communism" amd other "isms".Biophys (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How touchingly naive (at best) - anyway that's not what Lenin meant, as I'm sure you know, don't you

I think we have already established that anything by Goldfarb/Litvinyenko is anything other than independent. It has been alledged in the article that Satter uses too many non-independent sources. Also the first page of his submission to the House reads like political polemic, rather than acedemic exposition. This would also lead one to suggest that his work does not attempt to be balanced, instead is published to advance an agenda. Personally, I dilslike the world "expert" because it is used too often. Sakwa might be described as an "expert" (if you must use it) He seems to be the only one clearly without hidden funding (from whatever source). How many of the others, I don't know. Also on the subject of independence, you know that Felshtinsky knew Litvinyenko, of course. Does that mean there is a link form Mr B's money? How does Felshtinsky fund his life? Who funds the "Panorama" group he belongs to?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since your source ("Evangelista") is not available online, could you please cite his statement directly here? Who is this Evangelista? We do not even have an article about him.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you had actually looked at those links you were so very quick to keep deleting, you would have found that one included an ISBN - try looking it upMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the Asia times link? Don't you trust them? Or was it just an oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for you, Biophys, in case you didn't mean to be so rude by ignoring my sourced quotes - a little transcript. (the author is writing in relation to the "State did it" idea - he explores the "terrorists did it" elsewhere.

At least two candidate theories have been proposed.

The first is linked to Yeltsin's purported campaign to undermine his political rival,
 Moscow mayor Luzhkov. What better way
 to discredit the popular Lukhkov than to demonstrate that he 
could not keep his own residents safe from terrorist attacks?
 The second theory suggests a deliberate effort 
to provoke a "rally 'round the flag" effect 
on the Russian populance to solidfy 
the rule of Yeltsin and his designated successor

I hope that I have transcribed it right. The original has a spelling mistake in one case of Luzhkov, so I have even reproduced that.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is that a direct citation from 'p.81, The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union?, Matthew Evangelista, pub. Brookings Institution Press, 2002 ? I will check if this is right as time allows.Biophys (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. here it is.Biophys (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How reliable is Princeton. At a conference there they propose three explanations, terroist, FSB, and,A third option was also raised: defective gas pipes could have been the cause for the explosions. In any case, the Russian leadership has exploited the tragedy of the bombings for political purposes. Perhaps more should be made of this angle as well.


The Economist, which, as I am sure you all know is a reputable source, published a review of the book "The Age of Assassins" expressing some doubts about it. Link[42]. Perhaps something from that should also be included, as they seem to be the main "non-berezovsky" source pushing the quoted by the "Putin did it" lobby.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, this book by Evangelista is apparently a valid source. Author writes about the FSB involvement theory, among other things. I do not have any problems with citing this source.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As about economist commentary, it could be appropriate in article The Age of Assassins, and you are very welcome to create it.Biophys (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the author (Evangelista) writes about FSB involvement or not is irrelevant. He is writing about the Moscow bombings, and it is a suitable and VERIFIABLE source. So, why did you not show Good Faith when I said Yeltsin has been linked to the bombings, instead just keeping deleting my edits, eve though I provided FOUR sources linking Yeltsin? And presumably you will be editing the main article page to correct your mistake in doubting me.
Maria - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the present version of the article. This ridiculous statement about Yeltin is already there to find a compromise with you. I would suggest however to move it to the body of the article from the Introduction.Biophys (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to have to be bold and do a very large edit on the article. It seems that there is a bit of WP:OWN on this page.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found an interesting library source - The Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center - this is what it says about itself:

The Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center, founded in 1946, is the premier library in the Department of Defense (DOD). It houses well-balanced collections especially strong in the fields of war fighting, aeronautics, Air Force and DOD operations, military sciences, international relations, education, leadership, and management. The library holds more than 2.6 million items: 530,000 military documents; over 429,000 monographs and bound periodical volumes; 615,000 maps and charts; 150,000 current regulations/manuals; and over 909,000 microforms.

THey have a page listing publications about Russia here[43]. I have looked down the list, and I find work by Prof Sakwa and Asoc. Prof Ware on it, but nothing by David Satter, Yuri Felshtinsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky, and Alexander Litvinenko.
I can think of only two explanations
- 1) the list is very long and I have missed their names, or
- 2) the work of Satter, Felshtinsky, Pribylovsky, and Litvinenko are not considered to be serious academic works.
Can someone check the list for me to see if I have missed them? Thanks. Maria - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can provide another one. Obviously, they don't write on military science. Colchicum (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet the library lists Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia, which does not seem to be about military science at all.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And Jack, Andrew, Inside Putin's Russia.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not US Department of Defense. We have WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And Ware, Robert Bruce. Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts. Journal of Slavic Military Studies 18:599-606 December 2005

Funny how they seem to have lots and lots of varied stuff, but nothing by Satter, Felshtinsky, Pribylovsky, and Litvinenko (although there is some negative commentary[44] on Litvinyenko in the works listed by Gordon Bennett

Murphy. The Wolves of Islam is also listed by the Library, but in a different section[45]Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So I think the the argument that the library only stocks military science books seems groundless. Perhaps you should look at the list [46], rather than just criticising it. If your authors are "reputable" (a requirement for Wikipedia), how comw they are not listed in a "very reputable" library, while sources criticisng the 4 conspiracy theorists are listed. Do you think it is an American plot, perhaps?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, as you have just rightly pointed out. At least Felshtinksy is a reputable historian (working in the field of early Soviet history, which is as far from the topic of this article as military studies). Colchicum (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is peer-reviewed material, which is plus points for Wikipedia inclusion.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean that it doesn't seem strange that Ware is indexed in a military database. Colchicum (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Source - Paul J Murphy - The Wolves of Islam

I have quoted from this source above (Dagestanis did it?), and would like at least some of the material included in the article. as I have criticised a number of sources, I suggest we discuss any pros and cons about Mr Murphy here. He is described here[47] as, a former US counterterrorism official, who has studied in the former Soviet Union and has taught at universities and appeared on radio and television in the United States, Australia, and Russia. He has also served as a congressional advisor on counterterrorism cooperation between the United States and Russia.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC) That's fairly reputableMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Murphy named Aslan Maskhadov an "Islam terrorist", so I wouldn't consider conservative people like him reliable analysts. Grey Fox (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the PERSONAL opinion. Do you have any sourced objections to him? Or do I assume that he is reputable, but some people don't like his opinions?Mariya Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

according to google scholar, Murphy's book has been cited in 7 other publications.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Source - Robert Bruce Ware - various

He has a pretty solid academic record, his CV is here[48]. He has had quite a lot of peer-reviewed articles about Dagestan and Chechnya published, has presented many papers to academic conferences, and has also written a number of newspaper articles, which have been published in The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The San Francisco Chronicle, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Pravda, The Moscow Times, The Russia Journal, The Hindu, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Russia and Eurasia Review, and the Central Asia Caucasus Analyst. He holds an AB in political science from the University of California at Berkeley with Highest Honors and Great Distinction (i.e. the top grade), an MA in philosophy from the University of California at San Diego, then studied for two years at Princeton (a top American university) before completing his D.Phil. at Oxford University (which, as I am sure you are aware, is one of the top universities in England). He has taught at University of California, San Diego, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, University of Texas, El Paso, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, and Oxford University, becoming first Assistant Professor, and then Associate Professor, at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. He has also conducted field research in the North Caucasus since 1996, including a trip in March and April of the year 2000 to Dagestan, interviewing local people.[49]
That's about as reputable as one can get
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ware also reveals some of his methodology here[50], with the following extract being the most illuminating

In particular, none of my analysis of the invasion of Dagestan is based upon anything from any official Russian source or from any Russian news agency. My analysis of the invasion of Dagestan is based entirely upon my conversations with Dagestanis, some of them well-placed, who were on the ground in Dagestan during the invasions of August and September 1999

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The methodology you are talking about was used in other papers. I think you would agree that it is impossible to write anything about the Moscow bombing campaign based on a firsthand experience in North Caucasus rather than anything from Russian officials or mass media. Moreover, note that Ware didn't dismiss the "conspiracy" theory and paid some attention to it, though favored the Islamist story over it. Colchicum (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting prof Ware, rather than using my own POV. If you have any reputable published criticism of Prof Ware, then it would make a very useful contribution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He said it on an unrelated matter five years before. Colchicum (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

, as they say.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia says this (I have marked the most-relevant passages in bold.)

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

So can you please clarify on what basis you think Prof Ware's work is not suitable?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that everyone accepts Prof Ware's to be of a very high "Wikipedia" quality?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. He was criticized for scientific fraud/misconduct, and I would like to see any third-party source telling that he a good specialist on this specific subject. We do not even have a WP article about him.Biophys (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That's more like it. Unlike some editors to WP, I would actually like the article to be both verifiable, and somewhat correct and reasonable. Can you provide more details of this alledged incident, and its resolution. Anyone who looks at the facts should realise that Mr Berezovsky is financing propaganda about this whole issue, and therefore, nothing can be automatically accepted either as true or untrue. Other parties are no doubt also using the bombings incidents for their own political purposes, and also trying to misrepresent the situation. As I am sure you will agree, your brief details do not currently match up to Prof Ware's verifiable publications list, and he did publish an article specifically about the bombings in a peer-reviewed journal - to reject that one is also casting aspersions on the verification and control processes of the journal. A measure of the quality of the work published would normally be assumed if the journal was also reputable. That's one of the ways in which journals work.

On the subject of WP acticles about notable people, my former Photography professor is very well known in his field, co-published several important papers in the field of Scientific Photography, and co-edited (and revised) the standard UK University textbook in that field (The Manual of Photography - his co-editor and co-reviser is also not listed on WP - perhaps that's a couple of articles I need to write!). He has also been the Chair of the Science Committee, The Royal Photographic Society, 1993-1996, Chair of Greater London Region Association of Scientific Advisors, between 1970's and 1990's, and Director, Post-graduate courses in Imaging Science for (1985-1999):Kodak Limited. He is currently (amongst other things) a Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society, and a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. That too is a pretty impressive list, and surely both notable and reputable, and yet no WP article. WP articles are written by people who want to, rather than being comprehensive.
something to think about. Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

More directly,
1) Ware is described (and quoted from) as a Dagestan expert on page 113 of Russia's Islamic Threat: nationalism, Islam, and islamism Conclusions and security implications

By Gordon M. Hahn, Published by Yale University Press, 2007, ISBN 030012077X, 9780300120776
2) United Press International describes him as a noted expert on the North Caucasus and Chechnya in the preface to an interview published on 14th March 2005.
3) He co-authored an article in the Spring of 2000 with Ira Strauss, the US coordinator of the NATO committee for Eastern Europe and Russia (fairly reputable government job, one would think).
4) He has written for the Central Asia-Caucusus Institute of the John Hopkins University. If that is not reputable, then it is strange that it is the same John Hopkins that Satter is a visiting scolar at.
There are, of course, quite a few journals and co-authored papers that he has also contributed to. To suggest that he is not reputable is also to suggest that all these other publications, organisations, and individuals, are at best, very uncritical in their choice of material. Because of the implications of that suggestion, the onus is really on Prof Ware's detractors to justify it.
Furthermore, I have a reputable wuote from a reputable journalist (who is listed on WP), when talking about Lityenko's allegations about Putin that Litvinyenko was a fantasist, and was widely held to be so. Do you think that Litvenyenko's work, should also be discarded?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Google scholar lists some of Prof Ware's stuff and the number of times it has been cited (on page 2, there is a link to one piece by Ware and Kisriev that has been cited quite a bit). Hope this helps. Mariya- x -Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Ware's piece Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts from The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 2005, was specifically cited by Professor Brian D Taylor, an assistant professor of political science at Syracuse University. (according to google scholar) Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Prof Ware's work on Dagestan (in general) has been cited by quite a number of different authors/academics (according to google scholar). Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Additionally, Hain's book mentioned above is published by Yale University Press, which is the same publisher as Satter's Darkness at Dawn. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Satter vs Ware - notability

It would appear from google scholar that Prof Ware's citations are similar in number to David Satter's. On that basis, it would appear that they are either both in the article, or both out.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Sakwa

Well, Sakwa seems to be winning the reputation war so far. He has in the region of 10 times as many citations on google scholar as either Ware or Satter. Perhaps this academic pre-eminence should be reflected in the relative weight given to his views/work.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Sakwa also has approx 10 times the citations of Yuri Felshtinsky on google scholar. I am uncertain about this result because I don't know if it include publications in Russian.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Google searches is not a method to establish reliability of a source.Biophys (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the guidelines on notability for academics. I used Google Scholar, rather than google search.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is not a guideline about reliability of sources.Biophys (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

so you didn't bother to read it then. I suggest you doMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources

The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in Google Scholar or other citation indexes

Now that's only one of the grounds listed for reliable sources. That's why I was using Google ScholarMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Litvenyenko

Litvenyenko and Felshtinsky have just a single citation for their book Blowing Up Russia. Not exactly mainstream academic reading, perhaps?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

First, this is the only book dedicated almost exclusively to subject of this article. Second, person who wrote it had a unique knowledge of the subject, being an officer of organization that allegedly committed the bombings. Third and most important, Alexander Litvinenko is certainly most notable source - you should see how WP articles about him and his poisoning are much bigger than WP article about Sakwa. We also have two articles about his books. At least one book is written specifically about Litvinenko. Therefore, Litvinenko view qualifies as "mainstream view".Biophys (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Felshtinsky certainly does not seem to qualify as notable, despite having a WP page. Perhaps a reference should be placed on the Litvenyenko page or the bombings page refering to him as a "minor Russian historian", and his WP page should be deleted.
2) You seem to be confusing notability and reputability. Litvenyenko is notable - certainly most people are not defectors who die of radiation poisoning in London, leading to diplomatic arguments about the alleged incidents that occurred. Perhaps Markov was the most recent other case to fit that description. If notability and reputability were the same, then Soros' allegation about Berezovsky would be the dominant theory, with all others being subsidiary. Soros is extremely notable after all - he is widely alleged to have broken British Govornment economic policy in the early 1980's and made a fortune (lost by the British Government) in the process. Not many people have caused the British Government to reverse one of the mainstays of their economic policy, with the subsequent resignation of the Chancellor (Finance Minister, for those of you living elsewhere - the Brits like funny names for jobs!). Soros is also very familiar with the subject of Berezovsky. Less people have broken British government policy than have been defectors!
3) Mr Litvenyenko has had at least two books published about him. You only seem aware of the Berezovsky funded one. Another, by respected journalist Martin Sixsmith, (apparently published first - see alos point 8, below) suggests that Litvenyenko was killed primarily because he was a defector, and says that

hunting down and killing dissidents is a storied tradition of the Russian secret services, whatever their name at the time, Cheka, MKVD, KGB or FSB. He related, "it was the automatic duty of any serving agent who encountered a defector from the security services, whether in Russia or abroad, to kill him."

Sixsmith also says that two Russian laws Federal Law N 153-F3 and Federal Law N 148-F3 apparently allow the elimination of extremists including anyone "libelously critical of the Russian authorities", which puts the activity on an apparently legal footing in Russia (whether the law would stand up to international scrutiny is another matter entirely). Now, whatever the truth or otherwise of Litvenyenko's allegations about the FSB involvement in the bombings, that gives two good reasons (unconnected with his allegations about the apartment bombings) for his death. He was certainly a defector, and he certainly spread libel about the Russian authorities (remember the Putin is a paedophile allegation).
4) That, however, does not indicate anything about Mr Litvenyenko truthfulness, or reputability, or degree of research. I would remind you that the books of Erich von Däniken are the foremost works in their field, and there is even a Center for Ancient Astronaut Research. The mainstream academic view is that Mr von Däniken is at best either deluded or a shyster. His books did have quite a mainstream following in the '70's, they were sold in fairly large numbers, and some elements of his work have entered popular mythology today.
5) So, just because someone is the principal writer about a field, it means very little.
6) When someone sells a lot of books, it means very little, also. Popularity and reputability are not the same.
7) Mr Litvenyenko's WP page is actually quite reasonable, and uses words like accusations and claims to describe his work. This is correct. Whether or not these accusations and claims are facts is another matter, however. Ceratinly, the mainstream reputable published community quotes his work on very few occasions (one, according to google scholar)
8) Mr Litvenyenko also has his detractors. Indeed, Martin Sixsmith, who wrote The Litvinenko File: The True Story of a Death Foretold, pub. Macmillan, 2007, said

The view of Litvinenko as a fantasist, or at least an overly obsessive zealot in the anti-Putin cause, was widespread.

The Washington Times, June 24th 2007, talking about Litvenyenko, also states

Among his shakier accusations were that the FSB trained the September 11 hijackers, that the Kremlin had a role in the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground trains and that Mr. Putin had "regular sex withunderage boys, the evidence seemingly being that he had been filmed playfully kissing a toddler during his election campaign."

They're not exactly the sort of allegations that a serious academic makes, are they? At best, all 3 of those theories of Litvenyenko are very minor alternative views. Yet the first involves the FSB that you seem to think he seems to know so much about. The second would also seem to need FSB involvement.
9) Therefore one is left with the impression that you feel that Litvenyenko must be treated as 100% reliable about some of his allegations about the FSB, but that other (apparently ridiculous) allegations he makes about the FSB should be ignored. If a man only tells the truth some of the time, it is perhaps best to disbelieve him most of the time.
10) Judging someone notability and reputability by the size of their WP article has to be the most interesting idea I have heard for a long time! Perhaps you should read the WP sections on Notability and Reputability before commenting further.
Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I waould further contend that Litvenyenko's books are not peer-reviewed material, and should be treated with the appropriate caution, rather than blindly accepted as fact.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Litvenyenko's books are not published by a university/mainstream publisher, are not peer-reviewed, and appear to be cited by others very little indeed. (the lack of citations seems especially strange given that it is available as a free PDF download, funded, of course, by Boris Berezovsky).How exactly do they fit the desciption of a WP:Reliable source?
Furthermore, Litvenyenko appears to be a primary source, and the WP:Reliable source guidelines state

Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation

. How exactly does the weight given to his books fit in with that? Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have received a some input to my talk page. Do I assume that it is agreed that Mr Litvenyenko's work should be treated as a source that is:
1) not reliable
2) essentially primary in nature, and his interpretations of events should be mostly discarded (as per WP guidelines, if I have understood them correctly).Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss Litvinenko and other sources forever, but what exactly do you suggest to change in the article? No, you did not disprove any of my arguments (see above) that Litvinenko books is an exceptionally good source. No, this is not a "primary" source with regard to the bombings, because Litvinenko was not personally involved in planning and executing the bombings.Biophys (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Pribylovsky

Google Scholar also implies that the Pribylovsky article would have trouble with respect to the WP notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 14:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Simon Saradzhyan and Nabi Abdullaev

New source for discussion. Here[51] is their contribution. Decide for yourselves.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Evangelista - The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union?

Evangelista's book gets 43 citations (on Google Scholar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Berezovsky did it?

report from 17th April 2000

George Soros cast doubt on the official Russian explanation of the bombings, saying he believed the Kremlin was involved. He pointed the finger at an erstwhile business colleague, Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky

[52]
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So I can guess that everyone can see the point behind the lies and half-truths of Berezovsky and his proxies (Goldfarb/Litvenyenko + perhaps others). Everyone is looking at Putin, rather than looking at the facts. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be disputed on WP:BLP grounds. It is not entirely clear if Soros actually claimed this (based on the single source) and if Soros changed his mind later. If you find additional sources, this could be included in the body of the article.Biophys (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC) The personal animosity between Berezovsky and Soros is well known. Basically, one of them believes that another ripped him off, if I remember correctly.Biophys (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin double-crossed of Berezovsky (who, along with Yeltsin, and a few others, brought him to power). So how is that different. Berezovsky has been trying to get revenge ever since (it is in the literature!!! rather than being a personal opinion). Berezovsky uses his proxies, which some simple-minded folk believe. Berezovsky is about propoganda, not truth. Reading the available evidence (not just a selective bit of it) makes that clear. I do not know what happened during the bombings, but I do knopw that Berezovsky is very unlikely to properly tell his part in it, and is also unlikely to reveal EVERYTHING he knows about it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, Soros, as a well known business figure must have a certain degree of reputability attached to his statement. Whether Berezovsky was involved is an opinion, whether Soros says he was is a factMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

this book Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia. New York, Harcourt, 2000. was published by the journalist Paul Klebnikov. the book was very critical of Berezovsky, and covered things like his fraudulent business dealings when he ran Aeroflot and Lada. Berezovsky was not always the oppressed dissident he likes to portray himself as.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee S. Wolosky(International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign

Relations and Deputy Director of the Council's Economic Task Force on Russia), writes in 2000[53]

Unlike Yeltsin, Putin can count on the support of the public and of the Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament. He has also built bridges with rival political leaders. For a limited time at least, he can use this support to press ahead with difficult reforms.

To do so, however, he must first rein in a dangerous posse of plutocrats riding roughshod over the country. This is something his predecessor could not, or would not, achieve. On the contrary, these oligarchs -- Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Fridman, and others -- largely co-opted Yeltsin's governments, silencing most opposition to their conduct. As a consequence, they now threaten Russia's transition to democracy and free markets.

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wolosky also writes

The oligarchs dominate Russian public life through massive fraud and misappropriation...Meanwhile, affiliates of Berezovsky and Abramovich acquired control of Sibneft for only $100.3 million. In recent years, Sibneft has produced oil worth $3 billion annually, and its proven reserves rival Texaco's....Despite the fact that these practices are illegal under Russian law, virtually all of Russia's oil oligarchs engage in them...The massive dilution of capital has been another method of pillage. In September 1997, Sibneft (controlled by Berezovsky and Abramovich) engineered the issuance of more than 44 million new shares of its principal production company, Noyabrskneftegaz, at a below-market price. Those shares were sold to affiliates of Sibneft, who then transferred them to the parent company itself. The transaction diluted the equity of existing Noyabrsk stockholders by 75 percent. Because the stock was sold below market price, the transaction also resulted in the transfer of over $400 million in value. And Berezovsky and Abramovich later used their new supermajority voting power to merge Noyabrsk out of existence...The oligarchs' malfeasance has deprived Russia of the private investment it needs to complete its economic transition...The recent unwillingness or inability of Russia's senior leadership to curtail the oligarchs' predation raises serious questions not only about the prospects for the development of free markets and the rule of law, but about Russian democracy itself. After the last presidential election, in 1996, the oligarchs captured Yeltsin, his successive governments, and the political process....Russia's energy oligarchs have invested wisely; they provided Yeltsin's 1996 presidential campaign with unlimited financial support, which enabled him to wrest victory from Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov. And the oligarchs were amply rewarded for their generosity. Both Potanin and Berezovsky served in high government office, Potanin as first deputy prime minister and Berezovsky as deputy secretary of the National Security Council and then as secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States....Even after Chernomyrdin's ouster, the oil oligarchs' privileged access to power continued. Berezovsky and Abramovich allegedly handled Yeltsin family finances....Berezovsky's agent, Nikolai Aksenenko, was until recently the first deputy prime minister. Another Berezovsky proxy, Alexander Voloshin, is head of the presidential administration....Voloshin, in cahoots with Berezovsky, has been accused by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev of helping orchestrate Yeltsin's removal....Oligarch money has infused all of Russia's major political movements, even the relatively incorruptible, pro-Western, reformist Yabloko bloc. In addition to funding Russia's major political parties, the oil oligarchs offered their own hand-selected candidates during the recent parliamentary elections. Some even stood for election themselves. Yukos' Generalov secured a Duma seat. Berezovsky, who is widely credited with helping mastermind the meteoric rise of the pro-Kremlin Unity Party, won a seat representing a district in Karachay-Cherkessia, and Abramovitch was elected for the remote Chukotski Peninsula....Significantly, Russia also lacks a free press -- not because of government censorship but because of oligarch control of the most meaningful media outlets. Berezovsky controls the ort television station; TV-6; the newspapers Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Novaya Izvestiya, and Kommersant; and Ogonek magazine....Russia's oil oligarchs should be treated like pariahs....

Something to think about.
Demonstrates just how powerful Berezovsky was in Yeltsin's Russia
Most notable perhaps is this
Voloshin, in cahoots with Berezovsky, has been accused by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev of helping orchestrate Yeltsin's removal

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Washington Times says Litvinyenko was a fantasist - serious allegation from a serious newspaper

Many factors complicated the case. Mr. Berezovsky competed with numerous other exiles of shady reputations for business deals. The dissidents quarreled among themselves. And, as Mr. Sixsmith acknowledges, "The view of Litvinenko as a fantasist, or at least an overly obsessive zealot in the anti-Putin cause, was widespread."

Among his shakier accusations were that the FSB trained the September 11 hijackers, that the Kremlin had a role in the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground trains and that Mr. Putin had "regular sex withunderage boys, the evidence seemingly being that he had been filmed playfully kissing a toddler during his election campaign."

Link[54] Washington Times, June 24, 2007
Looks the Berezovsky narrative is looking more and more unreliable>Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This article is not about Berezovsky or Litvinenko. Only materials about the bombings belong here. If you wanted to cite what Berezovsky or Litvinenko tell about the bombings, that would be relevant.Biophys (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is - Sixsmith is questioning the reliability of Litvinyenko. He is doing it in respect of his statements about the bombings. The analysis is his, not mine, and sourced.

It is going in.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of page - suggestions wanted - how about 14 days or so for comments.

I think the page needs restructuring.
1) Withdrawn.
2)a) I feel authors names, and those of their books are far too high up the page. They should not be in the introduction.
2)b) I think the introduction should concentrate more on the actual undisputed facts, rather than interpretations and theories that have evolved from them. - Status - proposal listed below under "How about this?" - initial compromise agreed, but still open to comments
3)I think the three main theories I know of should be listed together, and then explored afterwards. - Status - discussion started, but needs a LOT more work. Currently debating relative worth of various sources, and balance between various theories. No conclusions reached.
3)a) The first theory is that of terrorist action
3)b) the second theory is that of Russian state involvement
3)c) the third theory is that of a gas explosion, which was exploited by the Russian government.
3)d) any other theories, such as a source suggesting the CIA were involved should be mentioned, but in a minor capacity.
4) In line with WP:UNDUE, as much space, prominence, analysis, etc. should be given to the two theories of terrorism/state involvement, without favouring one over the other. - Status - open for discussion
4)a) the gas explosion theory should be given lesser, but some weight.
4)b) the CIA theory should be mentioned in passing.
4)c) if significant new amounts of material become available, the relative weights of arguments could of course be changed.
5) Where published criticism of sources exists, particularly when the criticism is about aspects of one of the theories above (i.e. terror/state/gas/other)(e.g. Sakwa on Satter), this should be discussed in the analysis sections (such as that on explosives, where e.g. Satter's claims that it must have been the FSB (because only they could get enough RDX in Moscow) have been disputed by several authors who have pointed out that the both Chechen mafia in Moscow and the Dagestani militants have ready access to far more RDX than that used for the bombings). - Status - open for discussion

That's enough points for now
If it is reasonable to do so, it might be an idea to try to keep comments numbered as above, with any new areas given appropriate extra numbers
Well, waiting to hear from you all (hope I get a few different editors involved)
Mariya - x -
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can not discuss a lot of different issues at the same time. Let's take them one by one. Your first suggestion was to rename this article:

LOOKS LIKE IT@S GOING TO TAKE A LOT MORE THAN 14 DAYS!!

New title of this article

Your first suggestion: This article "needs to be retitled - Apartment bombings according to satter and co.".

Oppose. The proposed title Apartment bombings according to satter and co is not encyclopedic, and frankly speaking, ridiculous.Biophys (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being ironic (look it up) ;)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not be ironic. Be constructive. What exactly new title do you suggest?Biophys (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note

This is not a formal RFC - it is a discussion. We will see where it leads. If any issues are not commented, that doesn't mean I will change them to my heart's desire.

1) Can, I ask, purely on a personal note, are you an American - you do not have to answer, of course. I am not proposing a change of title. That's how irony works ;)--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP policies. No, you can not change everything without consensus "to your heart's desire".Biophys (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you are under stress from your edit war with another user. So lets just forget the irony thing. You just don't get it. The reason I asked if you were American was that in Britain there is a widely held belief that Americans don't understand irony (no offense intended - it is just a cultural difference)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that's out the way, any more comments on the other points?--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Then please mark your first suggestion as "withdrawn". Let's continue.

Your second suggestion

"1)a) I feel their names, and those of their books are far too high up the page. They should not be in the introduction.".

What exactly do you suggest?Biophys (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my numbering system is starting to look a bit rubbish. 1)a) and 2) really go together.

That does make it my second suggestion. Hopefully the others will hang together in groups.

Really, as stated further on, I'm proposing a simple summary of the facts as the introduction. So presumably that would be what happened in order. Suggestions as to who did it should be at the end of the intro (only outline info) mentioning the 2 principal theories and referring to the 3rd 4th - something along the lines of A number of theory have been proposed to explain the events, including ..., then perhaps list the main two, and then, say, put, amongst others.
the stuff about whose theories they are would then go into the body, in something like a theories explanation 1. 2. 3. etc.
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Then please place your version of Introduction here. I agree that last paragraph can be moved to the body of the article. The remainder seems to be informative and NPOV. First, we tell bare facts. Then, we tell about notable allegations. Finally, we cite official investigation that officially disproved the allegations.Biophys (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why have you not used articles in the comment above - just asking, no offence meant. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The current introduction is simply too long and doesn't comply with WP:MOS. How about this (with references wherever necessary):

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 nearly 300 people and spreading a wave of fear across the country. They were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen separatists and together with the Islamist invasion of Daghestan that took place in August 1999 were used as a pretext for the military invasion of the breakaway Chechen Republic, which started on October 1 and came to be known as the Second Chechen War. The Chechen militants and secessionist authorities, however, have denied their involvement in the bombing campaign.

This is more or less uncontroversial, as far as I know. At least this is how it was reported by the mainstream Western media. Colchicum (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You suggested a modified version of the first paragraph from current version and removed the rest:

The Russian apartment bombings were the largest series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Russia's history.[1] Five bombings took place in Moscow and two other Russian cities during ten days of September 1999, and several bombings were prevented. Altogether nearly 300 civilians were killed at night. The bombings,[2] as well as the Dagestan War[3], are considered the causes of the Second Chechen War. Chechen militants were blamed; however, no Chechen field commander accepted responsibility for the bombings and Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov denied any involvement of his government.

I have to disagree, since two next paragraphs are also really important. Let's wait for opinions of others.Biophys (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't suggest to remove the rest, I suggest to move the stuff down. The 5-paragraph long introduction is not appropriate per WP:MOS and doesn't add credibility to the theory. Colchicum (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Colchicum. Nice to have you on board. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we could add this as well.

The bombings ceased after^{check accuracy} a similar bomb was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 23. A few hours^{check accuracy} later, two Federal Security Service (FSB) agents were arrested by local police on suspicion of having planted the bomb.[5] This incident was declared to be a training exercise by the FSB director Nikolai Patrushev.

The bit about air attacks is already covered by the statement saying it is to be considered as one of the causes of the 2nd Chechen war - more information can be added in the main body of the article.
then:

These suspicious events led to allegations that the bombings were in fact a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB.

then:

An independent inquiry carried out in (state when) was inconclusive. The FSB also carried out an investigation declaring separatist militants to be involved in all but the Ryazan bomb, which was a fake. Subsequent analysis of the events by various authors have resulted in a number of theories being current.

We could then VERY briefly list the theories in a form similar to that I suggested earlier.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Colchicum, a few questions. 1. Where WP:MOS tells about the limitations on the size of introduction? I though it should briefly describe the content, exactly like an abstract in a scientific article. 2. Where do you suppose to move next paragraphs? 3. (A comment) The FSB involvement theory has been described in mainstream Western media including book by Satter and several other books. So, this should be mentioned in the Introduction.Biophys (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose the DETAIL of any allegations, such as that you suggested in point 3, should go into the body of the article. the fact that I am putting a mention of the conspiracy theories in the introduction demonstrates that they are to be given some thought. Many articles just tack the conspiracy theories in a paragraph near the end of the article.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

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 nearly 300 people and spreading a wave of fear across the country. They 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. The Chechen militants and secessionist authorities, however, have denied their involvement in the bombing campaign.

The blasts hit Buynaksk on September 4, Moscow on September 9 and September 13 and Volgodonsk on September 16. Additionally, on August 31 there was a smaller explosion in a Moscow shopping mall. Two other bombs planted in apartment blocks were defused in Moscow on September 13 and in Ryazan on September 22. The local police caught two 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.

An official FSB investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and concluded that they were organized by Achemez Gochiyaev, who remains at large, and ordered by Islamist warlords Ibn Al-Khattab and Abu Omar al-Saif, who have been killed. Six other suspects have been convicted by Russian courts. 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.

We cannot go into detail on the Litvinenko poisoning, Brezovsky or the Morozovs here. Move them down. Biophys, you know perfectly well that personally I do believe in this theory. But the article as it is doesn't give credibility to it and reads like a propaganda leaflet (ok, two propaganda leaflets of different parties). Colchicum (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the bit I suggested about the arrest of the two FSB officers should be in.
I very much agree with you about sounding like propaganda leafletsMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

plus Satter is not a dissident (AFAIK). I would also be a lot less wordy about naming names etc. in the introduction. The names thing has a lot of contention, and various authors have named various individuals. I think that bit should be in the main body. It is also disputed as to whether the primary purpose of the policy was to bring Putin to power, or to prevent fraud allegations against Yeltsin and his daughter. Mention one, and you are rather obliged to mention the other. Also regarding the Chechen war, as there seems some doubt over its start date, if it is mentioned perhaps the word escalate would be better than started.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:WEASEL, we cannot say "some critics say". escalate - agreed, arrest of the two FSB officers should be in - agreed, to prevent fraud allegations -- how is this related? I am aware that they were doing that, and such things as the dismissal of Skuratov or Primakov are linked to the fraud allegations, but then the bombings could only help here if they boosted Putin's popularity and gave him and the Unity Party an edge over Primakov and Luzhkov, essentially the same thing. We are not discussing their ultimate goal (like protecting "the family" or bringing the FSB to power). Colchicum (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose behind the bombing is not a fact. Simple as that.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Only the result, that Yeltsin resigned, and Putin became president are facts.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is not a fact, the critics' allegations about the purpose are facts. Colchicum (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Colchicum. I completely agree about Litvinenko poisoning, Brezovsky or the Morozovs, and have no problems with moving those things down. Your version is a good approximation, and it can be accepted after a few modifications. I am not sure that your description of Ryzan incident is better. Previous version tells:

The bombings ceased when a similar bomb was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 23. Later in the evening Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians and ordered air attacks on Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War.[4] A few hours later, two Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who had planted the bomb were caught by the local police.[5] This incident was declared to be a training exercise by the FSB director Nikolai Patrushev.

What's wrong with that?Biophys (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A modified version of second paragraph

I agree with current version by Colchicum except second paragraph that can be modified as follows:

The blasts hit Buynaksk on September 4, Moscow on September 9 and 13, and Volgodonsk on September 16. Several other bombs were defused in Moscow on September 13. A similar bomb was found and defused in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 23. Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians and ordered air attacks on Grozny.[4] A few hours later, two Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who had planted the bomb were caught by the local police.[5] This incident was declared to be a training exercise by the FSB director Nikolai Patrushev.

I think this is all (a) factual information; (b) it is arranged exactly in chronological order; (c) it explain more precisely the incident in Ryzan and its connection with beginning of the Second Chechen war.Biophys (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't agree. It is an opinion that the bombing started the Second Chechen War. That's why we compromised on the wording above. I have similar reservations about your wording about the two FSB officers. It is only assumed they are the bomb planters. No serious examination of this ever occured due to their release. It was the opinion of the local police that they were the two men, but I am not aware to the FSB officers ever confessing to anything.
I by far prefer the version suggested above by Colchicum. As it is, I could complain about the naming of the individuals making the allegations - surely the "most reputable" commentator is Sakwa - , respected very senior academic (the most senior of all the commentators), no signs of political allegience (unlike some of the others), no signs of personal emnity with any of the persons involved in it all (unlike some of the others) - so about as likely to be "neutral" as one is likely to get - and his conclusions are VERY different from that of Satter, Litvenyenko and co. Perhaps THAT should be mentioned in the introduction (Sakwa thinks Dagestani militants are most likely).
After all, I am not aware of any criticisms of Sakwa's character (unlike Litvinyenko - a fantasist - according to experienced (and resopected) British journalist Martin Sixsmith).
Anyway, I thought we had already discussed this once.
Mariya Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And to respond to the point that will be made that an official statement said that the FSB officers planted the "dummy" device - I am not aware of any evidence that says that the FSB officers that were apparently assigned to the task of planting the "dummy" were the same two officers that were picked up by local poloice. It is just an assumption that they were one and the same pair of officers. If anyone has a source which indicates otherwise, then I'm sure we would all be pleased to see it. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And they were certainly NOT caught 'red-handed' as has been suggested earlier on this talk pageMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And what with the Ware link below stating the most likely candidate was Islamist extremists from the North Caucasus , that one full professor, and one associate professor that reckon it was terrorists from the Caucasus region. Against that is balanced Satter, at a PRIVATE research instution, a lesser historian (not a professor), and a couple of journalists. Hmm. Which sources do YOU think are the most reputable? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

---

First of all, they were never convicted by a court of planting it. they were SUSPECTS. The points aboput the war i have already covered, and should be in the main body of the article not the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(1)"When" doesn't mean "because". The bombings ceased on September 16, the rest is an interpretation. The Ryazan incident and Patrushev's reaction are mentioned (2) the agents -- ok, if it is reworded slightly (5) training exercise -- already there. Colchicum (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It was an official statement by Patrushev and others that bombs in Ryzan were planted by FSB agents as a training exercise. All sources tell that the people who planted the bomb were caught. I feel that Colchichum should slightly modify his version based on our comments and insert it. That would be more productive.Biophys (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is good. I'm still thing about it. Give me 10 mins or so.
Satter isn't a dissident, is he? I thought he was an AmericanMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC) There is also nothing on the Felshtinsky page to suggest he is a dissident eitherMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. David Satter is not a "dissident". He is a mainstream journalist, author and researcher. Only Litvinenko was often described as a "dissident" in media.Biophys (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm done thinking. His co-writer was arrested for various political things in russia, so he might count. Plus 'the incursion'bit implies it was already ongoing and illegitimate. How about 'a large-scale incursion'. Other than that it is OK by me (I would still rather have a lot less names, but I am looking for compromise - so OK)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar point. should be 'public support for' not 'to'. plus the point I made about the incursion.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree (in a spirit of compromise - we will never all be happy all the time, plus I have had a lot of concessions, plus I can't do better, plus we need to move on)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am still not sure about a in a new full-scale war. Colchicum (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

clear case for use of the indefinte article. Use of the definite article presupposes reader already has a war in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And he does, see the Second Chechen War. Colchicum (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been at least two wars in Chechnya (don't know how many in the 19th C or before), the reader cannot presuppose which one. The use of the definite article would only be appropriate here if the war at the scale mentioned was already ongoing AND unpopular, and therefore could only refer to one war.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was more or less ongoing and unpopular. It depends on whether you consider the Daghestan War part of it or not. Colchicum (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But it wasn't a 'full-scale war' before, it was a small incursion. Therefore it changed Note use of the indefinite article in this sentence. Another use of 'the' would be if the line read' support to the escalation of the Chechen conflict' becaase the reader can reasonable assume that the conflict mentioned must be the one mentioned near the top of the article (as the size isn't explicitly mentioned no confusion can occur. Don't mean to cause offence, but you're not a native English speaker, are you? I had to sit through an English lesson once entitled "the thirteen uses of the apostrophe". Now 'that's' tough grammar!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend all night arguing about grammar. Just put in what you think best. I'm sure some other grammar buff will pick it up later. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Good clarification. Agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Except - the convention in english is to use the explanation on the first usage (i.e. higher up the page)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely all sources (currently cited in this article) tell that the caught FSB officers indeed planted the found bombing devices. Even Patrushev admitted this. As about the Second Chechen war, let's fix it if you object.Biophys (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the info about the FSB officers in ref5 (in the introduction). It is the one by Satter entitled the The Shadow of Ryazan, from 2002. It only contains the passage

A short time later, with the help of tips from the population, the police arrested two terrorists. They produced identification from the FSB and were released on orders from Moscow.

.Assuming Satter can actually write in English, and assuming the proof-reader/software was not faulty, the sentence does not link the men planting the bombs to the persons arrested. It would have to read "the police arrested 'the' two terrorists. That is what the word "the" is for - to distinguish between a terrorist (as in any terrorist), and the terrorist (i.e. specifically the one who was being hunted). As Satter is an American, and relatively well educated, I assume he can write English correctly. If there is a different passage I should be looking for in Satter's reference, can some please point it out to me. Thanks.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC) There also seems to be some doubt over the actual identity of the FSB officers involved. I quote Satter (ref 5) again

The most serious evidence that the Russian government bombed its own people, however, is presented by the Ryazan incident and, in that case, at least, the Russian authorities are perfectly equipped to refute the allegations that have been made against them. They need only to produce the persons who carried out the Ryazan training exercise, the records of the exercise and the dummy bomb itself.

If the police arrested the two individuals, and they had FSB identity card, how come the police did not feel the need to record their names? How come no-one seems to be able to name the officers?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually not. Sakwa does not mention them at all[55] as far as I can see. He only makes refernce to the training exercise (his words). He does not mention the police either. Perhaps the esteemed, and very reputable, University Professor, Richard Sakwa does not think it is an important point. For him, the incident seems the important point, rather than the methodology. You can rely on your less reputable sources if you need to keep yourself happy.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Asia Times[56] was pointing the finger at Yeltsin on September 15th 1999, a good week before the Ryazan 'incident' even happened. So naturally, there is no mention of the two (or three, including the woman) FSB officers. CNN[57] (also well before the Ryazan 'incident' was similarly mentioning that the bombings could be linked to a political feud between Yeltsin and Luzhkov, quoting Viktor IlyukhinMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The BBC report from September 24th[58], reporting Patrushev's statement about it being a training exercise makes no mention of the FSB involvement. Perhaps the BBC did not think it was a critical detail?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction should should really mention the work of Sakwa and Ware in third para

As these two seem to be the most senior academics to have examined the incidents surrounding the bombings, and are both very reputable, I would suggest that the third paragraph could read

An official FSB investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and concluded that they were organized by Achemez Gochiyaev, who remains at large, and ordered by Islamist warlords Ibn Al-Khattab and Abu Omar al-Saif, who have been killed. Six other suspects have been convicted by Russian courts. 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, claimed that the 1999 bombings were a false flag attack coordinated by the Federal Security Service (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. However, a number of observers, including two senior academics, Richard Sakwa, and Robert Bruce Ware, have concluded that the most likely explanation for the bombings was that they were the work of militants from the North Caucasus

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. If Sakwa and Ware support the Russian government version, their views belong to the previous paragraph about the governmental version, not here. Let's separate apples and oranges.Biophys (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sakwa and Ware didn't propose original interpretations or original facts. Moreover, you misrepresent Ware as if he dismissed the alternative explanation altogether. He just discussed both and mildly favored the Islamist version. And there is no need to point out that they are "senior academics". You know, this is not meant to compare them, but Anatoly Fomenko is also a senior academic in some field. Colchicum (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the apparent lack of notability of Pribylovsky, Satter, and Felshtinsky, your view seems strange. Perhaps we should prepare a for/against case between us and take it to an admin for adjudication? To mention their names in the introduction, and not to mention equally and/or more notable commentators seems to be undue weightMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Given the apparent lack of notability of Pribylovsky, Satter, and Felshtinsky". No, all of them not only notable, but the best existing experts in the world on this specific subject of Russian bombings. No surprisingly, we have articles about them. What case? So far only you disagree with everyone else.Biophys (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read the WP: Notable guidelines, and explain just how you think they are notable? It is certainly possible that I have missed a bit when I read them. Thanks for your help. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to nominate an admin for an quick non-binding (any quick decision could hardly be fair if it was also binding) view on your most recent point?

No, we have various noticeboards for that.Biophys (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So you didn't read the guidelines or notability. Never mind. The problem with claiming that Pribylovsky, Satter, and Felshtinsky, are the best existing experts in the world is that there seems to be no external validation of that claim. You asked me to provide some validation about Ware, which I did. Can you please do me the courtesy of providing me validation for Pribylovsky, Satter, and Felshtinsky? The best place for that validation would be in the discussion of sources (which I started specifically to cover issues such as this).Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you don't want a neutral opinion from an admin (who one might expect to be neutral). Interesting.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance between theories

How much weight / space to we give to each theory - my proposal is given above: terror/state equal prominence. I suggest we list the official theory first, because that seem sconventional —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 18:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That would break a logical connection of the second and third paragraphs. Besides, placing the official version in the end gives it a higher weight (it looks like a final conclusion). Other than that, I do not have objections to reorder 3rd and 4th paragraphs.Biophys (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I intend to combine all the State involvement theories into one section, perhaps listed by subsection. The whole lot would get the same weight as the terrorist theory (which would include Chechen/dagestanis etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, we should only briefly mention a conspiracy theory as Colchicum said. Let's focus on facts.Biophys (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a difference of meaning here. Goldfarb/litvenyenko is not all facts. they cannot have known that Putin planned, they are simply not in a senior enough position to know. Berezovsky 'may' know what happened, as he 'may' have been at the discussionsMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about taking it by sections. Ready for this one now?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for a day. There are a couple of other editors who might have different opinions. If they do not appear, we can use version of Introduction by Colchichum. No rush.Biophys (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to me - my head is broken ;).
I have invited everyone (to keep it neutral) who has made a comment on the talk page to join us (except anonymous users, and banned users), so hopefully, we will get a range of input - I don't want to be doing this every week!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I'd list the official theory first, then the state-theory afterwards. Both deserve equal weight, since the official version is (for a 'state-version' of an event) relatively unreliable and has very many holes. Malick78 (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the invitation. As far as I can see, this is a typical issue where there is an "official version" and one or many "alternative versions". I would suggest a similar approach to this one:

• September 11, 2001 attacks and
• 9/11 conspiracy theories, or:

• 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and
• Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings

An alternative approach is including the "alternative info" in the article, but in a well-defined area:

• Tunguska event (Speculative hypotheses).

In any case, I don't think the "official" or "historical" version can be mixed with the "alternative" or "conspiracy" hypothesis. That would be definitely unencyclopedic and unfair to the reader. Furthermore, let's remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source, and let's also remember that the opinions about "reliability" of the different versions is largely personal.

Please keep me informed if you'd like some help. Best regards from Spain, --MaeseLeon (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say that 9/11 and Madrid conspiracy theories are definitely 'fringe theories', whereas counter-theories about this are much more widely-held due to Russia's undemocratic nature (they gassed their own citizens in the Moscow theatre, then botched the rescue of those children in Beslan...) - and finding sources that give credence to the state-backed theory isn't that difficult. Hence, it's not at all the same as the 9/11 conspiracy theories... But, I would say that it deserves it's own page like the above events' counter-theories. It might help to unclutter this page. Malick78 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea, at least per WP:MOS. Then current chapters 7 and 9 would be moved to the new article, and only a brief summary would remain here. How do you think: should we also trim down the "list of suspects" in this page since we have them in List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings?Biophys (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maeseleon, official (vs. unofficial) versions and mainstream (vs. fringe) versions are not necessarily the same things universally. E.g. we don't give much prominence to the official version of the Tiananmen Massacre, or the official Zimbabwean explanation of the recent problems with the country's economy. The al-Qaeda version is prominent in the article September 11, 2001 attacks because it is a mainstream explanation, not because it is an official explanation. And there is no single mainstream version of these events. Both theories are discussed in reliable academic sources (including this one), let alone the fact that Russia is not Spain or the US, the "official" version is partly classified in Russia and is not very easy to source properly. Colchicum (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. "Mainstream" interpretation (or "majority view" in WP context) may be opposite to an "official" view produced by a corporation, an organization, or a government.Biophys (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear friends: problem is, obviously the proponents of alternative hypotheses always think theirs is the only reasonable point of view, no matter how logical or freak. As far as I can see, there is not a historical consensus on this apartment bombings issue, nothing.

I mean: today we know that the Katyn massacre was done by the Red Army. Today there is a historical consensus on that one. But writing that in an Encyclopedia before there was consensus enough, would have been definitely unencyclopedic (and possibly pro-Nazi propaganda). It's not about truth or lack of truth, but about the Encyclopedic method. Encyclopedies are not "frontline historical research papers" (and definitely not primary sources).

I think that the only possible Encyclopedic approach is leaving the mere known facts in the main article, then writing a "controversies about..." article if you wish, properly linked.

Furthermore, as you will easily understand, there are many different views about the validity of different democracies around the world. Many people here in Europe largely support the 9/11 conspiracy theories on the basis that the American democracy is at least as tampered as the Russian (not my opinion, just in case you're wondering). But please keep in mind that yours is not the only possible worldview. --MaeseLeon (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theory" of the bombings is discussed in numerous reliable sources, there is no reason to worry about original research here or hide its existence. Colchicum (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was de facto independent and recognized by Russia. Their view on who caused the bombings is as legitimate as Russia's view, and Maskhadov stated pretty much right after the invasion that the apartment bombings could very likely be staged by the FSB, and then blamed on Chechnya. Grey Fox (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

THe FSB idea has been discussed at length higher up this talk page. What we need are verifiable quotes from reputable sources (I believe a number of editors have quoted a variety of material further up this talk page). Then we can hopefully proceed towards some sort of concensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Katyn was done by Cheka (under the name of NKVD), not the Red Army. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Right on that one, Captain Obvious.  :)

Let's see, I'd propose the following: a first part with the plain facts, as aseptic as possible. Then a second part "authory" with the different positions, with a similar length, quoting its origin as much as possible. Then a third part "effects" with its relationship to the 2nd Chechen War. How do you see it? --MaeseLeon (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryazan - VDV training base - any link?

As the "training" bomb was in Ryazan, which has the VDV training base (and presumably as much RDX as anyone could want) is there a link?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Start date for Second Chechen War.

The article The Arab Foreign Fighters and the Sacralization of the Chechen Conflict - Lorenzo Vidino[59] gives the start of the Second Chechen war as

"The Wahhabi invasion of Dagestan triggered the start of the second Chechen War, which continues today."

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hence "The Wahhabi invasion of Dagestan" was NOT a part of the second Chechen War, according to your source, just like these apartment bombings were NOT a part of the second Chechen War. Both events (the bombings and Dagestan invasion) "triggered" the second Chechen War.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - don't follow your logic. Perhaps it is too early for me. Please elaborate furtherMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When did the Russians first resume attacks on Chechnya (if we must pretend that there was a separate, unconnected, Dagestan War)? anyone know?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

August 26, 1999, see Second Chechen war.Biophys (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So can someone explain to me how the bombings in September 1999 caused the war which started in August 1999?. How can a later event (short of time-travel) cause an earlier one. It breaks countless laws of physics and logic.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Very simple. Different sources claim different dates for beginning of the war. Some count the war from air strikes on August 26, others from air strikes in the end of September. Ground operations began only later.Biophys (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Which, oddly enough, is why the compromise term escalate was agreed by some other editors. So I guess you accept escalateMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, help me with your superior knowledge - how did you make the quotes go small? - Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Robert Ware makes the point (in this document)[60] that

On September 29, 1999, Putin expressed willingness to begin negotiations with the Chechen leadership, but only on condition that (1) Maskhadov condemn terrorism ‘clearly and firmly;’ (2) he rid Chechen territory of armed bands; and (3) he be willing to extradite ‘criminals’ to Moscow

so the definiteness of the Second Chechen War was only determined at some point after 29th september, so equally well, that could be taken as the date.
Ware also points out another trigger incident,

When Major-General Gennadii Shpigun was kidnapped in Grozny in March 1999, Russian Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin warned that further “terrorist acts” would prompt Russian military intervention aimed at the destruction of bases occupied by the “criminal formations.

In further analysis of the causes of the war, and criticising Evangelista, Ware writes

Indeed, those like Evangelista, who are currently urging Moscow to negotiate a settlement of the conflict might recall that Shpigun was not the first high-level Russian official to be kidnapped in those years. The Russian presidential envoy to Chechnya, Valentin Vlasov, was also held hostage for six months.xv When Moscow attempted to negotiate with Chechen officials its negotiators were taken as hostages. Following Shpigun’s kidnapping, Stepashin drew up plans for an invasion of Chechnya, and prior existence of these plans is one of the reasons for Evangelista’s claim that the invasions of Dagestan were a “pretext” for a Russian “invasion” of Chechnya. Evangelista dismisses my suggestion that, alongside Stepashin’s warning to Maskhadov, these should be regarded as the sort of contingency plans that most other governments would make under similar circumstances.xvi Yet Evangelista explains that Chechen President Dudaev had drawn plans for a war with Russia in 1992,xvii so it would seem that if Evangelista equates planning with the intentional execution of a war then he must consistently hold Chechnya responsible for the first war and count Russia’s 1994 “invasion” as a pretext for the realization of Dudaev’s war plans.

Of course, this can also be chosen as one of the triggers

In February 1999, President Aslan Maskhadov placed Chechnya under the rule of Sharia’ 23 law, an indication that he had effectively surrendered Chechnya to Islamist control. At that time, there were hundreds of Arab gunmen in Chechnya, especially near Urus-Martan and at a military training camp in Serzhen- Yurt.xxviii Many of these fighters had Al Qaida connections, and Al Qaida money underwrote the camp’s expenses.

Or this

The invasions of Dagestan in August and September of 1999 from Al Qaida supported bases in Chechnya resulted in numerous murders and the displacement of 32,000

Dagestanis

Or this

In September 1999, a bomb killed 64 residents of an apartment block in the Dagestani town of Buinaksk. Five local Dagestani Wahhbites were convicted of the blast in 2001. The leader had worked as a cook for Basaev and Khattab at a terrorist training camps in Chechnya, and, in 24 testimony that he later recanted, he stated that the explosives used in the blast had been supplied to him by Chechen militants.

Or this

Russia’s involvement in Chechnya was justified not only because Russia was fighting a defensive war following repeated unprovoked attacks upon its territory and citizens, but also in order to put an end to massive human rights abuses resulting from the hostage industry.

He also states

Russia had about as much justification for going to war with Chechnya in 1999 as the United States had for going to war with Japan in 1941.

Something to think about
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a much more valid comparison than 9/11, and you probably know that some "conspiracy theories" of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are not fringe (albeit not mainstream) and are discussed in scholarly literature. And I dislike FDR as much as I dislike Putin. Colchicum (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OT - I believe I have expounded on the Three Great Insults narrative on my Talk page. If I haven't, I will certainly do so on my Talk page for anyone interestedMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dagestan invasion wasn't carried out by the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria Mariya, but by volunteers (including the renegade warlord basayev) and many ethnic Dagestanis. These actions were condemned by the seperatist government of Chechnya. This isn't the start of the Second Chechen War, that war started after Russia invaded Chechnya. The same goes for the apartment bombings. Supposed they were carried out by the people Moscow alleged responsible, none of them was an ethnic Chechen.

Oh and the source above isn't very good. I know it's good faith, but it contains the opinions of one man, and unproven al-qaeda allegations which the ChRI as well as many other analysts have always denied and debunked. Grey Fox (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russia’s involvement in Chechnya was justified not only because Russia was fighting a defensive war following repeated unprovoked attacks upon its territory and citizens, but also in order to put an end to massive human rights abuses resulting from the hostage industry."

This makes me cringe, if Russia really cared about human rights abuse in Chechnya, and hostage taking, they wouldn't have installed a violent dictator responsible for thousands of dissapearances (Ramzan Kadyrov). Watch the documentary on video google called "Crying Sun". Grey Fox (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be about truth or fairness, but about verifiablity and reputability of sources and authors. That's not my idea, that's Wikipedia. If you want my personal views, you can contact me on my Talk page Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The way you phrased "Something to think about" I thought this mans opinion reflected yours as well. Anyway this guy writes editorials, and there's no practical benefit in including every man's opinion in this article. Bruce Ware or whatever his name has no fame whatsoever and just isn't notable enough. Grey Fox (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss his "reputability", then you can do so under sources above. As a Asoc. Professor at an American University, who has had numerous peer-reviewed papers published on the region (see detail under sources above), I'm not sure I follow your argument.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a random university teacher Mariya, that's really not what we're after. There's millions university teachers out there, theres probably some editing wikipedia as well. I've known professors myself. Are we supposed to include every professors opinion in this article? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This comes from both sides, we're not after non-notable people's opinion, only highly relevant opinions. If you think there's other references towards journalists/writers who aren't notable enough (that contradict the ideas put forward by this teacher) it's best to try and remove those, but not include other opinions as "counterweight". Grey Fox (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to have made several mistakes with your post

1) Can you please move this to the correct place above (discussion of sources, so it is logically filed with the rest)

2) Anyone who has been to university is likely to have known one or more professors, but your remark does not affect the validity of the source, and is your remark is therefore meaningless

3) Whether or not there are millions (as you put it) of university teachers (and I would like to know if you ahve any data to support your number, or whether it is just prejudice) does not affect the validity of the source, and is your remark is therefore meaningless

4) You seem to have either not read, misread, misunderstood, or misbelieved Prof. Ware's CV linked above. So your remarks about notability does not affect the validity of the source, and is your remark is therefore meaningless

5) I assume from your use of empty arguments that you have no reputable sources criticising Prof Ware, despite the substantial amout of published work he has

Can you please do me the politeness of debating on the actual point, not your prejudice against sources your were not aware of and/or don't like

There is an easy answer, of course, qand if you insist on making pointless propaganda comments about sources (see the Poisoning the well), then I shall have to call in an administrator to make a ruling and point out your errors
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You've insisted before on nicely discussing things in this article, are you shifting from that now? Anyway Bruce Ware has no fame whatsoever, and there are far more relevant academic opinions of known writers we can use here. Grey Fox (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I returned it to the staus quo when the discussion about revising the whole article appeared. From your comments, I can see only that Prof ware does not suit your POV, as you have produced NO evidence whatsoever to support your claims. If you continue with your rude and disruptive editing, i will be takinh this to an admin for adjudication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong Mariya? What edits are you talking about? And no I've repeatedly denied that my objection to insert dozens of editorials is part of my point of view, I categorially place it into a broad context, involving any type of editorial. Please assume good faith. Grey Fox (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion of several academics, and their relevance to the WP main article, further up this talk page. Perhaps you would like to contribute any relevant points you have thereMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Dagestan part of Russia?

The title says it all.
Buynaksk is in Dagestan, so is the bombing there an attack on Russia, or on Dagestan, or both?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Both, it's a republic inside Russia (like Chechnya). Grey Fox (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Was that also legally the case in 1999/2000? or have legal constitutional changes been made since? Any way, I thought it was an automonous region, rather than a republic. Can anyone clarify?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

And welcome, Grey Fox. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The status of Daghestan hasn't changed since then. Both Chechnya and Daghestan are republics within Russia. I fail to see your point here, but some readers may not be familiar with this, so this should be clarified in the article. Colchicum (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Shows how out of date I am about some things. I'm only 15 years out. Perhaps we should clarify it in the article (for confused folk like me!!)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not too coincidental of you perhaps, at the time of the bombings a struggle for independence was going on in part of Dagestan. Grey Fox (talk) 17:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Any reputable sources for you argument, can of course, be discussed here.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

A struggle for independence? Or a struggle by those wishing for a Islamic caliphate in the Caucasus to destroy stability in Dagestan and bring it into this 'caliphate'? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why yes, Dagestan has always been "stable" and free of any form of Islam... Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent blocking of Cpatain Obvious

I notice with interest the recent block.
Anyone know if the user did any damage to the bombings article?
Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

That user has done no damage to any article. His problems were due to civility. Colchicum (talk) 19:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. I'd better put on my "nice" hat then :)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Massive deletion of sourced text and sources

Please explain why did you delete the entire section with books about these events, as well as many other sections. Let's make one small change at a time, and then discuss. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think fiction books about the attacks are irrelevant. We should concentrate on describing what actually happened. You can restore the fiction section if you want, and see what others think. But don't use that as a pretext to revert every edit I did. Offliner (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• The following huge text has been deleted among many others. Why?Biophys (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It strays away from the actual topic of the article. The version of the article you advocate gives way too much space for the conspiracy theories in relation to the actual events. This article is about the bombings, and should concentrate on describing the actual events. Most of the conspiracy theory material should be splitted of to its own article to avoid giving them undue weight. As for the talk show chapter, I fail to see how it would be notable and relevant enough even in regard to the conspiracy theories. Offliner (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Including it does show the political pressure exerted by the authorities to stop all questioning of the events. As for 'conspiracy theories', they should be given space because the official version is so dubious. Malick78 (talk) 07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dubious? According to Litvinenko? Who a scholar has described as a one man disinformation bureau and challenges that he did not offer a shred of evidence for a single accusation/conspiracy theory that he came up with. I agree with Offliner, the talk show and the like is not relevant to the article, and should be removed as per WP:UNDUE, as it gives too much weight to nuttery whilst disregarding more widely disseminated views. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko was only one of many who described the possiblity of FSB involvement. And frankly nobody cares what your favourite scholar says. Some of those scholars also described Putin responsible for genocide. Grey Fox (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the conspiracy theories should be given space, but not nearly as much as they get now. The conspiracy theory material should be summarized, and the full length discussions splitted of to another article, called "Conspiracy theories of the 1999 Russian apartment bombings." Offliner (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They're not conspiracy theories. Although not proven, there's also evidence that supports possible FSB involvement, and Russia's official investigation has never had evidence released to the public. Even Encyclopedia Britannica has made note of this on their main page for Russia: As prime minister, Putin blamed Chechen secessionists for the bombing of several apartment buildings that killed scores of Russian civilians, prompting the Moscow government to send Russian forces into the republic once again. (Evidence never proved Chechen involvement in these bombings, leading some to believe that the Russian intelligence services played a role in them.) [61] which indicates that it's a pretty mainstream account. Deleting everything that strays from the words of the Kremlin would be a violation of several neutrality policies of wikipedia, as well as very insulting to all those who spoke about the bombings and who were murdered in Russia or abroad. Grey Fox (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

From the conspiracy theory article: "The term 'conspiracy theory'" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." - I really don't understand why exactly they wouldn't be conspiracy theories. Perhaps you have some other definition for the term not used in that article?

Evidence has proved Chechen involvement in the attacks. There has been a full legal proceeding, and 6 men have been convicted:[62] "The trial of the six men, described by prosecutors as Islamic extremists who were under the command of two Chechen rebel leaders, Shamil Basayev and Khattab, began on Nov. 30 in Dagestan's capital, Makhachkala."

However, the conspiracy theories should also, absolutely, be included in the article. The question is only about how much room they should be given relative to everything else. Currently, I'd estimate that the conspiracy theories receive over 70% of the space in this article, which is way too much. Further reading can be found here and here. Offliner (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't use wikipedia as a source, but conspiracy theory means more than that. First it's pejorative and second it's about theories that have no evidence to go with it, that's why it's POV to call it that. No evidence has ever proved chechen involvement. First the "official investigation" said the ones responsible were dagestanis and karachay's, so should stop saying chechens. Second, the court wasn't independent, and independent investigations have always been met with stiff resistance. No proof has ever been released to the public and I have many sources which say so (including the above quote from encyclopedia britannica). Grey Fox (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[63] says the men "acted under command of two Chechen rebel leaders." That clearly looks like Chechen involvement to me. The court decision was according to the law, from that that there can be no doubt unless decision is reverted by a higher court. Anyway, there are still some concerns, and that's why we need to mention the conspiracy theories. Offliner (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Khattab was falsely mentioned as a chechen there, he was an Arab. And it's mostly Khattab who was held responsible. Also Basayev was only the single ethnic chechen, if held responsible, and he was independent from the Chechen government. I would hardly call that "chechen involvement". Grey Fox (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the changes you made to the lead section Offliner. First the 2nd chechen war didn’t start on August 26. Someone changed this on the war’s page, but the actual date comes after the bombing. Before and during the bombing Yeltsin and Putin still announced that they would not invade Chechnya.

According to this source the war started in August: [64] Offliner (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just a single source, and hardly a good one. Most sources speak of it otherwise, you should go with mainstream. Grey Fox (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You’ve innitially also added words of a an alleged person who called the police and said the acts were commited by the “liberation army of dagestan”, but no such group has ever existed, and the general view is that nobody claimed responsibility for the acts ever. You also innitially added the words of basayev, (and named him terrorist on the page in violation of wp:terrorist) but they are of no relevance because basyev was not held responsible for anyone. It’s also taken out of context, when he said “it was done by dagestanis” this was his first guess, with which he meant to say that he was not responsible. See this nytimes article [65] where he said: “He denied any role in the bombings in Russia, and said he had no idea who was behind them. Dagestanis could have done it, he said, or the Russian special services.” Also please avoid using "however" which too is on the list of words to avoid. Grey Fox (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says Liberation army of Dagestan doesn't exist? Source? The words of Basayev I added are relevant and should be included in the article. But since he retracted his words later, they probably shouldn't go into the lead, but elsewhere. There is the possibility that he told the truth first, but then started to lie later when things got tougher for him. Offliner (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"The only person so far to claim responsibility for the bomb blasts telephoned the Russian news agency Itar-Tass on Wednesday and said he was from an unknown group called the Liberation Army of Dagestan.". After that the "Liberation Army of Dagestan" never appeared in the news again (see google news archives). Then there's the hundreds of sources that state that nobody has claimed responsibility. I agree with your idea that it should be worked out in the article, but this too has no place in the lead. Grey Fox (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The talk show with people of Ryazan and FSB members

On March 24 2000, two days before the presidential elections, NTV Russia featured the Ryazan events of fall 1999 on the talk show Independent Investigation. The talk with the residents of the Ryazan apartment building along with FSB members Alexander Zdanovich and General Sergeyev was filmed earlier on March 20, 2000. The FSB members refused to provide the name of the head of the training exercise, if there was any. On March 26 Boris Nemtsov voiced his concern over the possible shut-down of NTV for airing the talk.

NTV general manager Igor Malashenko spoke at the JFK School of Government on the day the show aired and said that Information Minister Mikhail Lesin warned him on several occasions. Malashenko's recollection of Lesin's warning was that by airing the talk show NTV "crossed the line and that we were outlaws in their eyes."

According to Alexander Goldfarb, Malashenko told him years later that Valentin Yumashev brought a warning from the Kremlin one day before airing the show. Goldfarb wrote that the warning in no uncertain terms said that NTV "should consider themselves finished" if they would go ahead with the broadcast.

To do

Like I've said earlier, this article is unbalanced because it gives way too much space for the conspiracy theories in relation to everything else. Here's a small list of things I'd like to do/fix:

• 1. The lead must be made more neutral. The current version (reinserted by Biophys) says: "They 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."

- "Were used as a pretext" is an extremely biased wording and needs to be replaced with something more neutral.

• 2. We need to add more background material on the historical context, first Chechen war, 1998 economy crisis, fighting in August, etc.

• 3. The description of the events during the days of the bombings must be expanded considerably. The reader definitely wants to see more information than we have now.

• 4. The amount of content for various aspects of the bombings must be kept balanced. Right now, description of conspiracy theories makes much more than 50% of the article. This is completely unacceptable per WP:UNDUE. The following ratio would be much better, and correspond to what is normally used in similar articles: 1/6 for background material, 2/6 for description of actual events as they happened, 1/6 for official investigation, 1/6 for conspiracy theories, 1/6 for implications.

• 5. Surplus material on the conspiracy theories should splitted off to its own article.

Offliner (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Pretext was used more often also in BBC's dispatched documentary, but I understand that it's perhaps too biased. 2) Depends on how and where you'd do it. All that might be relevant is explaining to readers that the chechen republic was de fact independent at the time of the bombings and that their government was recognized both by the kremlin and internationally. 3) Sure. 4) Perhaps there are some neutrality issues. I care about neutrality too so I will defend that, but the way you changed things didn't help either. I've checked out all the material written by high quality newspapers, and pretty much always do they note the controversy surrounding events such as ryazan, and the assassinations of people either investigating the bombings or speaking out over them. Removing all that would amount to censorship. At the same time I see that there's an excessive amount of sections related to the controversies, they can be merged which will help neutrality. 5) There's no need for that. This article isn't too big and everything fits. It would also raise questions on what you would consider surplus. Grey Fox (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• 2. I was thinking of creating a separate background section for that. I do think that the situation in Chechnya and Dagestan before the attacks is relevant. And so is the 1998 economical crisis (a chaotic situation) as well as Yeltsin's situation, etc.

• 4 & 5. I'm not saying that we should remove anything. I'm saying that the amount of space each perspective receives needs to be balanced. Now, more than 50% is given to the conspiracy theories, and I suggested this should be reduced to about 17% (1/6) (or maybe to 20%.) The rest should be splitted off to its own article. Another way to get balance is to expand the other parts, but since this requires time, some of the conspiracy material should be splitted off temporarily, and then brought back when the expansion is complete. Balance should be maintained at all times. Offliner (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've cut down the space the allegations and controversies take up significantly. There's no need to "split anything up temporarily" and no policy either that requires that. If you want to expand the other parts go ahead, I'll help you out. That would balance the article fine. Grey Fox (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not insert irrelevant materials ("the historical context, first Chechen war, 1998 economy crisis, fighting in August, etc.") in this article and keep relevant materials (publications about involvement of the FSB) here.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• a) "Pretext" is an appropriate word - used by many commentators. Russia wanted a new war and this was the event that gave them the excuse to wage it. b) Too much background material is not necessary - passing mentions are fine though. c) "Conspiracy theory" is a loaded word - "theory" would be more NPOV please Offliner:) Malick78 (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order

I really do think that everything should be in chronological order. Background material explaining the situation in Dagestan and Basayev's previous threats belongs to the beginning, and nowhere else. This material will be referred to in the next chapter, and it will be confusing for the reader if he doesn't know the stuff already. Putting things in chronological order is a common practice in articles that describe events. Offliner (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Basayev's threats are taken out of context by you. He said them three years before the actual invasion and they aren't even linked to the apartment bombings. I don't have problems with explaining anything about Dagestan, but the quote from Basayev doesn't belong in the first column because it insinuates that he's responsible. That he always denied, and it's actually Khattab who was held responsible according to the "official investigation". It would be same as adding the predictions by those journalists about the bombings to the first column, I don't think you would agree on that either. Grey Fox (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also be careful that you don't breach 3rr, you should probably undo your last edits. Grey Fox (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about Basayev's threats in the background section. They are a bit out of context. However, I really do think that it is relevant to this article that there had been threats. The militants had already launched many terrorist attacks on Russia, and they had threatened to do more. The reader has to know, that the attacks didn't come out of blue. In the context of the militant conflict, I don't think the attacks came as a surprise to most of the observers, only that they were so bold and destructive was surprising. We could replace Basayev's threat with something more general like "Chechen militants had launched many terrorist attacks against Russia earlier, and often threatened to do more." Offliner (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that too would be a serious neutrality problem. We'd have to mention how Russian forces bombed and killed thousands of Russian civilians too (grozny - by which I mean ethnic russians) just a few years before these attacks, and let's not even speak of the tens of thousands chechen civilian casualties. A background section is going to be POV'ish no matter what. Before information was included on Putin's rise to power too as a chronology, people complained and it was eventually removed. Makes sense. Same goes now.

That Russians killed civilians is covered in the next chapters, where Khattab & Basayev mention it in their comments. But it could also be covered in the background section as well. About your other concerns, you say that adding the background section is not neutral. However, I insist that the article needs this kind of info. It as all very relevant and is referred to in the next chapters. Maybe the reason you are concerned is the fact, that now the article starts with something that does not mention immediately mention the "conspiracy theories" at all. But take a look at what the article was before my edits: the whole bombing events were covered very briefly in passing, like they weren't important at all. Then however came the huge chapter about the ryazan incident describing the conspiracy theory. Now, this is what I'd call a neutrality problem. (Even after the addition of more material on the attacks, I still think that chapter too big in relation to everything else.) Offliner (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Basayev's threat wasn't a threat for terrorist attacks. The destruction of Moscow isn't even meant as the destruction of the actual city, 'moscow' is used all the time in the sense of "Russia's regime" so he did not mention civilian casualties. Your move that it was a threat directly related to these bombings is one you made yourself too, the source don't even connect them. The fact that the quote is from during or just after the first war is enough reason to doubt such a connection, because thats three years before the terrorist attacks.

The best way to achieve a neutral article is to simply start with the bombings, and afterwards mention the rest. Grey Fox (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We can also insert the material about Chechen invasion of Dagestan, terrorists' threats, etc. directly into the following chapters where they are referred to. Offliner (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already links provided to the dagestan war, it would depend and what you want to insert. Grey Fox (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko and his team as a source

A huge part of this article is based on the books by Litvinenko's team, which included Pribylovsky and Felshtinsky. Are they really that reliable that we can base so much of the article on their claims? Aren't we giving undue weight to the trio? Do they have a reputation for fact-checking and neutrality? Since Litvinenko was part of the opposition (Berezovsky's group), he hardly qualifies as a neutral third-party observer (researcher Plater-Zyberk described Litvinenko as "a one-man disinformation byreau", Sakwa said the evidence presented by Litvinenko & Co. was at best "circumstantial" and Vlad Sobell said that Litvinenko's team didn't really present any evidence for their claims.) And since Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky were part of his book-writing team, I have huge concerns about their reliability too. Offliner (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Pribylovsky is not a member of any team of Litvinenko, AFAIK they never knew each other. And who in hell are the other names? You carefully avoid mentioning that e.g. Robert Bruce Ware doesn't discard the theory and takes it seriously (though he favors the Islamist one), that it was prominently featured in Western press, and so on, and so on. Nice try, BTW. I have huge concerns about sockpuppetry here. Colchicum (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are the other names? Plater-Zyberk is an expert on Russian issues and is a lecturer at the Advanced Research and Assessment Group of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. In short, a scholar. Sakwa is a Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, and author of "Putin: Russia's Choice". In short, a scholar. Vlad Sobell is a former Senior Economic Analyst with Radio Free Europe, and is now a Senior Economist at the Daiwa Institute of Research, who completed a doctoral thesis on Comecon integration at St Antony's College, Oxford. In short, a scholar. All 3 are widely published, and are regarded as experts in their field, and are not bound by their own agendas. BTW, your concerns about sockpuppetry are misfounded. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1) How do you know about the validity of my concerns? Do you have a checkuser tool? 2) Three scholars, in short. Vs. other scholars. So what? Surely you have read WP:NPOV. As to their agendas, we cannot know. Well, yes, they are not as transparent as yours. Colchicum (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Pribylovsky isn't a scholar. He is a historian with a degree in Byzantine studies. Yuri Felshtinsky it could be argued is somewhat a scholar. Sakwa's book, which is a must read, is probably the most objective book on Putin written, and it's 2004 edition was completely updated in 2008. The difference is, have Prib and Felsh been peer-reviewed? That is what makes a true scholar IMHO. As to your concerns on WP:SOCK, take it to the relevant board if you believe there is sockpuppetry, I know I would be. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RuSSavia, why in hell do you take any mention of sockpuppetry personally? I thought of HistoricWarrior007, Finalyzer and some others. Colchicum (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum, I would appreciate it if you would use my username as it is written, and not troll (like you accuse me of doing). I haven't taken any mention of sockpuppetry personally. But I do find it very odd that you were thinking of HistoricWarrior007 and Finalyzer, when none of those editors have edited this article, at least not what I can see from the last 9 months or so. Your "concern" of sockpuppetry seems to have been clearly directed towards User:Offliner, and I stated very clearly, if you have concerns of sockpuppetry then have those concerns addressed at the appropriate venue. Apart from not being a troll, or a sock as far as I can tell, Offliner is clearly improving the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko co-authored the books with Pribylovsky and Felshtinsky. Felshtinsky was Litvinenko's friend, so he hardly is neutral when it come's to Litvinenko's claims. It is only reasonable to assume, that Litvinenko and Pribylovsky knew each other as well. Probably all of the books in question were financed by Berezovsky. The point is, these guys are not four different sources that came to their conclusions independently, they are part of a single team which is motivated to spread the same POV. They shouldn't be regarded as four different sources, but as a single source. Goldfarb belongs to the same category too, since he was an employee of Berezovsky. And right now I think we are basing too much of this article on the team's claims (and Biophys has used the team's claims as the main source in many other articles as well.) Offliner (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Colchicum (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources: [66], [67], [68]. Offliner (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere how they form a supposed "team". Grey Fox (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course Litvinenko is a notable source. His work should not necessarily be presented as fact, but with the attribution "according to litvinenko". Just because some scholars don't like him or his work does not make him unreliable. Every author has critics. Furthermore Litvinenko wasn't murdered without reason. Grey Fox (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Biophys' reverts

I really cannot see any justification for Biophys' unilateral deletions of relevant, well-sourced material and sources: [69]

[70] - The criticism of the conspiracy theories is extensively discussed in the article, and leaving it out from the lead is simply not acceptable.

This is also relevant (see the discussion above) and should not be removed: [71]

Biophys also again removed any mention of the only group which claimed responsibility for the attacks, Liberation army of Dagestan, which, according to professor Peter Reddaway and researcher Dmitri Glinski, is most likely responsible for the attacks. Such removal of important, relevant, well-sourced material is nothing but pure vandalism. Offliner (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The npov- and unbalanced tags should also not be unilaterally removed until everyone agrees that the article is OK (I don't.) Biophys also removed fact-tags from there places where I'd like to see another, mainstream source for the claims. A book by Litvinenko's team alone is NOT enough. Litvinenko et al. are associated with the Russian opposition, and are not neutral sources. Offliner (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is indeed a very severe ownership issue on this article, and the removal of scholarly views is quite disturbing. I would support reverting Biophys' large-scale removal of information, whilst also adding back in obvious improvements made at the same time. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)