Jump to content

Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

Sources for the "official version" of the events promoted by the Russian government

  • I think the official version of the events (about the Khattab and others) promoted by the Russian government is in fact a conspiracy theory, just as many other conspiracy theories they promote. This is reflected in sourcing, among other things. Right now this page uses this source to describe the official (government-promoted) version of the events in all details. This is hardly an RS. Can you please provide a couple of English language secondary RS, maybe books, which describe the Russian government-promoted version of the events in all detail and regard it as an actual/real version of the events (so we would no longer need this older questionable reference), instead of providing countless opinion pieces and books which mention these events in passing? I need a break, but probably will back later at some point. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
The official version offends our dignity (because the Russian Government withholds the relevant information), while the conspiracy version offends our integrity (because it's basically fiction). It's not an easy choice.
I don't think I could name a source that you want.
There are, however, some English authors with a better insight on terrorism. Brian Glyn Williams in "Inferno in Chechnya" provides a fairly convincing description of the version according to which the bombings were perpetrated by terrorists. After which he quotes Litvinenko's account of the Ryazan incident and concludes, that the bombings could be perpetrated either by terrorists, or the FSB. So it's a pretty much useless source for making a political point, but you might gain a lot of insight as regards the version that the bombings were organized by Khattab.
Hope you enjoy your time away from Wikipedia!
--Document hippo (talk) 18:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Based on the review, this book does not describe the bombings in detail. Does it tell about the case in as many detail as this section of our article? If so, it can be used for re-sourcing this section. But if not, and there is nothing else (as you say), I am afraid the Russian government version of the events probably qualify as a "significant minority view" per WP:NPOV, and it should be treated accordingly on the page. This has nothing to do with "dignity", "offending integrity" or making any "political points". My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Now, there is a part of this book online, and I think it can be used for sourcing, but it does not say that author supports the "official" Russian government version. To the contrary, author tells that the official "training exercise" explanation of the bomb planted by the FSB in Ryzan was ridiculous, and he cites other authors who said the bombings were actually committed by the FSB. For example, read paragraph on page 149 staring from "Russians arrested...". This is NOT a support of Russian government version, but rather the opposite. But the author simply sticks to indisputable facts, and does not make an ultimate judgement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
You have named only a single source that you declared "dubious", and jumped to a conclusion that the entire section on the Russian internal investigatios needs resourcing and might be classified as a minority view.
That's not the case. There are lots of good sources both in English and in Russian.
In particular, that section extensively cites Paul Murphy's book "Wolves of Islam". I haven't carefully read it, but I have it on my Kindle device, and I'm kinda-sorta familiar with it.
--Document hippo (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Well, I am reading a review of the "Wolves" [1] by Dr. McGregor, a "director of Aberfoyle International Security Analysis in Toronto, Canada.[2]", and it tells:
Meanwhile, the infamous bombings of Russian apartment buildings in 1999 (blamed on Chechens by the Kremlin) might be expected to fill at least a chapter in a work like this, but Murphy deals with this complex event in just two pages. Despite the absence of an inquiry, the demolition of the crime scenes without investigation, and the apprehension of several FSB agents caught in the act of placing explosives in the basement of a Ryazan apartment building, Murphy declares that “the evidence that Khattab was responsible for the apartment building bombings in Moscow is clear” (page 106). Anyone familiar with Russia knows that this is far from the case, but dissenting opinions and evidence are dismissed as part of “the now well-known story told by (Russian billionaire Boris) Berezovsky” (page 106). The description of fugitive Achimez Gochiyaev, the self-described “patsy” in the bombings, as a terrorist “mastermind” is simply excessive.
Come on. Using this book to support the conspiracy theory promoted by the Russian government is not really a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
It's a scholarly discussion and I suggest that it be left to scholars, unless there's a specific claim by Murphy we cite here that was disputed by the reviewer. In which case we should cite the opposing claim.
I don't think the reviewer is the paragon of truth. He criticizes Murphy for being "especially eager to promote the Chechens as a source of “nuclear terrorism”". While it's well known that bin Laden attempted to acquire weapons of mass destruction from Khattab, because he thought everything in Russia was for sale. For example, Fawaz Gerges writes about that.
--Document hippo (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Now that you've quoted the reviewer, I love how he said "the apprehension of several FSB agents caught in the act of placing explosives in the basement of a Ryazan apartment building". So, on which date has the said apprehension occurred? September 22, September 23 or September 24? Can any of your "non-conspiracy" sources provide the answer to that simple question? I mean, oh, yes, they can. Just all of them provide different answers.
--Document hippo (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
All sources tell it had happen on September 22, for example, here. But you asked this already, and I responded [3]. Did you forget? "The apprehension of several FSB agents caught in the act of placing explosives in the basement of a Ryazan apartment building". Yes, sure, this is exactly what WP:RS on this subject say. My very best wishes (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Except for Felshtinsky and Litvinenko, who claim that "obviously" the arrests occurred on September 24, following the announcement by Patrushev. And David Satter, who claims that FSB agents were arrested between evening of September 23, and the TV announcement by Patrushev on September 24.
--Document hippo (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Your question above was not about the time of the arrest of the FSB agents who planted the bomb, but about the actual time when they planted the bomb. But your argument would be more clear if you could provide some link or ref (I am not sure what you are talking about). In addition, according to review linked above,
In Murphy’s description of the Chechens, soldiers, terrorists, criminals, politicians, foreign volunteers, women and children, all Chechens are gathered under the single appellative of “Wolves” – a dangerous and evidently sub-human species that poses a dire threat to the rest of mankind. The substitution of the term “Wolves” for Chechens throughout the text is a simplistic means of dehumanization, usually found in crude propaganda. Chechens, we are told, travel in “packs”, Shamil Basaev leads a “pack of Wolves”, and in the conclusion we are told “Wolves have taken to the skies”.
So, this is basically a racist, extremist book by Paul J. Murphy. It should not be used for referencing anywhere on WP pages, except a page about Murphy himself, but we do not have such page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
As you know, the "wolves" is a symbol of Chechen people. So perhaps it was a means of appreciating the local culture. It's hard to say. --Document hippo (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
"Your question above was not about the time of the arrest of the FSB agents who planted the bomb, but about the actual time when they planted the bomb."
No. I asked "So, on which date has the said apprehension occurred?"
Apprehension is "seizure by legal process", i.e. an arrest.
I indeed asked about the time of the arrest of the FSB agents who planted the bomb.
The claims I mentioned were made in the book by Felshtinsky and Litvinenko "Blowing Up Russia", Chapter 5, and David Satter "Dawn on Sunrise", in his chapter on Ryazan. Do you want page numbers and citations?
Just to make it clear, both sources also say that the bombs were planted on September 22. But the arrests took place either the next day, on September 23, or the day after that, on September 24.
--Document hippo (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
So perhaps it was a means of appreciating the local culture. ??? No, that is not what review (cited just above) tells. I am not sure what problem do you have with dates, but please start new thread and explain with links/refs what you are talking about. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why should we use that review as the basis of judging that book. The book by Murphy is extensively cited in the literature, which means that it's widely accepted in the community.
I've already stated my case with the dates, but I see that you refuse to consider it.
I am too tired now to provide the citations. Next time.
--Document hippo (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
A source being cited in books does not mean anything in terms of WP:RS. Many extremist sources, including Kavkaz Center were cited in hundreds of books. I do not think anyone (including me) can understand what problem do you have with dates. The "incident" (meaning the planting the bomb by FSB agents in Ryazan) had happen on September 22, as every source tells. The book by Satter apparently implies that the FSB agents have been arrested next day after planting the bomb, on September 23, but he does not provide an exact timing. The book by Felshtinsky/Litvinenko only say that local police hunted for the perpetrators on September 23. Both books say that FSB made a statement about the "exersize" only on September 24. So what is the contradiction? Yes, please start new thread when you have time. My very best wishes (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
It seems that only a single review smeared the book by Murphy.
For example, have a look at this review from Military Review.[4]
The review is favorable, and the reviewer recommends Wolves "as a worthy read that can give one a better understanding of the types of enemies we face in our own long war." The single biggest shortcoming of the book "is its absence of notes, which points to potential shortcomings in research."
If that's the issue, the same could be said about other sources used in this article.
In particular, a part of Miriam Lanskoy's interview with Yuri Felshtinsky, in which they discussed the book "Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within" (New York: SPI Books, 2002), considers Felshtinsky's work with sources:
--Document hippo (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Are you saying that the only book of the kind I asked about is the book by Murphy? It describes the subject of the bombings on only 2 pages according to review. Another book you mentioned (by Brian Glyn Williams, "Inferno in Chechnya") provides a lot more details, and it can be used (agree about that one), but it dos not support at all the "official" version of the events. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
At this moment, I believe that the official version is more extensively detailed in media other than books. --Document hippo (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
No books? OK. Maybe some good scholarly sources (preferably in English) which describe in great detail and support the "official" version? My very best wishes (talk) 18:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
One more book that details the official version of the events is Кровавый террор by Vasily Stavitsky. The book was published in 2000, while Stavitsky used to lead the FSB public relations centre in 1999-2001. If anyone is interested, there are some used copies left. --Document hippo (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to note: there was another unfavourable review of Murphy's book that you can find here: [5] For example, Mark J. Conversino writes: "His service as a congressional advisor on counterterrorism cooperation betweenthe United States and Russia may partially explain the general pro-Russian tone of this book", also "certainly one very disappointing aspect of The Wolves of Islam is the complete absence of footnotes and a bibliography", and he concludes that "those in search of more balanced and intellectually rigorous accounts of the Russo-Chechen War will find those in other works". I wouldn't go as far as to call Murphy racist, but he is obviously a biased author and should not be regarded as a reliable source on this subject.Machinarium (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the tone of the review unfavorable. Yes, the focus of Murphy is on counterterrorism, and that explains, at least to a certain extent, his pro-Russian tone. However, since this article doesn't serve to provide an account of the Russo-Chechen War in general, but describes some terrorism-related aspects of the conflict, doesn't that justify referring to an expert in counterterrorism like Murphy? --Document hippo (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
In my view, your point reveals a schism between experts who emphasize counterterrorism aspects and experts who emphasize human rights aspects. These two directions are naturally in conflict, not only in relation to terrorist attacks in Russia, but also in relation to domestic terrorist attacks. Although, in that case, the schism is much less pronounced. --Document hippo (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The tone of the review is quite unfavourable, and Murphy doesn't cite his sources properly which means his book doesn't meet the criteria of any scholary standard. It's fine to mention the views of pro-Russian authors, but not to cite their findings as facts. There should be more reliable sources out there that we can work with. Machinarium (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, the review says that "the accuracy and veracity of many of the author’s assertions or accounts must be accepted at face value". Should we add the attribution, "According to counterterrorism expert Paul J. Murphy", whenever a claim is made for which the book by Murphy is a single reference?
--Document hippo (talk) 10:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
You could, but I would recommend to find better sources. If you think his opinion is worth mentioning, then the public also deserves to know that he's considered biased and did not conduct proper research/source his statements (which would only hurt the point of view from the Russian authorities). Machinarium (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you suggest including a section which would provide criticism of the sources used in this article? --Document hippo (talk) 11:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Also, I appreciate the fact that you are concerned about the point of view of the Russian authorities, but as Wikipedians we should be concerned with adhering to the relevant WP policies. --Document hippo (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
If we adhere to WP policies, more specifically WP:RS then it's better to remove Murphy and find a better source for any of the factual events stated in this article. Machinarium (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The book by Murphy is a reliable source, according to the WP:RS policy. If you believe its pro-Russian tone or the lack of citations require an explicit mention in the article, feel free to include a section devoted to criticism of the sources. --Document hippo (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Meanwhile, there's another favorable review of the book by Murphy, contained within the article “A Pandora's Box Opened”: Al Q'aeda, Fundamentalist Islam, and the Global War on Terror—A Review Essay by Leo J. Daugherty III, Ph. D., which was published in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies:

--Document hippo (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

A favourable review here and there is not difficult to find in a heavily politicized environment, but the fact that he doesn't cite his sources properly is most important. Someone like Murphy is more of an opinionist or lobbyist than a scholar. What this article needs is sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and Murphy's book, like many other authors cited in this article (from both sides of the argument), is not one of them. The right thing would be to only present his statements as an opinion if you think it's worth mentioning him. Machinarium (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Murphy's book is an established scholarly source, which is manifested by the mere existence of favorable reviews in the peer-reviewed magazines. His statements are not merely opinions, and are not treated as such in the existing literature on the Chechen war. --Document hippo (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
So you seriously want to argue that a book which has no footnotes or a bibliography can be regarded as a WP:RS? Because that would mean the end of Wikipedia Machinarium (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

What does WP:RS say?


The book by Murphy is vetted by the scholarly community, and was published by University of Nebraska Press, which is why it's WP:RS. --Document hippo (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, since we don't seem to agree on what is and isn't a reliable source, I've asked for other opinions at the noticeboard. Machinarium (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for asking for other opinions at the noticeboard. I'm sure that as a community we would benefit from an increased diversity of opinions. --Document hippo (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


Note that I've added another book to the bibliography, Pokalova's Chechnya's Terrorist Network. Some bio details. --Document hippo (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

GTD

In a recent edit I've added a mention of the Global Terrorism Database entries, relevant to the article. I wonder how reliable is the source, so I've asked about it at RS/Noticeboard. --Document hippo (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

And the reply was not encouraging [6]. It should not be used here. And in general, this page relies on numerous outdated and low-quality sources and personal opinions, whereas there are more recent books by experts like Amy Knight. I can fix it if you do not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
I quickly fixed a few things. Will finish later. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
BTW, [7] - story with Gochiyaev. What a patsy. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, the reply to my inquiry about GTD has not been encouraging.

Then, this edit by you has removed well-sourced information which belongs to the article. Of course, the question is, which major event warranted reaction by the U.S. Government? A bombing by Islamic terrorists or a false-flag operation by the Russian Government? Clearly, the U.S. Government had no indication in 1999 that the bombing in Russia was anything but a genuine terrorist attack, which is reflected in the sources. I'm restoring that content.

Document hippo (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The response by Albright on the February 2000 hearing is telling in that regard. I would cite it here in full.

Document hippo (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to provide very long quotations. They must be briefly summarized or only briefly cited. My very best wishes (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Izmailov's story

Speaking of that edit, I want to acknowledge that the sources are paywalled, and for your convenience I've uploaded them here. Izmailov's source has contacted him 12 hours prior to the September 9 Guryanova bombing — well in advance! If a secondary source is needed, the story was acknowledged by Dmitry Muratov, former editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, in a recent documentary by Alexey Pivovarov: here. Hope it helps! Document hippo (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Like I as said in my edit summary: the story is WP:Extraordinary, and there is no reliable secondary RS which would be published long after the events to support the story. My very best wishes (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Dunlop, pp. 89-91. Document hippo (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
And what exactly Dunlop wrote about it? Can you cite it here? As currently written, one can not make any sense of this story. If it does appear in a book like one by Dunlop, we can include it, but this should be included as described in this book (a good secondary RS). My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Previously you wanted to know what precisely has Izmailov said. Have you read the articles I've provided? Now, as regards Dunlop, here you go. Alright, let me shorten the paragraph to keep the salient details which appear in Dunlop (and I suppose, New York Times could be used, too)? --Document hippo (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Photo produced by the FSB

And BTW, that photo (just inserted to the page) was allegedly fabricated by the FSB, according to this and other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes Do you have sources for that? I read in the BBC article that there was an expert who said that he couldn't confirm the identity of the person on the photo, but I'm sure if they had a smallest shred of evidence it's fabricated they would say so (it was Litvinenko after all). In any case it's now very clearly attributed to FSB. Alaexis¿question? 07:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I am OK with current legend of the figure. Here some RS: [8], [9]. According to BBC (since you mentioned BBC), "Mr Litvinenko said a British forensic analyst said it could not be determined whether the man in the photo was in fact Mr Gochiyayev. The analyst, Geoffrey Oxlee, confirmed that statement.". So, this is it. No one really knows if it was Gochiyayev or who. Of course one should put this in context i.e. FSB was apparently working hard to produce fake evidence about Gochiyayev in general [10].
Also add the story with photo of "Laipanov" , i.e. "In Lefortovo prison," Korolkov quoted from Blumenfeld's statement, "they showed me a photograph of a certain person, and they said that it was Gochiyaev and that I had supposedly rented the basement to him. I answered that I had never seen this man. But it was insistently recommended to me that I identify Gochiyaev. I understood everything and ceased arguing, and I signed the testimony. In point of fact, the person whose photograph was shown to me, and whom they called Gochiyaev, was not the person who had come to me." (Dunlop, page 128, and here - that ref puts everything to proper context, but I am sure you know the story). My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Last revert

  • @Document hippo. In your revert [11] you (a) included a claim by Vladimir Zhirinovsky sourced to YouTube, (b) you included "Law on Freedom of Movement" (totally unrelated to the subject of the page), (c) you moved factual and well sourced information about prevented bombings to another section, and so on. ??? My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I am glad you've returned to editing! As I said, I'm open to a debate.
(a) A claim by Zhirinovsky is notable as Zhirinovsky's opinion, because previously he has been a subject of a major controversy. He makes his explanations to a notable Russian journalist.
(b) As I said, see Dunlop pp. 89-91. The story is well known.
(c) It's Yury Luzhkov's take on the bombings. We cite John McCain and a lot of others, while Luzhkov was immensely more involved and informed. It's clear that he (A) believes in the official version and (B) identifies certain reasons which facilitated terrorist attacks -- i.e., the Law on Freedom of Movement. I thought it's more appropriate to be kept as a part of a more general context, than in the criticism section.
--Document hippo (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(a) No, a primary source (a YouTube record) is not good for sourcing such claim. If you disagree please ask at WP:BLPNB.
(c) No, debating propiska in the context of bombing is clearly undue for a big page like that one.
(b) Yes, if you cite exactly what Dunlop say (and this is something important), this might be included - as described by Dunlop. My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
(a) How about we just say Zhirinovsky said it has been a misunderstanding? As appears in this secondary source.
(c) That could be shortened, too.
(b) As regards the links to those two articles, I've restricted the content to what appears in Dunlop. Note that Dunlop cites the two articles by Izmailov. The information from the NYT is somewhat differently worded, but is also contained there. --Document hippo (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
A quick update. I've asked users at the BLPNB about our present dispute.
It's good that you suggested it! Won't hurt to ask, I suppose.
--Document hippo (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, I agree with Masem this might be included and not an outright BLP violation when supported by the additional RS (it was not when I removed it). Same about the story with Ismailov when it is supported by the book by Dunlop. But my main and general objection to your edits here is different: you dilute this big and barely readable page with a lot of marginally important claims, which makes it even less readable. All these things are hardly due on the page. But whatever. I simply do not have time for this right now. Perhaps I will, but not sure when. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I hope you would kindly provide the examples, so we could work through them.
Take your time.
--Document hippo (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • For example, I think the "support" and "criticism" sections must be significantly condensed (and there should be no such subsections). This should be just a couple of phrases like "this version/interpretation of events was supported by ... [list of authors with refs]. However, a number of others believe that the official version by the Russian government/FSB could be true" [list of authors with refs]. Or something similar. As currently written, these personal opinions do not provide any real information or important ideas, but only a statement of supporting/disagreeing with something, just like a vote. This is not encyclopedic content. There are many other issues with your revert/version. For example, the US government does NOT have an official position about it. I did not see the claim about Gochiaev being a leader of an Islamist organization in the book by Soldatov (can you cite it directly, please?). You repeatedly cited nearly identical claims by FSB people. And the list goes on and on. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! In any way, the conspiracy version of events is far from being universally accepted , so there's going to be some form of a debate. Be it in the "criticism" section or a "discussion" section or just spread evenly across the text. I think it makes sense to try to keep a discussion in a dedicated section.
Here's the quotation from New Nobility you have requested (pp. 266-267).
Will reply to the rest of your points a bit later!
--18:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • So, "Gochiyaev, Adam Dekkushev, and Yusuf Krymshamkhalov were members of the so-called Muslim Society No. 3, founded in 1995. According to the Russian secret services, by 2001 Muslim Society No. 3 counted more than 500 members and began a campaign of terror in nearby regions." (I did not see it in Russian version of the book). So that is according to the FSB, i.e. the organization that allegedly committed the bombings and well known for planting disinformation anyway. And of course we know that most of the information in the book by Soldatov did come from his FSB contacts and other similar sources. Do you have any strong RS that claim the same? I am a little skeptical about Soldatov who created several pages in WP about himself, his book, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
And here is an actual RS which discusses that claim by the FSB (and Soldatov) in length. As it say, In reality, since his (unwitting or deliberate) role in the 1999 bombings, Gochiyayev cannot be decisively tied to any rebel military operation or terrorist attack in the Caucasus. So this is all a disinformation by the FSB. Why? According to the source, "Much of Bombing Russia relies on the testimony of Gochiyayev, so it is perhaps not surprising that Russian security forces might resurrect his name as a current terrorist leader just as the Litvinenko poisoning investigation intensified in December. If Gochiyayev were indeed an active resistance leader, this would discredit his account of himself as an innocent patsy of the FSB who has gone underground, fearing for his life.". My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
There's no direct contradiction, because Soldatov and Borogan don't claim there was any direct involvement by Gochiyaev since after 1999, which is the gist of the Jamestown argument.
No, author clearly considers Gochiyeav as a "patsy", see also another article by same author [12]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Soldatov and Borogan's book is also not the only RS on the subject.
For example, Elena Pokalova says the following in "Chechnya's Terrorist Network" on pages 98-99:
Sources by the FSB can be also reliable sources, if they are properly published.
Yes, they have a vested interest, but so have Litvinenko, Satter and others.
--Document hippo (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
For example, the US government does NOT have an official position about it.
How about "Reaction of the US government"?
--Document hippo (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • No, you are making a typical WP:GEVAL argument. Yes, fringe sources and disinformation claims (e.g. by the FSB) can be cited, but they must be clearly defined as such, at least according to WP rules. The RS are books by experts like the books by Satter. Are other authors experts? That needs to be seen on a case to case basis. Someone quoting FSB and unreliable Russian newspapers as the ultimate truth - that would be hardly an RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand what are "disinformation claims" that you cite. Could you be more specific?
Yes, any author covering the subject matter would deal with the information coming from the FSB. Soldatov and Borogan had their conflicts with the FSB, their computers were confiscated, etc. You know that no worse than I do. --Document hippo (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
"У меня был еще один эпизод после «Норд-Оста», когда со мной пытались договориться: было уголовное дело, серия допросов, когда таскали меня, Иру, а потом и еще ряд сотрудников газеты «Версия», где мы тогда работали. На меня вышел мой источник в московском управлении ФСБ и предложил сделку: я должен был прекратить шуметь, а они закроют дело. Но у нас есть принцип, который разделяют журналисты, работающие по этой теме и в других странах: такие контакты, такие попытки договориться нужно делать публичными."[13]
--Document hippo (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course all of them use such sources, but how? Someone critically analyzing such publications in context of other sources and facts (like [here, Satter, Dunlop, etc.) is a researcher/RS, but someone uncritically citing FSB and other unreliable sources as the ultimate truth (like Soldatov) is probably not really an expert or promotes disinformation. I would not say more beyond noticing that the page he wrote in WP about himself (or his other claims about himself) do not provide full picture. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, which specific point are you trying to make?
The example with Jamestown article is not convincing, because there's no contradiction between Soldatov and Borogan and the article you cited.
Why do you think Soldatov "uncritically cites FSB"?
--Document hippo (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Here is bottom line. I think that including views by the FSB, Soldatov and whoever else is fine. Just do not present their views as "the truth" and do not overemphasize their views, for example, by providing very long descriptions of their views, as it is in the current version. That would be undue weight. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Not really sure why you protested including the official account of the prevented bombing incident. Felshtinsky himself admits that he has no evidence he communicated with Achemez Gochiyaev: [14]. --Document hippo (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, I will check the sources and will possibly edit something later, when I have more time. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Great! See you around! --Document hippo (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
OK. BTW this your edit summary about the comment by Madeleine Albright is hardly correct. Secondary sources, even ones produced by US Congress [15] interpret it as that FSB/Russian government have no evidence of the Chechen involvement: "Putin blamed the bombings on Chechen terrorists and immediately ordered Russia’s armed forces to retaliate. Yet while Russian authorities said that there was a ‘‘Chechen trail’’ leading to the bombings, no Chechen claimed responsibility. In response to questions from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 2000, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrote that ‘‘We have not seen evidence that ties the bombings to Chechnya.’’ State Department cable from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow relays how a former member of Russia’s intelligence serv-ices told a U.S. diplomat that the FSB ‘‘does indeed have a specially trained team of men whose mission is to carry out this type of urban warfare,’’ and that the actual story of what happened in Ryazan would never come out, because ‘‘the truth would destroy the country.’’" My very best wishes (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Do you remember the parable of the Blind men and an elephant?
Here's another secondary source about the same exact event:
"The U.S. never raised the question of why FSB agents were caught putting a bomb in the basement of an apartment building. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declined to answer questions about the bombings from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying only that “acts of terror have no place in a democratic society.” Russia blamed the bombings on Chechen rebels. Unless the truth is established, terror may become the way power changes hands in Russia from now on."
[16]
--Document hippo (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but that source cites another comment by Albright (“acts of terror have no place in a democratic society.”) Obviously, she only said "We have not seen evidence that ties the bombings to Chechnya". She or other US officials did not rise the question of why FSB agents were caught red-handed while planting a similar bomb in Ryzan'. That is "How America Helped Make Vladimir Putin Dictator for Life". My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Please, check the source. The question by Senator Jesse Helms (who presided over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and the answer by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright:
"Question 1. Last September, bombs went off in four apartment complexes in Moscow and other cities. Russian authorities have attributed these bombings to Chechen terrorists and used these accusations to justify the invasion of Chechnya. Do you believe that the Russian government is justified when it accuses Chechen groups as responsible for the bombings? If so, would you please forward to the Committee any evidence that you have that links these bombings to Chechen entities?
Answer. We condemned the deadly apartment bombings in the harshest terms. Acts of terror, in all their forms, have no place in a democratic society.
The investigation into these bombings is ongoing. We offered our assistance to Russian law enforcement immediately following these incidents.
We understand that Russian authorities have linked the bombings to Chechnya. Chechen authorities, including President Maskhadov, deny this link.
We have not seen evidence that ties the bombings to Chechnya."
--Document hippo (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sure.
Q: "Do you believe that the Russian government is justified when it accuses Chechen groups as responsible for the bombings? If so, would you please forward to the Committee any evidence that you have that links these bombings to Chechen entities?
A:We understand that Russian authorities have linked the bombings to Chechnya. Chechen authorities, including President Maskhadov, deny this link. We have not seen evidence that ties the bombings to Chechnya.
She is an experienced diplomat. She did not answer directly first quest (what she believes). She said there is no any evidence to support the claim by the Russian government. In US culture saying there is no evidence that someone (Maskhadov or Chechen authorities) was guilty meaning they are not guilty. This is a typical interpretation of her comment in secondary RS. And indeed, they were not guilty, even according to the official "Russian"/FSB version. My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
That's one way of seeing it. David Satter sees it differently. In his article that I linked, he says: "Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declined to answer questions about the bombings from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying only that “acts of terror have no place in a democratic society.”"
--Document hippo (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for giving me a link to a copy of book by Dunlop on Google drive. Do you have a similar copy of latest book by Satter ("The less you know...")? My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
You are welcome! Here, but you would need any software which opens epub. I own some copies of books on the subject, but got this particular file from libgen. -- Document hippo (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Mention of Cyclonite in CNN Source

Hey @Mellk, you reverted my edit because you say the CNN source does not mention that residents at first believed the sacks to be filled with cyclonite. This is the exact wording of the source: "A resident late Wednesday night noticed two men carrying what looked like sugar sacks into the basement of the 12-story apartment in Ryazan, 200 kilometers (125 miles) south of Moscow. He alerted police, who found three sugar sacks in the basement with a timer and detonators. The sacks were filled with small crystals that resembled cyclonite, the powerful sugar-like explosive which destroyed several apartment blocks across Russia over the last month, killing up to 300 people." I interpreted this as the resident and the local police at first identified the substance as cyclonite, which the source says looks similar to sugar, so it needs to be mentioned here or else the reference to "sugar" is just confusing. I think I see now though, I could edit the sentence before it instead, as a better and more neutral-sounding edit. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@LightProof1995: OK. I do not see the point of adding this new sentence when the first sentence in that paragraph already says: A suspicious device resembling those used in the bombings was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September. So this just becomes repetitive. You also added quotes but these were misattributed. You added the quote "sacks of suspected explosives" and "small crystals that resembled cyclonite, the sugar-like explosive" but these is what CNN says, not quotes from the police. Mellk (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I added a little bit about sugar-like substance resembling RDX, since I suppose it makes it a little bit clearer. Mellk (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Mellk, I think your edit is great :) Good job and thank you for helping me with it! LightProof1995 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Aimen Dean

Alsee, can you explain why you've removed Aimen Dean's testimony? Are there RS which say that his book is unreliable? I don't see how WP:FRINGE is applicable here. There is some compelling indirect evidence but not smoking gun and reasonable people have different opinions about these events. Alaexis¿question? 19:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Dean's book and claim is fine to cite, but and way less detail and space should be given, since it's a PRIMARY claim from Dean's bio. I mean a confession over a phone call he made in 1999, before he was an asset? That's not verifiable by anyone, even if CIA/MI6 were to rack him over that, which is probably why it's not been reported by anyone else, and likely won't be reported by anyone else reputable. Like I said, he's an RS and it's not a BLP, but more than a blurb is UNDUE. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with that, one sentence should be enough.
WDYT? Alaexis¿question? 05:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
It's pretty much fine, with two things I'd change (your style of English is slightly different from mine, so how I interpret this may be different): "reported on" and "in which he said" sound to me like Aimen Dean is acting in this role as something of a journalist, rather than the witness/participant. I'd word it more like: [Dean] "[said]/[wrote that]/[reported] he had a phone call in 1999 with al-Kurdi ... in which al-Kurdi said that ...". The only main change is to add the year of the call, and to replace the "he" with "al-Kurdi" to make it clearer that Dean is reporting not a possible fact or conjecture (as would be the case if it were "... in which Dean said ...") but what was said during the call. Please consider and reword as you see fit. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
It's not actually my style but rather that of an IP editor who added this information. I've made the changes in line with your suggestions. Alaexis¿question? 23:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have brought this issue to Reliable Source Noticeboard. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out there, there are more serious problems with the way Dean's account is used here - he is specifically skeptical of al-Kurdi's claims throughout the cited section and concludes that who was actually responsible may never be known. Personally I would prefer to omit entirely unless a secondary source can be found, but if we do include then we have to include those aspects or we're risking misusing the source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Please move your responses from the RSN thread to here. It's neither a fact nor an assumption -- it's what Dean told Cruickshank and Lister, and the latter two generally believe Dean. What was on a phone call in 1999 cannot be independently verified, and no substantial facts were given that would make it any more verifiable than any further investigation in the bombing story. Whether Dean is reporting what he heard accurately, or whether al-Kurdi was lying for any possible reason, is unknowable to the authors. So the paragraph is a simple statement: Dean reports that al-Kurdi told him this over the phone in 1999. That has exactly the reliability it sounds like it has, being unverifiable. In the context of the quality of everything reported about the bombings, a short sentence is all the weight it could or should be given. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Dean himself doesn't have a position on this, he literally wrote "[j]ust how the bombings occurred and who was responsible will probably never be known for sure." We surely don't need to add it to this article, which is not about Dean. Alaexis¿question? 14:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Btw, if we are to believe Dean, the British intelligence did not ignore his report and it influenced their assessments (The information gleaned from the al-Kurdi call had at least raised questions about the bleakest appraisals of Russia’s new leader). Hopefully once it's not longer classified we'll get a confirmation or refutation from them. Alaexis¿question? 14:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Content Removed. The RSN discussion brought 3 new editors to this conversation, and they unanimously supported removal. Atlantic306 "not reliable", TFD "The best approach is to avoid it", Aquillion "prefer to omit entirely". Along with myself that makes 4. To the extent the source is considered reliable it still presents problems for use, and it presents messy and contradictory information. At best it is a poor source and we shouldn't attempt to include long messy analysis of the source in the article. The British Government or other secondary sources can be considered if they have published, or ever do publish, about this. Alsee (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I see that User:Aquillion has since edited the article adding some context. Alaexis¿question? 08:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis as I quoted above, four people say we should not be using this source. When someone identifies fixable problems AND they say it shouldn't be used at all, you cannot just ignore the part you don't like. I suggest you not WP:Editwar the losing end of 4 v 2. Alsee (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Your characterization of how the people at RSN assessed the source seems to misinterpret what RSN is for, which is (in cases like this) to give advice on assessing a specific RS. If you want a consensus it has to be here, in the article Talk page, and if one can't be reached it should have an RfC (inappropriate at this stage because there is inadequate discussion without the emergence of two clear good options). Aquillion's comments in RSN and above are the only ones that were really useful IMO in terms of how to actually help improve the situation of sourcing and how to properly contextualize the statement, if it's to be included, without making it look undue. I agree with all of their points, except that I would advocate for more effort to finding a reasonable way to give this some mention, anywhere in the range of a vague allusion with a wl to Dean, but ideally with further secondary coverage. If non-Russian-government unofficial theories can be consolidated briefly into a separate brief subsection, that would improve things as a start. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
SamuelRiv I am active contributor on the RFC Feedback request service and an experienced RFC closer. I am more than happy to participate in an RFC if necessary, and I will certainly respect the outcome. However given that my requests for uninvolved editor feedback have thus far brought 4 uninvolved editors opposed to using the source and ZERO uninvolved editors supporting using the source (totaling 5 vs 2), I would humbly suggest that opening an RFC here would be a frivolous, disrespectful, wasteful use of the community's time.
Regarding Aquillion's comments, I agree they are "useful [] in terms of how to actually help improve the situation of sourcing and how to properly contextualize the statement, if it's to be included". However you single mindedly disregard the words after the comma in that quote, and disregard that Aquillion "would prefer to omit entirely unless a secondary source can be found". Just because something can be improved does not mean that improvement is sufficient to remedy the problems. When I've worked in the Article Deletion process I sometimes cast a delete vote AND improved the articles in case we ended up keeping them. In most cases those articles ended up deleted because no amount of improvement could remedy the underlying problem. Alsee (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
  • (from RSN) First, WP:NOTBURO means we don't discount editors' opinions because those opinions were posted on that page (RSN) rather than this page. Having to post the same opinion on two pages is annoying and unnecessary. Anyway, I don't think an attributed statement to this autobiography is WP:DUE unless other RSes cite the autobiography for the statement, at which point those other RSes should be cited rather than citing the autobiography directly. (A person's memory is a primary source, so I think citing someone's recollection in an autobiography is citing a primary source.) This is exceptionally true for exceptional claims, like who perpetrated a massacre. Levivich 16:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1999_Russian_apartment_bombings/Archive_11&oldid=1246032490"