Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings/Archive 2

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[1] 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 [2]).

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

[3]: 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 [4][5][6][7]. 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" [8]. 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. [9]
• Как сообщили Интерфаксу в УВД Рязанской области, хотя при проверке мешков и были «обнаружены пары гексагена, однако при подрыве не было никакой детонации». [10]
• Взрывотехники муниципальной милиции сразу же провели тест на взрывоопасность, но смесь не сдетонировала. Сейчас мешки направлены на экспертизу. [11]
• 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. [12]

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" [13]. 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 [14]).
• 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.".[15] - 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 [16]. То, о чём я говорю, не газеты, а новостные сообщения. Вот последнее сообщение агенства РИА Новости [17]. Никакой подписи не видно, хотя вряд ли кто-то скажет, что это не авторитетный источник. I have this link opens without problems [18]. What I say, not newspapers and news reports. Here's last message agency RIA Novosti [19]. 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 [20]. 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.[21] 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[22] 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 [23] 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[24] (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)