Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings/Archive 4

Is Dagestan part of Russia?

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

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

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

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

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

Shows how out of date I am about some things.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

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

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

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

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

Recent blocking of Cpatain Obvious

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

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

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

Massive deletion of sourced text and sources

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

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

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

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

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

Dubious? According to Litvinenko? Who a scholar has described as a one man disinformation bureau and challenges that he did not offer a shred of evidence for a single accusation/conspiracy theory that he came up with. I agree with Offliner, the talk show and the like is not relevant to the article, and should be removed as per WP:UNDUE, as it gives too much weight to nuttery whilst disregarding more widely disseminated views. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko was only one of many who described the possiblity of FSB involvement. And frankly nobody cares what your favourite scholar says. Some of those scholars also described Putin responsible for genocide. Grey Fox (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the conspiracy theories should be given space, but not nearly as much as they get now. The conspiracy theory material should be summarized, and the full length discussions splitted of to another article, called "Conspiracy theories of the 1999 Russian apartment bombings." Offliner (talk) 09:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

They're not conspiracy theories. Although not proven, there's also evidence that supports possible FSB involvement, and Russia's official investigation has never had evidence released to the public. Even Encyclopedia Britannica has made note of this on their main page for Russia: As prime minister, Putin blamed Chechen secessionists for the bombing of several apartment buildings that killed scores of Russian civilians, prompting the Moscow government to send Russian forces into the republic once again. (Evidence never proved Chechen involvement in these bombings, leading some to believe that the Russian intelligence services played a role in them.) [1] which indicates that it's a pretty mainstream account. Deleting everything that strays from the words of the Kremlin would be a violation of several neutrality policies of wikipedia, as well as very insulting to all those who spoke about the bombings and who were murdered in Russia or abroad. Grey Fox (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

From the conspiracy theory article: "The term 'conspiracy theory'" may be a neutral descriptor for any conspiracy claim. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end." - I really don't understand why exactly they wouldn't be conspiracy theories. Perhaps you have some other definition for the term not used in that article?

Evidence has proved Chechen involvement in the attacks. There has been a full legal proceeding, and 6 men have been convicted:[2] "The trial of the six men, described by prosecutors as Islamic extremists who were under the command of two Chechen rebel leaders, Shamil Basayev and Khattab, began on Nov. 30 in Dagestan's capital, Makhachkala."

However, the conspiracy theories should also, absolutely, be included in the article. The question is only about how much room they should be given relative to everything else. Currently, I'd estimate that the conspiracy theories receive over 70% of the space in this article, which is way too much. Further reading can be found here and here. Offliner (talk) 14:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't use wikipedia as a source, but conspiracy theory means more than that. First it's pejorative and second it's about theories that have no evidence to go with it, that's why it's POV to call it that. No evidence has ever proved chechen involvement. First the "official investigation" said the ones responsible were dagestanis and karachay's, so should stop saying chechens. Second, the court wasn't independent, and independent investigations have always been met with stiff resistance. No proof has ever been released to the public and I have many sources which say so (including the above quote from encyclopedia britannica). Grey Fox (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

[3] says the men "acted under command of two Chechen rebel leaders." That clearly looks like Chechen involvement to me. The court decision was according to the law, from that that there can be no doubt unless decision is reverted by a higher court. Anyway, there are still some concerns, and that's why we need to mention the conspiracy theories. Offliner (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Khattab was falsely mentioned as a chechen there, he was an Arab. And it's mostly Khattab who was held responsible. Also Basayev was only the single ethnic chechen, if held responsible, and he was independent from the Chechen government. I would hardly call that "chechen involvement". Grey Fox (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the changes you made to the lead section Offliner. First the 2nd chechen war didn’t start on August 26. Someone changed this on the war’s page, but the actual date comes after the bombing. Before and during the bombing Yeltsin and Putin still announced that they would not invade Chechnya.

According to this source the war started in August: [4] Offliner (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That's just a single source, and hardly a good one. Most sources speak of it otherwise, you should go with mainstream. Grey Fox (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You’ve innitially also added words of a an alleged person who called the police and said the acts were commited by the “liberation army of dagestan”, but no such group has ever existed, and the general view is that nobody claimed responsibility for the acts ever. You also innitially added the words of basayev, (and named him terrorist on the page in violation of wp:terrorist) but they are of no relevance because basyev was not held responsible for anyone. It’s also taken out of context, when he said “it was done by dagestanis” this was his first guess, with which he meant to say that he was not responsible. See this nytimes article [5] where he said: “He denied any role in the bombings in Russia, and said he had no idea who was behind them. Dagestanis could have done it, he said, or the Russian special services.” Also please avoid using "however" which too is on the list of words to avoid. Grey Fox (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Who says Liberation army of Dagestan doesn't exist? Source? The words of Basayev I added are relevant and should be included in the article. But since he retracted his words later, they probably shouldn't go into the lead, but elsewhere. There is the possibility that he told the truth first, but then started to lie later when things got tougher for him. Offliner (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"The only person so far to claim responsibility for the bomb blasts telephoned the Russian news agency Itar-Tass on Wednesday and said he was from an unknown group called the Liberation Army of Dagestan.". After that the "Liberation Army of Dagestan" never appeared in the news again (see google news archives). Then there's the hundreds of sources that state that nobody has claimed responsibility. I agree with your idea that it should be worked out in the article, but this too has no place in the lead. Grey Fox (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The talk show with people of Ryazan and FSB members

On March 24 2000, two days before the presidential elections, NTV Russia featured the Ryazan events of fall 1999 on the talk show Independent Investigation. The talk with the residents of the Ryazan apartment building along with FSB members Alexander Zdanovich and General Sergeyev was filmed earlier on March 20, 2000. The FSB members refused to provide the name of the head of the training exercise, if there was any. On March 26 Boris Nemtsov voiced his concern over the possible shut-down of NTV for airing the talk.

NTV general manager Igor Malashenko spoke at the JFK School of Government on the day the show aired and said that Information Minister Mikhail Lesin warned him on several occasions. Malashenko's recollection of Lesin's warning was that by airing the talk show NTV "crossed the line and that we were outlaws in their eyes."

According to Alexander Goldfarb, Malashenko told him years later that Valentin Yumashev brought a warning from the Kremlin one day before airing the show. Goldfarb wrote that the warning in no uncertain terms said that NTV "should consider themselves finished" if they would go ahead with the broadcast.

To do

Like I've said earlier, this article is unbalanced because it gives way too much space for the conspiracy theories in relation to everything else. Here's a small list of things I'd like to do/fix:

• 1. The lead must be made more neutral. The current version (reinserted by Biophys) says: "They were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen separatists and together with the Islamist invasion of Daghestan, a republic within the Russian Federation, that took place in August 1999 were used as a pretext for the military invasion of the breakaway Chechen Republic, which started on September 30 and escalated the Second Chechen War."

- "Were used as a pretext" is an extremely biased wording and needs to be replaced with something more neutral.

• 2. We need to add more background material on the historical context, first Chechen war, 1998 economy crisis, fighting in August, etc.

• 3. The description of the events during the days of the bombings must be expanded considerably. The reader definitely wants to see more information than we have now.

• 4. The amount of content for various aspects of the bombings must be kept balanced. Right now, description of conspiracy theories makes much more than 50% of the article. This is completely unacceptable per WP:UNDUE. The following ratio would be much better, and correspond to what is normally used in similar articles: 1/6 for background material, 2/6 for description of actual events as they happened, 1/6 for official investigation, 1/6 for conspiracy theories, 1/6 for implications.

• 5. Surplus material on the conspiracy theories should splitted off to its own article.

Offliner (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Pretext was used more often also in BBC's dispatched documentary, but I understand that it's perhaps too biased. 2) Depends on how and where you'd do it. All that might be relevant is explaining to readers that the chechen republic was de fact independent at the time of the bombings and that their government was recognized both by the kremlin and internationally. 3) Sure. 4) Perhaps there are some neutrality issues. I care about neutrality too so I will defend that, but the way you changed things didn't help either. I've checked out all the material written by high quality newspapers, and pretty much always do they note the controversy surrounding events such as ryazan, and the assassinations of people either investigating the bombings or speaking out over them. Removing all that would amount to censorship. At the same time I see that there's an excessive amount of sections related to the controversies, they can be merged which will help neutrality. 5) There's no need for that. This article isn't too big and everything fits. It would also raise questions on what you would consider surplus. Grey Fox (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• 2. I was thinking of creating a separate background section for that. I do think that the situation in Chechnya and Dagestan before the attacks is relevant. And so is the 1998 economical crisis (a chaotic situation) as well as Yeltsin's situation, etc.

• 4 & 5. I'm not saying that we should remove anything. I'm saying that the amount of space each perspective receives needs to be balanced. Now, more than 50% is given to the conspiracy theories, and I suggested this should be reduced to about 17% (1/6) (or maybe to 20%.) The rest should be splitted off to its own article. Another way to get balance is to expand the other parts, but since this requires time, some of the conspiracy material should be splitted off temporarily, and then brought back when the expansion is complete. Balance should be maintained at all times. Offliner (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've cut down the space the allegations and controversies take up significantly. There's no need to "split anything up temporarily" and no policy either that requires that. If you want to expand the other parts go ahead, I'll help you out. That would balance the article fine. Grey Fox (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not insert irrelevant materials ("the historical context, first Chechen war, 1998 economy crisis, fighting in August, etc.") in this article and keep relevant materials (publications about involvement of the FSB) here.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• a) "Pretext" is an appropriate word - used by many commentators. Russia wanted a new war and this was the event that gave them the excuse to wage it. b) Too much background material is not necessary - passing mentions are fine though. c) "Conspiracy theory" is a loaded word - "theory" would be more NPOV please Offliner:) Malick78 (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order

I really do think that everything should be in chronological order. Background material explaining the situation in Dagestan and Basayev's previous threats belongs to the beginning, and nowhere else. This material will be referred to in the next chapter, and it will be confusing for the reader if he doesn't know the stuff already. Putting things in chronological order is a common practice in articles that describe events. Offliner (talk) 10:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Basayev's threats are taken out of context by you. He said them three years before the actual invasion and they aren't even linked to the apartment bombings. I don't have problems with explaining anything about Dagestan, but the quote from Basayev doesn't belong in the first column because it insinuates that he's responsible. That he always denied, and it's actually Khattab who was held responsible according to the "official investigation". It would be same as adding the predictions by those journalists about the bombings to the first column, I don't think you would agree on that either. Grey Fox (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Also be careful that you don't breach 3rr, you should probably undo your last edits. Grey Fox (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns about Basayev's threats in the background section. They are a bit out of context. However, I really do think that it is relevant to this article that there had been threats. The militants had already launched many terrorist attacks on Russia, and they had threatened to do more. The reader has to know, that the attacks didn't come out of blue. In the context of the militant conflict, I don't think the attacks came as a surprise to most of the observers, only that they were so bold and destructive was surprising. We could replace Basayev's threat with something more general like "Chechen militants had launched many terrorist attacks against Russia earlier, and often threatened to do more." Offliner (talk) 11:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that too would be a serious neutrality problem. We'd have to mention how Russian forces bombed and killed thousands of Russian civilians too (grozny - by which I mean ethnic russians) just a few years before these attacks, and let's not even speak of the tens of thousands chechen civilian casualties. A background section is going to be POV'ish no matter what. Before information was included on Putin's rise to power too as a chronology, people complained and it was eventually removed. Makes sense. Same goes now.

That Russians killed civilians is covered in the next chapters, where Khattab & Basayev mention it in their comments. But it could also be covered in the background section as well. About your other concerns, you say that adding the background section is not neutral. However, I insist that the article needs this kind of info. It as all very relevant and is referred to in the next chapters. Maybe the reason you are concerned is the fact, that now the article starts with something that does not mention immediately mention the "conspiracy theories" at all. But take a look at what the article was before my edits: the whole bombing events were covered very briefly in passing, like they weren't important at all. Then however came the huge chapter about the ryazan incident describing the conspiracy theory. Now, this is what I'd call a neutrality problem. (Even after the addition of more material on the attacks, I still think that chapter too big in relation to everything else.) Offliner (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Basayev's threat wasn't a threat for terrorist attacks. The destruction of Moscow isn't even meant as the destruction of the actual city, 'moscow' is used all the time in the sense of "Russia's regime" so he did not mention civilian casualties. Your move that it was a threat directly related to these bombings is one you made yourself too, the source don't even connect them. The fact that the quote is from during or just after the first war is enough reason to doubt such a connection, because thats three years before the terrorist attacks.

The best way to achieve a neutral article is to simply start with the bombings, and afterwards mention the rest. Grey Fox (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

We can also insert the material about Chechen invasion of Dagestan, terrorists' threats, etc. directly into the following chapters where they are referred to. Offliner (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's already links provided to the dagestan war, it would depend and what you want to insert. Grey Fox (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko and his team as a source

A huge part of this article is based on the books by Litvinenko's team, which included Pribylovsky and Felshtinsky. Are they really that reliable that we can base so much of the article on their claims? Aren't we giving undue weight to the trio? Do they have a reputation for fact-checking and neutrality? Since Litvinenko was part of the opposition (Berezovsky's group), he hardly qualifies as a neutral third-party observer (researcher Plater-Zyberk described Litvinenko as "a one-man disinformation byreau", Sakwa said the evidence presented by Litvinenko & Co. was at best "circumstantial" and Vlad Sobell said that Litvinenko's team didn't really present any evidence for their claims.) And since Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky were part of his book-writing team, I have huge concerns about their reliability too. Offliner (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Pribylovsky is not a member of any team of Litvinenko, AFAIK they never knew each other. And who in hell are the other names? You carefully avoid mentioning that e.g. Robert Bruce Ware doesn't discard the theory and takes it seriously (though he favors the Islamist one), that it was prominently featured in Western press, and so on, and so on. Nice try, BTW. I have huge concerns about sockpuppetry here. Colchicum (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are the other names? Plater-Zyberk is an expert on Russian issues and is a lecturer at the Advanced Research and Assessment Group of the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. In short, a scholar. Sakwa is a Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, and author of "Putin: Russia's Choice". In short, a scholar. Vlad Sobell is a former Senior Economic Analyst with Radio Free Europe, and is now a Senior Economist at the Daiwa Institute of Research, who completed a doctoral thesis on Comecon integration at St Antony's College, Oxford. In short, a scholar. All 3 are widely published, and are regarded as experts in their field, and are not bound by their own agendas. BTW, your concerns about sockpuppetry are misfounded. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

1) How do you know about the validity of my concerns? Do you have a checkuser tool? 2) Three scholars, in short. Vs. other scholars. So what? Surely you have read WP:NPOV. As to their agendas, we cannot know. Well, yes, they are not as transparent as yours. Colchicum (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Vladimir Pribylovsky isn't a scholar. He is a historian with a degree in Byzantine studies. Yuri Felshtinsky it could be argued is somewhat a scholar. Sakwa's book, which is a must read, is probably the most objective book on Putin written, and it's 2004 edition was completely updated in 2008. The difference is, have Prib and Felsh been peer-reviewed? That is what makes a true scholar IMHO. As to your concerns on WP:SOCK, take it to the relevant board if you believe there is sockpuppetry, I know I would be. --Russavia ^Dialogue 15:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

RuSSavia, why in hell do you take any mention of sockpuppetry personally? I thought of HistoricWarrior007, Finalyzer and some others. Colchicum (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum, I would appreciate it if you would use my username as it is written, and not troll (like you accuse me of doing). I haven't taken any mention of sockpuppetry personally. But I do find it very odd that you were thinking of HistoricWarrior007 and Finalyzer, when none of those editors have edited this article, at least not what I can see from the last 9 months or so. Your "concern" of sockpuppetry seems to have been clearly directed towards User:Offliner, and I stated very clearly, if you have concerns of sockpuppetry then have those concerns addressed at the appropriate venue. Apart from not being a troll, or a sock as far as I can tell, Offliner is clearly improving the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Litvinenko co-authored the books with Pribylovsky and Felshtinsky. Felshtinsky was Litvinenko's friend, so he hardly is neutral when it come's to Litvinenko's claims. It is only reasonable to assume, that Litvinenko and Pribylovsky knew each other as well. Probably all of the books in question were financed by Berezovsky. The point is, these guys are not four different sources that came to their conclusions independently, they are part of a single team which is motivated to spread the same POV. They shouldn't be regarded as four different sources, but as a single source. Goldfarb belongs to the same category too, since he was an employee of Berezovsky. And right now I think we are basing too much of this article on the team's claims (and Biophys has used the team's claims as the main source in many other articles as well.) Offliner (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR. Colchicum (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sources: [6], [7], [8]. Offliner (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere how they form a supposed "team". Grey Fox (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course Litvinenko is a notable source. His work should not necessarily be presented as fact, but with the attribution "according to litvinenko". Just because some scholars don't like him or his work does not make him unreliable. Every author has critics. Furthermore Litvinenko wasn't murdered without reason. Grey Fox (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• I am not sure how one can dispute that many secondary sources. First person who described the FSB involvement was US journalist David Satter in the book "Darkness at Dawn". He also reported this to US Congress. Litvinenko was not the first. Several books and a lot of publications followed. Everyone familiar with the subject should consider the FSB involvement as a mainstream (majority) version.Biophys (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

First person who described the FSB involvement was US journalist David Satter in the book "Darkness at Dawn" - not true. Berezovsky made the accusations in March, 2002. Satter's book was published in 2004, and he heavily relies on research sponsored by Berezovsky in his book. Offliner (talk) 17:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The first person was actually the Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov[9], and after Alexander Lebed. Grey Fox (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Biophys' reverts

I really cannot see any justification for Biophys' unilateral deletions of relevant, well-sourced material and sources: [10]

[11] - The criticism of the conspiracy theories is extensively discussed in the article, and leaving it out from the lead is simply not acceptable.

This is also relevant (see the discussion above) and should not be removed: [12]

Biophys also again removed any mention of the only group which claimed responsibility for the attacks, Liberation army of Dagestan, which, according to professor Peter Reddaway and researcher Dmitri Glinski, is most likely responsible for the attacks. Such removal of important, relevant, well-sourced material is nothing but pure vandalism. Offliner (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• The npov- and unbalanced tags should also not be unilaterally removed until everyone agrees that the article is OK (I don't.) Biophys also removed fact-tags from there places where I'd like to see another, mainstream source for the claims. A book by Litvinenko's team alone is NOT enough. Litvinenko et al. are associated with the Russian opposition, and are not neutral sources. Offliner (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The WP:NPOV pillar has nothing to do with the neutrality of the sources. I think that the new sources that contradict the other ones could be mentioned in a point-by-point list or in a separate section. The editor's voice in referring to the sources should be impartial. --ilgiz (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest to verify that the new sources are available to non-subscribers and are published by a known distributor and/or peer reviewed periodical. E.g., I could not see the Russia Profile's record of a "weekly experts panel"[13] because I did not register. The other source, paper "Western treatment of Russia signifies an erosion of reason" by Vlad Sobell,[14] is close to a self-publication as the author is senior economist of the the organization who published his report. The file's location in a blog site may contradict the reliable sources pillar. --ilgiz (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually paper "Western treatment of Russia signifies an erosion of reason" by Vlad Sobell was also published by the Russia Profile, and that source is well available to non-subscribers: [15] ellol (talk) 19:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for pointing this out. Offliner (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
• It seems that there is indeed a very severe ownership issue on this article, and the removal of scholarly views is quite disturbing. I would support reverting Biophys' large-scale removal of information, whilst also adding back in obvious improvements made at the same time. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• If you want to debate anything at all, please follow WP:CIV policy.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see the evidences provided by Offliner as intolerable cases of removal of sourced text, showing critical information against an existing conspiracy theory. After that there was another revert by Biophys: [16]. I do not know what kind of CIV is Biophys talking about, with such kind of behaviour. ellol (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • followed by another revert attempt: [17] ellol (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's not start attacking Biophys people. I regard his edits generaly as good faith, if you don't understand some of them just ask him for an explanation. Grey Fox (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, he usually does not answer to such questions. Offliner (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Organization

I think the organization of this article isn't optimal. It's quite messy and the chapters overlap too much. Therefore I propose the following structure for this article:

• Background. The goal here is to provide the reader background knowledge he needs in order to understand the following chapters, and to keep the following chapters focused on their own matters. What goes into this chapter:
  • 1) description real events that happened before the bombings and that are referred to in the later chapters
  • 2) things people have said before the bombings that are relevant and referred to in the later chapters.

• The Bombings. This should provide a neutral, chronological account of what happened and what was said during the time of the bombings. This should not include any blame game material, since that is discussed in the later chapters. We should also only use neutral sources - the books by Satter, Litvinenko et al do not fall into this category, since the authors are proponents of the "Russian government involvement" theory. This chapter should also not describe the official Russian version of the events or findings of the investigation. Good sources include major international news agencies.

• Official investigation and court ruling. Should discuss the official findings and any confessions / claims made by the defendants in court. Confessions/claims from the perpetrators extracted by Berezovsky, Litvinenko et al. after the court decision should not be described here, but in the "Theory of Russian government involvement chapter."

• Support for the official findings

• Attempts at independent investigation

• Theory of Russian goverment involvement. This should be divided into subchapters by source. For example "Berezovsky", "Satter", "Litvinenko/Felshtisnky", or book names. This also needs a subchapter about the history of the claims. For example, "theories about Russian government involvement startet to float around almost immediately after attacks. Boris Berezovsky made the claim in 2002 and published lots of material. David Satter picked this up and wrote a book in 2003. Litvinenko's book "Blowing up Russia" was published in 200x and financed by Berezovsky, etc..." This is so that the reader knows how the conspiracy theories developed, who was the first and how the latter authors were influenced by earlier materials. The current "Other incidents" chapter should probably be integrated into this chapter as well, since its mostly based on the books by Satter, Litvinenko & Co.

• Support for the theory

• Criticism of the theory

If we implement this suggestion, the major changes would be 1) the division of "Theory of Russian governments involvement" into subchapters and 2) cleaning up the first three chapters of any material that doesn't belong in them, but belongs in a later chapter. Any comments? Offliner (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Good proposal. Facts and their interpretations should be separated, giving preference to the first. ellol (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• • But the article is already organized this way. Most important the factual part. It should include factual events, without the non-existent Liberation Army of Dagestan. The involvement of such "Army" has been discounted by nearly all sources, from David Satter to FSB.Biophys (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"The involvement of such "Army" has been discounted by nearly all sources" - this, again, simply not true. Read the books "Wolves of Islam", "The Tragedy of Russia's reforms" and "Chechnya: From Past to Future" for example. Offliner (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with removing the sections such as the Ryazan incident. These are important events related to the bombings. I think recent changes have caused several neutrality issues and I will adress them soon, but this'll take some time. Grey Fox (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Ryazan chapter is part of "Bombings" and should not be removed. What I'd like to do with it is this: in Bombings->Ryazan we should only use neutral (i.e. international news) sources. Currently the chapter is mostly based on the books by Satter, Litvinenko & Co., which I don't count as neutral sources. Their claims about Ryazan should not be removed as long as there are mainstream news sources saying the same thing. However, those claims which cannot be sourced using such neutral sources, should be moved into "Theory about Russian goverment involvement"->Ryazan. Offliner (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of neutrality issues regarding your changes Offliner. I will explain them here. First the lead section says “A group called the Liberation army of Dagestan claimed responsibility for the attacks”. Since this group’s existence is disputed this is wrong and it should best remain removed. You’ve also added additions to people’s life-work such as someone being a friend of litvinenko, or being a member of a “conservative” think-thanks. These are details that should not be presented in a lead section as they are only there to tell users that they are supposedly not reliable. Your added how Vlad Sobell, Peter Reddaway dismissed the claims of FSB involvement, but this is incorrect. If you read the passages from their book they certainly do not exclude it. After the lead is the newly created background section. I don’t mind it much as long as it doesn’t show just one side of the story, but the quote from Basayev is misplaced. The source doesn’t attribute the quote, which was from long before the bombings, to the bombings but instead to his sense of humour. Using that amounts to WP:OR and it is also a neutrality problem because it insinuates that he already knew of the bombings, so that should defenitely be excluded. Then there’s the quote from Khattab about how the “militants will be everywhere” but this has no relevance to the bombings. He didn’t say he was going to blow up civilians or anything similar and again this is making it look like he did refer to future bombings. I’ve also treated how the warning of the supposed “liberation of dagestan” didn’t come from them themselves according to Vlad Sobell’s book which is quoted in that article, but from a journalist. You cleared that up yourself already in the following paragraph.

In the bombing sections I find the same misuse of quotes. The quote from basayev about the world being engulfed in “blue flame” insinuates to readers that hes refering to the bombings, but that’s POV. Then there’s the line from Khattab, which again does not mention attacks on civilians at all. Paul Murphy’s comments on it are merely his personal observation, and since paul murphy himself is heavily criticized as an unreliable source this too should be ommited. I already pointed out on the liberation army of dagestan page that the quote from basayev about the ones being responsible “being dagestanis” was wrongfully attributed to khattab by that journalist. I’ve also added the denials here too. In the last section about the bombings you’ve added in information of Berezovskiy accusing “chechens”. This is rather weird because berezovskiy was a russian official at the time, and would eventually deny this theory, so this should either be removed or more eleborated upon.

I really can’t agree with you removing pretty much all the information related to the Ryazan incident and the parliament one from the bombing section. I understand that you questioned the reliability on Satter’s source about the bomb being real, so I’ve added some other sources, from even before Satter’s book. If you question certain sources, please place sourcetags. Furthermore these events aren’t part of “theory” but actual events. Also the section you created called “Support for the official findings” is flawed. Again Peter Reddaway and Dmitri Glinski do not support the official findings of the FSB, because the FSB never mentioned the liberation army of dagestan or the wahhabi enclave in central dagestan, and insisted that the FSB may have had a part in the acts too. Without these two the only left is Paul Murphy, who was heavily criticized, and a section devoted to a one mans analysis is a bit over-the-top so I’m afraid we should drop that section. I've adjusted these neutrality issues, at least in part, and added some other sources. Other than all this criticism, I'd like to thank you for your contributions. Grey Fox (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1) Sobell and Reddaway do not exclude the theory that FSB organized the bombings. However, they criticize the theory, and this is exactly what the lead says.

2) Everything that Basayev and Khattab said during the bombings and before them (their previous threats) is relevant. Some of these comments are discussed in the subsequent chapters. However, you are probably right that there are currently a bit too many statements by the two in the article, I'll have a look if some of them could be removed. That the Independent journalist "mistakenly attributed Basayev's words to Khattab" is your opinion, and I do not think the same. Also, I don't see much support for your claim in the sources.

3) Berezovsky's initial claim that Chechens were responsible is relevant, and should not be removed. Yes, he later changed his mind (after going into opposition), and this makes the said quote even more interesting.

4) Like I said, my opinion is that we should remove from the bombings section all material, which cannot be sourced using neutral sources (international news agencies.) If you can find such a source for Satter & Litvinenko's claims, then the claims can be reinserted into that section. Otherwise, the claims should go into "theory of Russian government involvement."

5) "Paul Murphy's book has been heavily criticized." So far, I've seen you referring to only one negative review of the book. One review does not mean the book is "heavily critized" in general.

6) The Liberation Army's claim for responsibility is essential information and is discussed in the article, therefore it should go into the lead. The groups existence is disputed by some, and supported by others. Some even think that it is the same group as the more well-known Khattab's army. Furthermore, it is not the groups existence that is important. What is important is that Dagestani's claimed responsibility for the attacks (saying that it is a response to Russia's assault on the villages.) The name of the group - and even if the group existed for other purposes than just carrying out the attack or not - is a bit irrelevant. Offliner (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, "Incident in the Russian parlament", the material about the NTV show in 2000 and "explosives" controversies do not belong under the "bombings" chapter - for obvious reasons. Offliner (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

In the lead, it is silly to have first the names who supported the conspiracy theory, then the names who critized the conspiracy theory, and then again people who supported it. This sentence: "Other writers, politicians and opposition members[who?] do not exclude FSB involvement, believing that the allegations remain credible" should go before the criticism. Offliner (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

1) The lead said that Sobell and Reddaway dismissed the allegations, but this is not true at all. They've also dismissed the official version and went with the liberation of dagestan one.

They did not dismiss the claims. They criticized them, and that is exactly what the lead says. Offliner (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

2) Many of the quotes are irrelevant because they weren't talking about the bombings, and the sources didn't say that either. "mistakenly attributed Basayev's words to Khattab" is not an opinion, I'm talking about factual accuracy here. The journalist made a mistake by quoting the wrong person, the words according to every other source are from Basayev, not Khattab. Anyway all these quotes would belong in the criticism section, not in the bombing sections, because then it insinuates that these people were responsible.

"Mistakenly attributed Basayev's words to Khattab" is, in my opinion, pure original research by you. Offliner (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

3) If you want to include Berezovskiy's initial claims it would have to be done properly, mostly in the Theory of FSB involvement or criticism section. It should then include information that he was speaking for the Russian government at the time. Right now it's only double information, because what the Russian governemnt said is already covered.

4) It can all be sourced by neutral sources ,just place source tags for the statements.

5) Paul Muphy certainly isn't a reliable source. The person criticizing it is notable and he's not been light of Murphy's book. I've also read parts of it and it indeed lacks serious quality standards and contains a lot of theories not supported by any form of evidence. If you want to dismiss Litvinenko's sources, fine, but Murphy makes Litvinenko look like a Professor on political history. That's not the point though, I don't mind quoting Murphy in this article, along with criticism though, but he does not deserve his own section at all.

Paul Murphy certainly is a reliable source per WP:RS. He is a respected expert on terrorism, and whatever you and the single reviewer you quoted think of his book, everything that he says is authoritative. Offliner (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

6) The Liberation army of Dagestan's existence is only based on those phone calls. Before and after the bombings it has never been heard of. By stating that they claimed responsibility in the lead section it makes it look like they are existent. Note that even the official FSB investigation does not mention the liberation army of dagestan, which is something else. You said that "some think its the same army as Khattab's" but this is not what the reliable sources say, I've only seen Murphy say it really. Most information about this supposed group is completely contradictory. You said it's important to note that Dagestanis claimed responsibility, but it could have been anyone who phoned those agencies. Anyway if we include any of them, we should note that the group has never been known to exist before and after the bombings, and that during the bombings its existence was also disputed.

Any claim of responsibility (especially if it's the only one) is notable and very important. There are many sources which say that the Army's (whatever it is) involvement is credible; therefore, it must be included in the lead. Offliner (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the lead section. The line I added wasn't about people who supported the allegations of FSB involvement, but instead those that do not necessarily believe in it but still believe that its plausible. Your version only has 1) people that believe in fsb involvement, and 2) people that dont believe in fsb involvement. Most analysts are inbetween though, they do not exclude anything but do not support anything either, and warrant further investigation. Grey Fox (talk) 08:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What you are clearly trying to do here is present "a third kind of opinion" and place it after the criticism so that the "supporters" will have the last word on the lead, and also to give the supporting statements more weight by allowing them to be presented in two different places and sentences. This is wrong. You can place the "it's plausible" opinions in the same sentence as the supporters, or immediately after it, but not after the criticism. Offliner (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

In the relevant period of time Berezovsky was one of Russia's veiled policy-makers. As information about Berezovsky's funding of Chechen terrorists (Basayev, Khattab) has been recently confirmed by claims of former Chechen separatists [18], it must be clear he lead his own game. He never was an employee of the Russian state, if you meant that. Thus his opinion is well worth of quoting. ellol (talk) 17:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

We should leave the claims of the "former Chechen separatists" as they are. One of them refers to Basayev saying that Berezovsky encouraged their secession activities. On the other hand, Vyacheslav Izmailov writes in No 23, year 2006 of Novaya Gazeta[19] (machine translation) that Berezovsky paid ransom to free hostages. How the recipients of the ransom interpreted it, is secondary to the original cause of the payments. --ilgiz (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted

I am sorry, but Ryzan incident was described as a part of Russian apartment bombings in practically all sources. Reverted.Biophys (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, no material on the incident was removed, just moved around. Please read the discussion above. Offliner (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved around was wrong because you transfered it all to the section called "theory of fsb involvement", but the ryazan incident isn't a theory, it's something the factually happened. It's unacceptable to remove the mention of it in the bombings part because it's extremely well covered by many reliable newspapers. Grey Fox (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove the mention of the incident from the chapter. And I'm not disputing that the incident happened. I left statements concerning the incident which come from neutral sources (major international news media.) As I have been saying all along, statements which are sourced using Satter & Co. should go to the conspiracy theory chapter, since those sources are not neutral (they are all strong proponents of the conspiracy theory.) If you want to include that material in the bombings chapter, source the statements using neutral sources. If the Satter and Litvinenko's description of the events is true, then it should be easy to find neutral sources for those statements. Offliner (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

It was removed from section called "Ryazan incident".Biophys (talk) 02:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So you see this as a good excuse to revert everything that was done in the last few days (including edits by Ellol and GreyFox)? I know this is a typical tactic from you, so it doesn't really surprise me. I also wonder if you even bothered to read the discussion above. Offliner (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Draft page moved to talk space

The draft page which was at Russian apartment bombings/Temp has been moved to Talk:Russian apartment bombings/Temp2, per Wikipedia:Subpages. The talk page for the temp page is still at Talk:Russian apartment bombings/Temp. Zodon (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Explosives controversies: Moscow and Ryazan

The current "Explosives controversies" section seems to describe changes in the official version of the source and content of the Moscow apartment bombings (please correct me):

(a) Hexogen.

(b) Custom-made aluminum/nitrate mixture.

Should the section also include the controversy between the statements of Tkachenko and FSB/Prosecution office about the sacks found in the Ryazan incident? I understand they are interconnected with both the official version and the theory of FSB involvement.

(i) Vapours of hexogen, real detonator (according to Tkachenko and the official statement of the Interior Ministry), yellow granulated powder (according to the residents)

(ii) Putin's praise of the residents who "correctly responded to the events" (my translation -- ilgiz) in the 7pm, September 23 Vesti TV news program, p.82 of the first Russian edition of "FSB blows up Russia"[20].

(iii) Sugar, fake detonator (according to Patrushev).

-- ilgiz (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess you are right. These are two completely different controversies. They should be described separately. Why would not you do it?Biophys (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In particualr, This LA Times article tells: "The video showed sacks of chemicals that government investigators identified as ammonium nitrate, which they said was used in the Moscow bombs." But most other sources tell that was actually RDX. "We were not informed about the exercise in advance, and that's why we acted in full and by the book," says Yuri V. Bludov, spokesman for the security agency's Ryazan regional office. FSB in Ryzan did not know about the "exercise". Biophys (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More sources

I see more sources describing the Ryazan events in addition to Felshtinsky's book. --ilgiz (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Maura Reynolds published on January 15, 2000 in LA Times, Fears of Bombing Turn to Doubts for Some in Russia. She quotes Alexei Kartofelnikov, one of the 2 residents who persisted in calling militia, Tatyana Borycheva, Tatyana Lukichyova, also residents, Lt. Col. Sergei Kabashov, Yuri Bludov, the spokesman for the regional FSB,
• Helen Womack published on January 27, 2000 in The Independent, Did Alexei stumble across Russian agents planting a bomb to justify Chechen war? She quotes Alexei Kartofelnikov's daughter Yulia, police officer Major Vladimir Golev, Lt. Col. of the Ryazan police Sergei Kabashov.
• John Sweeney a journalist at Observer, later for BBC, published in Cryptome on November 24, 2000, The Fifth Bomb: Did Putin's Secret Police Bomb Moscow in a Deadly Black Operation?. He quotes Vladimir Vasiliev, one of the 2 Ryazan apartment residents who tipped militsia, an "inspector" "from the local police" Andrei Chernyshev, "grandmother Clara Stepanovna", "head of the local bomb squad" Yuri Tkachenko, head of the regional FSB Alexander Sergeyev and others.

• • Thank you, Ilgiz! There is also new good source about bombing in Volgodonsk. Not only people, but even animals in the town became mentally sick after the bombings. I do not have enough time right now.Biophys (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, your last source by John Sweeney shows an interesting photo and tells:

The photographs of a detonator, taken by a Russian bomb squad, and other fresh evidence point to a plot carried out by the FSB working to assist their old spymaster, Vladimir Putin, in his rise to control the world’s number two superpower and its nuclear arsenal.

.

Latest edits

I think Biophys' latest edits were a good attempt at a compromise, and I'm generally happy with them. The main concerns that I have with the current version is that the Ryazan incident is being given undue weight; it is a much larger section that the sections about the other bombings. Also, the placement of the explosives controversy chapter is a bit problematic. I also made a series of edit to address other major concerns that I had. I hope we can achieve a good compromise version. Offliner (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do you suggest to create a separate article Ryazan incident? Biophys (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

If effort is made to keep the new article balanced, I think this could indeed be a good idea. Offliner (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Then let's talk further. Just like everyone else who critically studied this subject, we both know that the bombings in fact have been committed by FSB/GRU professionals. So how many articles do we want to create about this? Let's make a list. I would suggest Investigation of Russian apartment bombings just for starters.Biophys (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the investigation chapter should be created, we should keep that material in the main article instead. Like I've said, the articles I would create would be Ryazan incident and Conspiracy theories of Russian apartment bombings. As for this: Just like everyone else who critically studied this subject, we both know that the bombings in fact have been committed by FSB/GRU professionals - this is simply not true. Most academic sources I've seen say that there isn't enough evidence for either version. Especially Satter, Litvinenko, Berezovsky & Co. did not provide any direct evidence for their claims, and every academic source I've seen points this out. A piece of advice: I suggest that you read more peer-reviewed academic material on the bombings, not just conspiracy theory books sponsored by Berezovsky. Offliner (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your list is very short. As about your second note, facts speak for themselves. Let's consider this as an ordinary crime, and ask all standard questions for the criminal cases. (1) Who was caught red-handed at the scene of the crime? FSB agents while planting the bomb. FSB agent Romanovich was also caught. (2) Who was the beneficiary of the crime? Only Putin who was elected. Who was the loser? The Chechens. (3) Who had technical capacities to commit such sophisticated and technically advanced crime? Only FSB or GRU sptesnaz. (4) Who tried to cover up the traces of the crime? FSB did (the arrest of Trepshkin who identified Romanovich). (5) Who are alternative suspects? Gochiyaev who called himself to police to warn about the bombs (so two bombings in Moscow have been prevented). Any juror in the court would vote that FSB guilt was proven "beyond the reasonable doubt". And I did not tell a lot of other things, like changing the story about explosives or hunting investigators like Trepashkin. Even German Ugryumov was apparently killed.Biophys (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let the facts indeed speak for themselves. Which one of the suspects is a convicted, confessed, extremely deadly and dangerous terrorists? Khattab, not FSB. Who has himself said that Russia is his greatest enemy? Khattab, not FSB. Who warned already in early August, that "our trucks go everywhere. If they start bombing us, we know where our bombs will explode" - the Dagestani Wahhabis, Khattab's little helpers, not FSB. Who claimed responsibility for the blasts? The Wahhabis, not FSB. How was Putin the beneficiary, since Basayev's and Khattab's invasion of Russian terroritory had already given enough reason to start the war? The attacks were hardly "sophisticated" or "technically advanced" as you claim - this is again just Berezovsky propaganda you are picking from Satter & al's books (which seem to be the only source of knowledge for you.) RDX was readily available in Dagestan in huge amounts. Khattab and Basayev had already demonstrated that they have the ability to launch massive attacks. Both had trained in Al-Qaida's terrorist training camps in Afganistan, and such camps had also been set up in Chechnya. Gochiayev did not call - this is again a baseless claim you have picked from the books of Berezovsky's teams (which usually don't name their sources or contain evidence anyway.) And last, but not least: who was it that (at first) claimed that the Chechens were responsible, but later started furiously to spread conspiracy theories after going to opposition, funding a documentary and sponsoring a book based on the same material? All of the books you love to use as sources for everything were sponsored by Berezovsky or written by his associates. And who exactly is this Berezovsky? A convicted criminal, who has been accused of financing Chechen terrorists, who has publicly stated that he is "plotting to bring down the Russian government by force" and whose behaviour is (according to Richard Sakwa) always marked with audacity and cunning. Not exactly a reliable man this Berezovsky, I'd say. Offliner (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Khattab did not claim responsibility for the bombings. No one did except an anonymous caller from a bogus Islamist organization who called after every terrorism act arranged by the FSB (there were quite a few of them). There are also quite a few books mentioning this subject (besides David Satter, Litvinenko, Pribylovsky and Felshtinsky). Look at New Cold War by Edward Lucas or The Security Organs of the Russian Federation. A Brief History 1991-2004 by Jonathan Littell, Psan Publishing House 2006. All of them admit the obvious: the bombings were organized by the FSB. You want to bring this up front? Fine. Let's create the articles. Biophys (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Khattab did not claim responsibility for the bombings - so you are using the word of a convicted and confessed terrorist, who is responsible for the deaths of thoundands of civilians, who trained in Al-Qaida's camps in Afganistan and established similar camps in Chechnya, as evidence that he didn't order the blasts? Give me break. Offliner (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, he did not claim responsibility for the bombing but claimed that he was not involved. Nothing more, nothing less.Biophys (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This "Psan Publishing". It seems to me to be a minor online website, rather than a mainstream publishing house. Have I misunderstood? I see no sign of ANY peer-review or mainstream critical editing of the works "published". This would make all their stuff NOT RELIABLE. Have I misunderstood this as well?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan Littell seems to be a novelist. What makes him reliable in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem reliable to me. Offliner (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I could start such a "publishing house" myself, and use it to spread my own propoganda articles ;) Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What about lucas. He is a journo with a decent CV. What did he actually write?, and what sources did he actually quote?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk)

• • You have deleted a lot of relevant materials. The incidents with Galkin and in the Duma were clearly about these bombings.Biophys (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Balance

Russavia, "the nutty conspiracy theory" is your personal POV, which has no place here. Unfortunately the theory is not nutty, it has been discussed in mainstream media and peer-reviewed scholarship (such as by your favorite Prof. Ware). It is not up to you to decide how many sources would be enough, it is the other way round. The policy is that neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources in proportion to the prominence of each and not to your personal uninformed notion of balance. Colchicum (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course nutty conspiracy theory is my POV, and I only used it in the edit summary, I haven't said it within the article. Almost every single link is relating to the conspiracy theory and pushing that line. I also think that people need to read WP:EL; the reliable ones amongst these links should be used within the references, and removed completely from the external links section. The non-reliable ones, and the WP:LINKVIO (such as those on terror.ru), should also be removed. And dare I say it, the official version would have received as much (if not more) attention than the conspiracy theory, particularly within the academic world. The external links needs gutting; use them as references, or get rid of them. We aren't here to advocate. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Colchicum. I have seen much more reliable secondary sources that support the involvement of FSB than another way around. Just to make sure, one would have to create a Table of secondary sources written by notable people (those who have at least a WP article about them).Biophys (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Its me again, after a long absence. THe bit about sources with a wikipedia rticle about the author is surely a case of using wikipedia as a source. Someone can easily create articles for all the required people, and then quote their link to the bombings as to why they are notable. So the idea is recursive, and redundant. Also, there are a lot of notable people who don't have wiki articles about them - have you ever referenced a work such as "Who's Who" (it is specifically a book of notable people!!) against Wikipedia? - if you do so you will see what I mean Surely it would be more relevant to assess whether the source fite the reliability criteria (which as we all know puts Litvenyenko et. al. in a less favourable light) Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of important factual information

Please stop removing information sourced to books - reliable secondary sources. If you have concerns, please ask at WP:RS.Biophys (talk) 19:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If the "attempted bombings" really are factual, then you should easily be able to provide international mainstream media sources confirming them. So far, I've seen absolutely no mention at all of any such attempts on 13 September in mainstream sources. We cannot base the description of events on just one fringe source. Satter and Felshintinsky's books are not mainstream media sources. They are not even academic works. Worse yet, they are polemic opinion pieces based on the theories of the writer (without providing any evidence, of course.) If you can provide a link for a high-class reliable source such as Reuters or AP confirming the "attempted bombings" then I have no problem at all in including that info to the main chapter. Until that happens, Satter's claims go into the conspiracy theory chapter. Offliner (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And we really don't need a "second introduction" based on Satter's opinions. It is completely redundant. We are not basing the description of events in September 11 attacks on the opinions of a single Russian journalist either. We base them on multiple mainstream high-class sources. Offliner (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• David Satter is a notable mainstream journalist and researcher. He graduated from the University of Chicago and Oxford University. He worked for the Chicago Tribune and as Moscow correspondent of the Financial Times. He then became a special correspondent on Soviet affairs for the Wall Street Journal. He is currently a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the Jamestown Foundation, and a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

• Yuri Felshtinsky is one of best known Russian historians who now lives in the US, an author of 10+ serious research books on recent Russian history. His book with Litvinenko is differ, because it was mostly written by Litvinenko, but his participation and placing his name on the book made it as credible as his other studies. I will check for more sources just in case.Biophys (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • The segment about bombings prevented in Moscow was sourced to book by Goldfarb. Here are some Russian publications about explosives found in Moscow near Borisov Ponds see here. The basement was allegedly rented by someone Laipanov see here. Second warehouse with explosives was found in Kapotnya But wait a minute... It tells: "Лайпанова-Гочияева начали искать по всей стране, хотя сыщики и не надеялись, что хотя бы одна из фамилий принадлежит преступнику. Их подозрения подтвердились: настоящий Лайпанов погиб в начале года в ДТП. А Гочияев, похоже, вообще никогда не существовал. Зато второй персонаж оказался вполне реальной личностью. Им оказался уроженец узбекского города Карши, прописанный в Набережных Челнах Денис Сайтаков." Biophys (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. This is official sentence, Links to other documents, publications in Novaya gazeta, See - Почему под давлением ФСБ закрыто следствие о передаче гексогена с военных складов в подставные фирмы через НИИ Росконверсвзрывцентр? [21].

Here a claim which may or may not be true: "Согласно собранной нами информации, полученной от различных участников операции разного уровня, заказчиком операции по взрывам в России в сентябре 1999 года является Федеральная служба безопасности РФ. В этой связи неоднократно и точно упоминалась фамилия директора ФСБ Николая Платоновича Патрушева. Куратором всей программы взрывов являлся Герман Угрюмов, ликвидированный затем, по нашим сведениям, самой ФСБ. Общее число членов группы составляло, по нашей информации, более тридцати человек. Как руководителей среднего звена мы знаем только двоих: 1) подполковник, татарин по национальности, кличка (псевдоним) Абубакар; 2) полковник, русской по национальности, псевдоним Абдулгафур. Мы предполагаем, что Абдулгафур и известный сотрудник российских спецслужб Макс Лазовский ≈ это одно и то же лицо.see ref here. Biophys (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Kommersant is/was Berezovsky's newspaper. Any non-Berezovsky sources confirming the attempted bombings? Why is there no mention at all of any such attempted bombings in other media sources? If they really did happen, then there should be many sources confirming them. From all we know it might just be a mistake by Kommersant, which was then picked up by the Berezovsky associates when they wrote their books, because they were told to use Berezovsky material. Offliner (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I see the "finger of Berezovsky" discussions still continue apace! And some contributors seem to still have difficulty separating notability and reliability Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

i must say, that I feel that Satter's views, although I personally feel he is following his own agenda, should be included because he has held quite a few good positions, and he seems to be discussing a subject he is likely to know something about (unlike Felshtinsky - which was also published by a two-bob publisher, so has not had first-class editorial scrutiny)). Litvenyenko is, because of HIS history, quite simply not a reliable source. He has far too much self-interest in the case. Goldfarb, in direct receipt of Berezofsky's money, is equally unreliableMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the reliability of Felstinsky, Goldfarb and Litvinenko. They are all Berezovsky's associates, and the latter two are his direct employees. Biophys wants to base the article almost completely on the books by this trio and by Satter, and he seems determined to hide the Berezovsky connection. What he also doesn't understand is that these books are not academic works, only polemic books influenced by Berezovsky's world view. Offliner (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are split now.

Please discuss. (Igny (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

We suppose to discuss prior to making drastic changes like that. To be honest, I hesitated to start the process of creating a lot of sub-articles about these important events for the reasons that should be clear from our debate with Offliner (I would rather not). Now we are going to create many. Fine, that was your initiative.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why many? I do no understand your reasoning. If anything had to be split that was the conspiracy theories. Just read 9/11 conspiracy theories and follow the suit.(Igny (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

There is nothing to follow. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not part of the mainstream, these false flag theories are. The jury is still out, as most of the sources admit. Colchicum (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This changes nothing. If you got references for your claim about the jury, whatever jury that is, just add your claim to Russian apartment bombings conspiracy theories instead of this article. (Igny (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

The references have been here for a year or so, see Ware and others. The problem is that you guys don't read your references and presume that they dismiss the "conspiracy theories" altogether. This is not the case. E.g. Ware explicitely claims hat the jury is still out, and this is relevant to this article per WP:NPOV. I don't care about the fate of the POV-fork, though it will probably end up at AfD eventually. Colchicum (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the move. But I don't know yet what to do about the lead; I've restored the old version for now. Offliner (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the split. It would be nice to discuss the things prior to such changes. Colchicum (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The idea to split have been floating around for quite long now. I just did it per WP:BOLD. The split was long overdue, I suggest to discuss the details of how it was done, the title, the intros, etc. (Igny (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

It shouldn't have been done without consensus in the first place. Many ideas are floating somewhere, so what? Colchicum (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been done. What's now? We get consensus to undo it? (Igny (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

We add the necessary information back in proportion to its prominence in reliable published sources, as required per WP:NPOV, which no consensus can override. This is a policy, we don't need a consensus to enforce it. I don't care about the POV-fork, it is up to you to develop it. We may consider AfDing it, but I don't insist. Colchicum (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying POV fork. It seems that you do not know what the phrase means. If you look carefully you would notice that I just copy-pasted some %30 of this article into a legitimate subarticle. If anything is a POV-fork it is List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings. (Igny (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.. This is non-negotiable. The "conspiracy theories", unlike the 9/11 conspiracy theories, were extensively covered in reliable published sources, so they are very prominent. Even more so, as the official investigation was kept secret, and little is published about the details. Colchicum (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is all good. Now all these significant viewpoints are very prominently represented in Russian apartment bombings conspiracy theories. (Igny (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Which part of this have you missed? Colchicum (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

When an article gets too big as was argued by Biophys not so long ago, it is natural to split it into subarticles. In fact, WP:SPLIT requires to do so. The very fact that the conspiracy theories got their own subarticle says a lot about their prominence in the representation. (Igny (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Just read carefully. I left most of these conspiracy theories in this article. I moved criticism of the theories and criticism of the criticisms to the other article. If anything I did you a favor. (Igny (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

• Oppose splitting for now per Colchicum.Biophys (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you think it is a vote. (Igny (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC))

• Regardless to the split, all prominent views must be properly represented in this article (agree with Colchicum), and the view about FSB involvement is a majority of scholars view. Claims by Russian government has nothing to do with WP policiesBiophys (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with that as long as you can prove it is indeed a majority of scholars' views. (Igny (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

DittoMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead

Any ideas on what to do with the lead now that the theories have been splitted off? Perhaps we should try to keep the lead minimal, to avoid edit wars, similar to what has been done in 2008 South Ossetia war? Igny's lead was OK to me, but I've restored the more neutral wording from an earlier version. Offliner (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think the original version was worded in a neutral-point-of-view editorial voice. But some of the changes you added some time ago and keep reverting to are not neutrally-worded either. Their editorial voice implies bad faith in motivation of the dissenting view supporters. Namely, the latest rev. 284193032 has the following editorial summaries. I emphasized the wording that I think was unattributed (editorial) point of view in bold.

The blasts hit Buynaksk on September 4, Moscow on September 9 and 13, and Volgodonsk on September 16. A suspected bomb was found by local police in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 23, but it was declared a fake bomb used in a training exercise to test responses of the security organs after the earlier blasts.

-- The "but" implies editorial preference of one theory over another. I think this can be avoided by splitting the sentence in 2 and removing the contentious word.

The incident was however later used as a central argument for conspiracy theories. (refs)

-- This complete sentence is an editorial POV, because it looks like the supporters of the "conspiracy theories" had hidden agenda and used the incident to achieve their unnamed goals. Subsequent references do not have anything close to this claim. One of the references is a link to the copy of the main article by a Wikipedia clone.

Removing the Moscow, attempted bombings section is too drastic to me. Even though a shorter paragraph exists in a section on the opposing theory, it is always possible to group the remaining refs and summaries, giving the appropriate attribution, instead of just deleting the summary and the refs. Unfortunately, the deleted section did not attribute the described events to the sources inline. If you think that the events described in the section did not happen, attribute their description to the sources inline. For example, add phrases like "According to an article by ... in ..., ...".

You described your reverts as removing "lies". I think this stems from misunderstanding the WP:NPOV policy. Labeling the sourced POVs that were expressed in a neutral editorial voice sounds like diverging from good faith to me.

My last 2 cents is that your revert threw out the re-factoring of the refs.

--ilgiz (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• The deletion of sourced information about the attempted bombings was entirely inappropriate. The Kommersant is a perfectly reliable source. Offliner may add "according to the Kommersant" or something like that. Colchicum (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I guess we could reinsert the material if we attribute it to Kommersant. Still, we should be careful not to give the "attempted bombings" undue weight, as their coverage in mainstream media seems to be very weak, almost nonexistent. Offliner (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Kommersant certainly qualifies as mainstream media. Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • But for the actual bombings we have a million different mainstream sources. For the attempted bombings, we have only one. It's a bit suspicious, and WP:UNDUE comes into play here. Therefore, we shouldn't give the "attempted" bombings too much space. Offliner (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • So far your suspicions have been your personal OR. The different mainstream sources mostly reprint one another and don't add much. The attempted bombings are documented and should be listed along with the others. As to the claim that Kommersant was Berezovsky's newspaper, it doesn't matter. Kommersant is a mainstream reliable source with a good fact-checking reputation. Go ask at some noticeboard if in doubt. By the way, may I remind you that in 1999 Mr. Putin himself was a close ally of Berezovsky. Colchicum (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Here are your mainstream sources of all stripes: [22], [23][24], [25], [26], [27]. More than enough. Colchicum (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Following the lead from lenta.ru, I found the transcript of the interview with director of the FSB Public Relations Center Alexander Zdanovich and head of the MVD information department Oleg Aksyonov:

original transcript in Russian, computer translation

The former said that militia found a cache of detonators and sacks filled with explosives on Borisovskiye Prudy street. The latter said that FSB and Moscow's Criminal Investigation found 6 timers set to various dates up to September 21. --ilgiz (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • • • This appearance on Echo of Moscow seems to be quite unique. Mr. Aksyonov would take another role in a sports TV 2 years later after the MVD head Mr. Rushailo was offered the position of the State Security Council Secretary. Mr. Zdanovich would be interviewed on 2 more unrelated occasions in years 2000 and 2001. In year 2002 he would take a role in VGTRK TV. --ilgiz (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ilgiz and Colchicum.Biophys (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars

can we please ALL stop hacking out great chunks of the article !! This is supposed to be civilized. e.g. Satter's point about RDX being only made in one factory in Russia is AFAIK an accurate quote (even though it may be wrong, and it is definitely misleading because it implies that RDX is not readily available, whereas it is (5 mins on the internet would confirm this! It is even used as a rat poison!!). So satter is stupid, misleading, and possibly in the pay of berezovsky etc. etc., but the quote is STILL correct and relevant (although it should be only mentioned in context within the analysis of the "RDX availability" issue, which should include the work of others to correct the misleading impression of the Satter quote. DON'T JUST TAKE IT OUT. OTHERWISE WE MAY AS WELL JUST PUT "THIS TOPIC IS CONTROVERSIAL" for the ENTIRE page!! Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not see anything wrong with marking this topic as controversial. It is controversial.Biophys (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point I was trying to make. I was saying that if we all keep hacking out chunks we don't like, we may as well REPLACE the content for the entire article with the single phrase "THIS TOPIC IS CONTROVERSIAL" . Hope this clarifies Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of factual materials and insertion of unconfirmed claims

Frankly speaking, I suggest keeping all factual materials related to the bombings here, but remove unsubstantiated claims by unknown callers. This is unacceptable. Other opinions?Biophys (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The threats and claims of responsibility are factual events and directly supported by reliable sources. Whether the threats really are related to the bombings and whether the callers are who they claim to be, is another matter. But many reliable sources think that they are. Note that my edit was done in response to this. Offliner (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's move step by step. Do you agree that factual events relevant to the bombings per sources (like those in the diff you "responded") be included?Biophys (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's my opinion:

The type of explosives controversy and A military storage with RDX disguised as "sugar" should go to Theories of the Russian apartment bombings as they are actually part of the explosives controversy that is covered there in a separate chapter.

Incident in Russian Parliament is relevant to the bombings only according to Litvinenko (who, of course provides no evidence of course as usual, and who is not a reliable source.) It doesn't belong here.

Testimony by Alexey Galkin does not belong in the main article either, as it is "evidence" used by the conspiracy theory proponents. It goes to Theories of the Russian apartment bombings

Sealing of all materials by Russian Duma and Arrest of independent investigator Trepashkin are utterly irrelevant to the bombings itself. Maybe they should go to Theories of the Russian apartment bombings as well ? Offliner (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but you are obviously mistaken. All of that are factual events (and you seem to agree with that). If these are events are related to the bombings should be defined by sources, and all sources indeed describe these events as relevant to the bombings.Biophys (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can see that deletions of sourced factual materials continue, now also by Russavia. Could you be more cooperative, please? Please keep in mind that certain overlap of material is perfectly fine, as long as it provides an important and relevant information for a reader. Also keep in mind that one could just as easily create an article Operation "Successor" that also includes Dagestan war as a Russian government plot, in addition to the bombings (that part of the story involves Udugov, Basayev, Voloshin, Stepashin and Berezovsky, and others).Biophys (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

So, that was your response to my offer to be more cooperative? Thank you, your response was clear enough.Biophys (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop creating WP:CFORKs. This article is not large enough that it requires selective splitting into other article, which means that we are now in the position where the same content is contained within 4-5 articles. This is a ridiculous situation to be in, and makes this project look like a joke. That is why I have redirected the forks back here. Splits were not discussed at all before splitting. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

But that is your personal opinion. The articles have different subjects, and in spite of having some content overlap, they are not copy-paste moves. You suppose to ask opinion of others per WP:Consensus. You are welcome to mark any articles you do not like for deletion or merging. As you are telling about similar content, WP:Merge is probably the way to proceed.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I can show that they are copy-paste moves. Do I really need to demonstrate this? --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, this particular talk page serves only to discuss improvement of this article. If you have any issues with other articles, please debate them at talk pages of the corresponding articles. You are very welcome to demonstrate any problems there.Biophys (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I restored both articles to allow discussion on their talk pages. Please discuss.Biophys (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility claims

I moved this segment to article Theories of the Russian apartment bombings because all its content can be briefly summarized as follows: no one claimed responsibility for the bombings. These are all various denials of involvement, at best.Biophys (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your summarization simply isn't true. The previous threats are an important part of the bombings' background, and the claims of responsibility are an important part of the event description. Offliner (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent revert

All information about threats was included. If something was not, please tell what it is.Biophys (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Related events

Once again, I restored "related events". Please note, these are not "possibly" related events. These are actually related events, as obvious even from their titles:

   * 3.1 The type of explosives controversy
   * 3.2 A military storage with RDX disguised as "sugar"
   * 3.3 Incident in Russian Parliament
   * 3.4 Testimony by Alexey Galkin
   * 3.5 Sealing of all materials by Russian Duma
   * 3.6 Arrest of independent investigator Trepashkin
   * 3.7 Publications about advanced planning of the bombings
   * 3.8 Claims and denials of responsibility for the blasts

Thus, all of them belong here.Biophys (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have commented on this above. I don't think they belong here. Offliner (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, unlike you, others do think so. Colchicum (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Not many "others". Support Offliner. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Many others, but Wikipedia is not a democracy, and this is not a vote. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Now guys, once your edits get challenged, you need to have a consensus on the talk page to change the status quo. Otherwise your behavior constitutes edit-warring. Colchicum (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems. I agree with Offliner reasoning. I can also add that controversy, testimony, storage are simply not events. Sourced, but irrelevant as "related events". Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You need to reach anything at least remotely similar to a consensus and not just state your personal opinion, and you need to do that before reverting, not after it. Colchicum (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Once again. Looks like pure OR an SYN as "events". Exchanging personal opinions is a way to reach "consensus". There is no rule whether I should leave a message on talk before or after my edit. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, it is hard to reach a consensus if you don't even try and aren't ready to listen to others, preferring wholesale reverts instead. However, actually there is a rule that edit-warring is not on, and multiple reverts without a discussion (and I mean discussion rather than mere statement of WP:IDONTLIKEIT) constitute edit-warring. If you don't like the wording, you might change it (though your interpretation of the word event is very peculiar. An event is usually understood as merely something localized in space and time). But the stuff was sourced and relevant. Colchicum (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, ok you mix up WP:IDONTLIKEIT with rational arguments. I took a deeper look. These are not even "events", this is a collection of (direct and indirect) claims in favor of one and only theory. Presenting them in a narrative about bombings is POV, OR and SYN. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you actually admit that you managed to make two reverts without even taking a deeper look??? Well, those are events. Try to look in a dictionary for the meaning of the word. If you have other sourced events, you are welcome to add them, but there is nothing wrong when certain facts don't fit equally well into every theory, in fact it is natural. Colchicum (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Words "deep" and "deeper", "favorite" and "reasoned" differ a little. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, looks like we are close to consensus. User Biophys confesses [28] that "now all content forks ... have been removed from main article by User:Offliner, and the article was protected". Colchicum, do you want to take back your unreasoned words [29]? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• Beatle Fab Four, I did not endorse your changes, and I agree with Colchicum.Biophys (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then tell us as a man, what was removed from the article? "Relevant sourced content" or "All content forks"? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just been watching this one from the sidelines, but I do have to ask exactly how you can delete controversy as irrelevant (based on a recent edit tag). No response required. PetersV       TALK 05:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe these things should be mentioned in this article, as they are the cornerstone on which the FSB involvement theory rests.Please don't tell my KGB superiors I said this However, there are currently TWO articles detailing this content, so I would suggest listing a summary of them here with a link to the result of the POVFORK merger. --Illythr (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. They should be either briefly summarized or included in all detail (see my comment below).Biophys (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on. These claims definitelty can be mentioned as a part of a theory in appropriate place. But as "Related events" in a neutral narration about bombings they are just OR, SYN or, to put it simply, bullshit. BTW, Biophys, the public is waiting for your honest answer to the posed question. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the summary should be in the section about the FSB involvement theory, as these events are directly related to that. --Illythr (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Restored my comments on the subject from the archive: Offliner (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• The type of explosives controversy and A military storage with RDX disguised as "sugar" should go to Theories of the Russian apartment bombings as they are actually part of the explosives controversy that is covered there in a separate chapter.
• Incident in Russian Parliament is relevant to the bombings only according to Litvinenko (who, of course provides no evidence of course as usual, and who is not a reliable source.) It doesn't belong here.
• Testimony by Alexey Galkin does not belong in the main article either, as it is "evidence" used by the conspiracy theory proponents. It goes to Theories of the Russian apartment bombings
• Sealing of all materials by Russian Duma and Arrest of independent investigator Trepashkin are utterly irrelevant to the bombings itself. Maybe they should go to Theories of the Russian apartment bombings as well ? Offliner (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)