Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Article protected

I have protected the article until this dispute has been resolved. Please come to a consensus and let either me or WP:RFPP know when the page is ready to be unprotected. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the article. Nakon 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Content fork detected

Hi. I just noticed that there are two articles featuring essentially the same content: Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and Theories of the Russian apartment bombings. The articles are a a textbook example of WP:POVFORK - one is written primarily in support of the FSB involvement claim ("Evidence"), the other - against it ("conspiracy theory"). I would suggest merging these two into one article with a neutral title, such as Russian apartment bombings controversy. This would allow us to merge the sections "Attempts at independent investigation" and "Theory of Russian government involvement" into a single "Controversy" section, that would list the findings of the Kovalev commission and the FSB involvement theory, as well as provide a short summary of the currently disputed "relevant events" section, that is currently discussed in detail in both of those articles. --Illythr (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• If you compare texts, they are not identical. I believe we have two options: (a) the content of "Evidence" will be merged to this article and "Evidence" deleted, or (b) "Evidence" is treated as a separate sub-article, and its content is briefly summarized in this article and in "Theories" article.Biophys (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  While some difference does exist, the two are highly redundant. Considering that the FSB involvement is neither a proven fact, nor a conspiracy theory, and is a highly controversial topic, I think the merger is justified. Merging any of those articles' full content into this one would badly upset the WEIGHT balance (this article will spend more space discussing the FSB involvement in either a positive or negative light, depending on what you merge than the actual bombings). This article already does have a section about FSB involvement, but that section lacks the factual foundation its proponents use, so that should be included, preferably in a single paragraph. As both "Evidence" and "Conspiracy theory" characteristics are judgmental POV, I think a unified "Controversy" article would serve the NPOV cause, if not suite both opposing sides. --Illythr (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Final warning for all editors involved in edit warring

I will be blocking anyone attempting to continue the edit war, regardless of the 3RR rule. If you can not come to a consensus on this page, please consider opening a request for comments. Nakon 05:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

RFC - Inclusion of "Related Events" section

There appears to be a dispute between two sets of users regarding the inclusion of a "Related Events" section. The article's history is full of edit wars over this section and the article has been protected twice in response to the edit warring. I have unfortunately began to block editors that continue to edit war over this section but it does not seem to have an effect. I would like to gain a consensus regarding the inclusion or exclusion of this section so that these editors can contribute constructively to this article's development. Nakon 21:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this still a problem? If so, could you provide links to the two versions? – Quadell ^(talk) 20:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's still a problem. Does anyone object to removing this? See my argumentation above. Offliner (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course there was no consensus, as clear from the discussion above. This should be reverted back to last version by Nakon, perhaps leaving only uncontroversial changes intact.Biophys (talk) 20:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed only one of the chapters ("Possibly related events") to last version by Nakon. Everything else remains as in the present version.Biophys (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Way forward

I notified Nakon about this. In view of the recent reverts by IP, I suggest the following: (1) revert whole article or at least the disputed section to last version by Nakon; (2) semi-protect article; (3) make only non-controversial changes that do not cause objections by others; and (4) if there are objections, discuss and vote until new consensus found.Biophys (talk) 22:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes that seems to be non-controversial. 1. Events in Ryazan are now described in chronological order, and 2. Both major points of view on the bombings are now described in introduction, as it has been some time ago.Biophys (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So you reverted the lead section to a version that is more than half a year old, and which I have criticised over and over again, and which had later been modified by several editors. To begin with, your version does not mention the criticism of the conspiracy theories at all. I'd hardly call this revert "uncontroversial" as you do. Once again, you decided to ignore pages of discussions and dozens of edits by several editors, and simply performed a wholesale revert back to your favourite version. This is not acceptable. Offliner (talk) 04:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the version of the lead you restored is over a year old[1]. Is this acceptable behaviour? Offliner (talk)

Well, older is not necessary mean worse. The versions in the current edit war seem to have a lot of difference. Can some kind soul summarize the differences so it would be easier to discuss and find a compromise Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, Alex, I can try to do just that as time allows (and the article will improve), but let's treat one difference at a time? Biophys (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, let's start from the introduction, as Offliner suggests. This is not my version. This version of introduction was mostly created by Colchicum (please see here). It briefly summarizes the events and notes existence of different theories on the question who committed the bombings. One could reasonably argue that "FSB involvement theory" is the majority opinion, at least in Western publications. Thus, it is notable. We could also add that it still remains unknown who committed the bombings (I can add many recent Russian sources as well to support this).Biophys (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You claim that was the "majority opinion", you mean like more than 50%? 80%? Have you ever taken statistics? Any statistician would explain to you that your way of testing the hypothesis that the opinion was in fact "majority" is extremely flawed especially when there are other factors at play. Have you ever heard of sensationalism? What do you think what opinion sells better in Western world, that FSB wasinvolved in the bombings or that it wasn't? Naturally, lots of conspiracy theories arise and they sell so well that the sheer number of publications may in fact seem like they represent the majority. Again any statistician would say to you that your majority claim is a very wrong conclusion. (Igny (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

This was debated previously [2]. A theory that was described in numerous books and movies and supported by notable historians, journalists and politicians should be mentioned in the Introduction. Right? Biophys (talk) 04:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not arguing that is was not supported at all, I am arguing with that it was supported by a majority. Just a few examples does not constitute majority. (Igny (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

Even a significant minority view should be mentioned in introduction. Come on. This was described by John McCain as "credible allegations". That was reported to US Congress and described in a book by David Satter, a mainstream US journalist. That was justified by mainstream historians/political scientists like Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky. And this gain a lot of publicity after murder of Litvinenko. Biophys (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Response to Alex: here are some of the problems in the Biophys version.

• ...were used as a pretext for the military invasion of the breakaway Chechen Republic... - "pretext" is POV. This has been discussed at length on the talk page, and the wording had been improved by several editors, yet Biophys decided to ignore all this.
• A similar bomb was found and defused in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 23.' - This is POV. Only the conspiracy theorists say it was a bomb.
• It mentions the conspiracy theories, but not their criticism. (Consensus was not include either in the lead, because Biophys aggressively removed all criticism of the theories from the lead again and again, while keeping the theories itself, which made the lead unbalanced.)
• It mentions the conspiracy theory two times, in the first paragraph ("...were used as a pretext...") and in the third paragraph (which is solely about the conspiracy theory view). In addition, it describes the Ryazan incident in detail. Over 70% of the lead is material supporting the conspiracy theory, making it very unbalanced. This also has been discussed on the talk page at length, yet Biophys decided to ignore all that and revert back to a year old version. Offliner (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. "pretext" seems perfectly appropriate here - note that "pretext" does not necessarily carry a negative connotation. However if someone wants to propose a reasonable alternative that should be fine.
2. What you call "conspiracy theories" appear to views found in many reliable sources, hence it's not POV. If the word "bomb" can be referenced then there shouldn't be a problem here.
3. See above. The criticism of the theories found in reliable sources can be noted with a short statement but the explanations should be in the body of the article.
4. See above. See above (re: pretext). The relative size given to this reflects usage in reliable sources. Not clear what your actual objection here is.radek (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Check your dictionary for what "pretext" means. It is POV and thus not approriate.

2. We have reliable sources used in the article according to which it was not a bomb, therefore, we cannot state "bomb" as a fact.

3. Some mention of the conspiracy theories can be included, if we include the criticism as well.

4. It does not reflect the weight given to the theories in reliable sources.

I have restored the consensus version for now, from before Biophys started the edit war. Offliner (talk) 17:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't claim "consensus" when it's pretty clear you don't have it.

1. I changed this - did you even check?
2. Bomb can be referenced, can it be not? You actually DON'T have reliable sources stating that it was not a bomb. What you have is reliable sources stating that the FSB director claimed it was not a bomb. A different thing.
3. We can include the fact that these criticisms exist, but the actual criticisms should be in the body of the article, not the lede
4. An assertion is not an argument.radek (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes.
2. Please read the article and it's sources. It seems that you have not done this yet.
3. By the same logic, we should only mention that conspiracy theories exist, but the actual conspiracy theories should be in the body of the article, not in the lede, no?
4. Please read the article and it's sources. Offliner (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Glad that's settled.
2. I have done the reading thank you very much. The point is that both "The local police caught two Federal Security Service (FSB) agents suspected of planting the bomb in Ryazan shortly afterwards." as well as "On September 24 FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev announced that the Ryazan incident had been a training exercise." which is what the refs are for need to be included. This doesn't appear to be about the use of the word "bomb" actually so I don't understand why you are characterizing it that way.
3. No. We should discuss all versions, even those of the Russian government but leave the criticisms to the text. The reliably sourced (i.e. not conspiracy theories) versions should also be included and their criticisms also delegated to the text. A different version of what happened is not a "criticism" of another version, it is a different version.
4. Again, I have read the article and it's source. This appears to be violation of AGF on your part here.radek (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Intro

Dear user Radeksz,

You wonder, why I restored the version of the intro based on universally recognized facts.

Let me explain my position. Theory of FSB involvement is not recognized by serious actors -- like, governments of the leading countries. Instead, in days of this great tragedy they sent condolescences to the Russian people.

That's why it's reasonable to view first of all the well-recognized facts. Of course, after the facts are viewed, the existing conspiracy theories are also mentioned.

ellol (talk) 05:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can thell, it's reliably sourced and that's all that matter. Whether "serious actors" like governments of leading countries recognize it is irrelevant - though of course the article can note somewhere that the official position of country X is Y, etc.radek (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Radeksz, there is the rich criticism of the conspiracy theory, supported by notable sourced. Purely for readability, it's worth to put the theory and its criticism outside the main block of the article. ellol (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Why on hell should it matter whether a theory is recognized by your "serious actors"? Do you think that this applies to physics as well? The only thing Wikipedia cares about is whether it is reported in reliable sources. And it is. What do condolences to the Russian people have to do with recognition of the theory of FSB involvment? Curious. Colchicum (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum, I do not have anything against the story being mentioned in the scopes of this article.

But pretending the theory has the same impact as the facts would be IMHO unfair. Let's be fair. Are there proofs which allow to state that certainly? Then let's put them in the intro. That would help the world to recognize the threat, and may be, bomb the bloody KGB regime. No problems (if the theory is proved).

But if there are no proofs that could be shown e.g. in the court, what's the talk about? Of course, let's mention the conspiracy somewhere in the article -- after the main block of facts is shown. No problems with that. But pretending the conspiracy theory has the same weight as the facts is wrong. Even if there are many proponents of the conspiracy.

ellol (talk) 11:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We only state a notable version supported by historians, described in many book etc. We do not tell this is fact.Biophys (talk) 14:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement, that the only thing which matters are mentions in books, rather than factual evidence. Does that mean historians do not care if they tell truth? Or that "we" do not care if "we" lie? ellol (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course they care, and they provide a lot of factual direct or indirect evidence to support their conclusions. I am telling that an important majority or a significant minority view should be mentioned in the introduction per WP:NPOV. As a side note, we possibly need a couple of additional articles, Assassination of Russia (I mean the movie) and Operation Successor. Do we?Biophys (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please, tell me of any direct factual evidence. Because I'm unaware of that. All I know is that one of soldiers who took care of sacks with white substance in the Ryazan incident said later that it didn't taste like sugar -- but that, of course, is not direct evidence. ellol (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, please, tell me. May be, I understand everything the wrong way?

But nothing I heard before could qualify as the direct evidence of the FSB-bombing-Russia- theory. ellol (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I could propose a solution to the issue -- to mention the theory in the intro naming it a conspiracy theory. But I'm afraid you won't agree. ellol (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? let's name it a conspiracy theory for the moment and wait what others tell. Just as I said above, even a significant minority view should be mentioned in introduction. Come on. This was described by John McCain as "credible allegations". That was reported to US Congress and described in a book by David Satter, a mainstream US journalist. That was justified by mainstream historians/political scientists like Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky. And this gain a lot of publicity after murder of Litvinenko.Biophys (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As Offliner appeared here, please, discuss this without me now. Tired of editing for today. ellol (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Any way, please, make your proposal. Even if I won't edit, I will answer it within 24 hours. ellol (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Biophys made the same revert to a year old version of the lead again.[3] Compare the versions: [4][5]. Only one sentence in the lead was changed. How many times are you going to revert back to this year old version, ignoring all the improvements and discussions by many editors? Offliner (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the lead can be improved, but in any case the solution is not to restore a year old version, undoing dozens of edits by several editors. Offliner (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss the essence of the text, such as mentioning the Satter's theory in introduction. I think we agreed on this with ellol. If reverts continue, I am going to place an RfC about this.Biophys (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Biophys: No, "we" did not agree. I only proposed to make a statement like: "There is a conspiracy theory stating blah-blah-blah ... that is supported by some people blah-blah-blah". Certainly that's not what you mean. Besides, I cited no names. You are making me wrong. Stop it, please. I see again, how hard if not impossible is it to communicate with you.

With this remark I officially claim that I do not authorize Biophys to protect my interests as a Wikipedia editor. ellol (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You said: this should be mentioned as a "conspiracy" theory, and I agreed.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's just think of it as of one of proposals, among others. 1) Both the conspiracy and its criticism should be mentioned in the intro. 2) No theory/no criticism should be mentioned in the intro. ellol (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We should only notice both sides/theories per WP:NPOV in introduction: (a) the "official" theory by the FSB, and (b) the theory by several historians and politicians that bombings have been committed as a false flag attack by FSB agents. We do not make any judgements about reliability of any of the theories in the introduction. They both have been disputed, but this should be descibed in the text.Biophys (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) If you search for 9/11 conspiracy theories you may also come to a conclusion that majority of the publications support them. There is even a huge WP article which covers them as well as their criticisms in detail. The "standard practices" of CIA are as notorious as ones of KGB a lot of people have prejudices about both agencies. However the lead in September 11 attacks does not mention the conspiracy theories at all. There is also no mention of any "pretext" there as well, citing the official view only: "US responded to the attacks by launching...". Why can't this article follow the suit? (Igny (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

The crucial difference is that there are no RELIABLE SOURCES which support 9/11 conspiracy theories, while there ARE numerous reliable sources which support the involvement of FSB in these bombings. It just comes down to reliable sources.radek (talk) 19:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If we come that far, there are numerous reliable sources which disprove the involvement of FSB in these bombings. ellol (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless FSB actually admitted to their heinous involvement there are no reliable sources, other than various people speculating about "what ifs" (Igny (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

That's a strange point. The official version indeed suffers from some under-clarified points. Much of the information is classified, what prevents historians from operating on richer basis of the information.

But it's not a reason to equalize the weight of the conspiracy theory with that of the official version.

E.g., that's what Richard Sakwa writes in his "Putin: Russia's choice":

[skipped] Moscow sent considerable forces to defeat the invasion and to destroy the fundamentalist salafite enclaves in Dagestan. In response, according to the official version, the insurgent forces (assumed typically to be Chechens, but also involving Dagestanis) decided to take the battle to Moscow and Russia. On 31 August one person was killed and 45 injured when a bomb damaged the underground Manezh shopping complex. [skipped]

A primed bomb ready to destroy yet another apartment block was found in Ryazan on the night of 22–23 September, and although the FSB claimed that this had been a test exercise with a ‘dummy’ bomb, the incident still requires full explanation. These terrible events created a climate of fear and, to a degree, retribution against Chechens, although the involvement of Chechens in these atrocities remains uncertain. The pressure was on for some sort of response, and Putin’s resolute statements and decisive actions, including the willingness to take personal responsibility, won

him considerable popularity. Failure to act at this time would have conclusively discredited the Russian government.

The fundamental course of Barsenkov and Vdovin on Russia's history of XXth century does not even mention the Apartment Bombings. Instead, authors believe that the major reason that allowed Putin to win the election was his set of views. That set of views was expressed in his December 1999 article "Russia at the turn of the millennium".

I was a kid that time, but as a personal account (if that's interesting), I remember that there were 2 major factors before the election: earlier -- war in Chechnya (Chechens and Chechnya were indeed appreciated that time with great apprehension) and later -- Putin's idea that there's no need to engage in political chat or make promises, but instead to work and let people see the results (people were tired of empty promises). ellol (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Radek, there also many other critical differences. First of all, CIA agents were not caught while planting a huge bomb in one of US cities, a few days after the 9/11 events (but FSB agents were caught in Ryazan). Second, the 9/11 events have been investigated by a US Congress comission. There are tons of materials about 9/11 published by experts of all sorts. Russian Parliament have never investigated the bombing and ordered to seal all materials instead. A number of people who tried to independently investigate the bombings died under suspicious circumstances or were jailed by the FSB (like Trepashin). And so on and so on. After looking at the facts, there was nothing more different that 9/11 and Russian bombings. They have only one thing in common: they are both terrorism acts.Biophys (talk) 19:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

All what you speak of casts doubts on the official version, but nothing of that rejects it. ellol (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you say, CIA agents were not caught while planting a huge pack of sugar in one of US cities? ellol (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Trepashkin was jailed not for investigating the Bombings, but for making a classified document open. It's one of the crimes which are never forgiven in Russia's Army/security (Trepashkin took the military oath, swearing not to do such stuff; and he broke his oath). Anyway he is free and alive now. Where are the promised evidence on the bloody KGB regime exploding Russia? ellol (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay on the subject. Radek said: "there ARE numerous reliable sources which support the involvement of FSB in these bombings". But publications by Sakwa do not disprove the existence of opposite sources. Yes, there ARE numerous reliable sources which support the involvement of FSB in these bombings. Right? Biophys (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Sakwa just complains on the lack of open credible information. He doesn't even mention FSB involvement. He only sais there are open questions yet. ellol (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've restored some of the deleted sourced text to the lead, as the lead needs to be a summary of the article per WP:MOS, and there is a significant body of sourced opinion that needs to be represented. --Martintg (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on your very first edit to this article. I am almost convinced that your contribution here is motivated by a fair application of the Wikipedia policies as you just claimed. I am also almost convinced that you studied the topic thoroughly before joining the edit war. I would be fully convinced about validity of your concerns about the lead of articles if you follow through on them and add few sentences about 9/11 conspiracy theories into the lead of September 11 attacks. (Igny (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

When there are protesters on the streets of New York demanding an investigation of the 9/11 attacks, similar to calls in Russia for an investigation of these apartment bombings, as reported by Radio Free Europe and Voice of America, then yes I will add similar information to those articles as well. --Martintg (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Does a documentary film count? There is plenty of other public criticisms of the official 9/11 investigation. I could not find anything in Wikipedia policies about how protests affect the lead of an article, so I am not sure what you meant about the protesters, your controversial edit did not mention any of them. Besides as you may notice if you read the article, these conspiracy theories are not ignored as you claimed in your edit summary. In fact they got their own section in there, and so did conspiracy theories in September 11 attacks. Your edit was not an improvement of the article in my eyes, you just put certain controversial, officially criticized claims in a more prominent place which could run foul of WP:UNDUE. Oh wait, isn't it why 9/11 conspiracy theories are out of the lead there, is it because of the undue weight? If so, why can't the same guideline be applied here? (Igny (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Not in general, no, it doesn't count. And criticizing the 9/11 investigation commission is different then supporting conspiracy theories.radek (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

By supporting conspiracy theories you mean providing direct evidence as opposed to circumstantial evidence or just a hearsay? What happened to the presumptions of innocence unless proven in a court of law? Or you are just going to presume guilt when it is the case about FSB? (Igny (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

WP:LEDE states that the introduction must provide an overview of the article, having a quick look at the 9/11 article I agree that it falls short of policy in that regard. Just because another article is flawed is no excuse for maintaining problems with this article. I don't see how coverage in the lead of something is WP:UNDUE, particularly when it summarizes what is given significant coverage in the main body of the text. --Martintg (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But the criticism of the conspiracy theories also gets significant coverage in the main body of the article, isn't it now running a foul of WP:NPOV? A quote from WP:LEAD: The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. Are you sure the conspiracy theories are most important? Are you sure that listing a bunch of critics of the official investigation in the lead would make the lead any more concise? (Igny (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Maybe not individually, but fact that there are a number of Duma members have expressed their views about it (how many US Congress members have supported the various 9/11 conspiracy theories?), something should be mentioned in the lead. --Martintg (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick search produced one senator. How many do you need? (Igny (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Uh, no, try again. Cleland is not supporting any 9/11 conspiracy theories, he is criticizing the 9/11 commission (basically because he thinks that Bush and co should have known that an attack was coming but ignored the intelligence) and Bush policy on Iraq (he thinks Bush and co used the attack to launch the war on Iraq rather than focusing on Al-Quada). This is completely different than supporting conspiracy theories.radek (talk) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What conspiracy did the Duma members support by criticizing the official investigation? (Igny (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

That would be enough for me, but I know that the 9/11 article is fiercely defended by American patriots, and even some admins were desysopped over the edit wars on that article[6], so even if I wanted to change it, it would be immediately reverted. --Martintg (talk) 04:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest that everyone should stop debates about completely unrelated events, like 9/11. Of course, Ayman al-Zawahiri (one of 9/11 masterminds) has been arrested and then freed by the same FSB (as an FSB representative officially admitted) in the end of 1990s. Litvinenko even claimed that al-Zawahiri was trained by the FSB (so it comes at no surprise that he was poisoned by the same FSB). But this is not a connection we want to make here. Right, Igny? Biophys (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not care which connections you may like to make. All I want to do is to make this edit war to stop without actually participating in it, as it would require too much time for me to read on this topic. All I could say at the moment is that Martin's joining this edit war did not help much. (Igny (talk) 03:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

I've not joined any edit war, I'm participating in the discussion here on the talk page in an attempt to mediate some progress here. --Martintg (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Great, I am glad that finally we are on the same team. (Igny (talk) 11:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

I can see that objections by ellol can be summarize as the following point: we should mention in the introduction that FSB involvement theory has been criticized [7]. I do not mind, but any names cited in the introduction must be of notable people who are at least described in WP.Biophys (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I would prefer that both are discussed in detail further down in the article to avoid bloating of the lead, i.e., to keep it as concise as possible. But if you now think that both have to be in the lead, then we need to discuss the short summary, acceptable by everyone. Just copying most contentious points into the lead obviously did not work. (Igny (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

What's the problem? Right now this is simply a summary of the article.Biophys (talk) 13:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I will give you an example of the summary:

The official investigation was heavily criticized for such and such. Lack of openness gave rise to various theories, including such and such. Officials called such theories baseless with no supporting evidence, and blamed their distribution on the opposition.

Just replace "such and such" with 3-5 words and you ll get your summary. Anyone who wants details can easily scroll the article down. (Igny (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

ellol

Will you please refrain from edit warring and blind reverting people while discussion and attempts at compromise are going on talk? Doing so, particularly without explaining your edits as you did here [8], is very disruptive.radek (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is very much like tango. It takes two parties. (Igny (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Not when on one side you have several editors who are proposing compromise text and addressing issues raised on talk, as I and Biophys have done, and one user blindly reverting others. Then it's just one party.radek (talk) 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Radek, I did not see any compromise text yet. What I saw was an attempt to pretend making a compromise. My edits aren't disruptive: there's nothing to disrupt, so far. ellol (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If other editors are complaining about your edits here on this talk page, then yes, the edits are being disruptive. --Martintg (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ellol asked to include criticism of FSB involvement theory in intro, and that was precisely what I did. Ellol, why did you revert me?Biophys (talk) 00:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but your edit put the conspiracy theories on par with the official version. Just adding a downplayed criticism of the conspiracy theory the way you did is not going to cut it. (Igny (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Then please fix new text instead of reverting. Add more criticism of the alternative theory, etc. Fine, I placed a different, more descriptive version of the introduction. Could you please discuss it or gradually fix instead of making reverts? Thank you.Biophys (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe old version was shorter and better? Or maybe we should combine them some how?Biophys (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well let us see. There are 5 paragraphs in this version of the lead of about the same size. 1/2 of the first actually describes the primary events, 300 killed. The second half of the first paragraph connected the events to the Chechens and Chechen war. The 2nd paragraph described in details some activity of FSB which it called suspicious. The third paragraph went on the accusations of the false flag attack, including one sentence mentioning that there are criticisms of such a claim. The fourth paragraph in detail described some Duma drama seemingly connected to the events (I remind you that Russian Duma is notorious for its dramas). The fifth finally described the conclusions of the official investigation, while noting that the convicts denied involvement.

I am now asking if there is anyone who sees any problems with this version of the lead. (Igny (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

I certainly see the problems.

1) It sais that the Second Chechen War was launched after Ryazan incident (late September), while as its said in the Second Chechen War, "The Second Chechen War, in a later phase better known as the War in the North Caucasus[10] began on 2 August, 1999, when Chechen militants launched an armed invasion of Dagestan."

2) It sais that the bomb was planted in Ryazan. While actually it were packs with sugar.

3) Excessive attention is paid to the conspiracy theory (it's explained before the info about the official investigation, what's incorrect).

4) I don't like the phrase "Official FSB investigation". FSB is not the body in power. Simply, "the official investigation".

ellol (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This is also problematic: The bombings ceased when a similar bomb was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan. The wording implies that the Ryazan incident was the reason why the bombings stopped, which is not true. The thing is, I have argumented against all these points over and over again, and the wording has been changed many times, yet Biophys keeps restoring his favourite version of the lead, ignoring all the improvements and all the arguments over and over again.

About the intro in general, I think we have two choices: either we mention neither the conspiracy theory nor its criticism (this is a good version of such a lead), or we mention them both [9]. Both of those versions I linked to are much better than the current Biophys version, due to the latter's many problems. Offliner (talk) 06:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think in order to resolve this you first need to stop referring to outside (non-Russian government official line) investigations as "conspiracy theories". I believe the Russian government version is already mentioned in the lede so I don't understand what your problem with also including independent versions of the bombing in the lede is, since you state that you are fine with the lead including both.radek (talk) 06:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy is just a convenient term for a theory which claims that any official event was a fake, and all attempts to investigate that were complicated by the authorities.

The problem is that the conspiracy theory has less weight than the official version, whatever doubts can be cast on the latter. I understood what's another problem with Biophys's version of the intro: 5) The history of attempts of the independent investigations is used as a fodder for the conspiracy theory.

Attempts of the independent investigations are notable, but perhaps not that much notable. ellol (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

These are not independent versions. Everyone is trying to push some agenda. Attempts to discredit Russian government should not be a surprise to you. (Igny (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Ellol, once again, will you please refer to the top of this section? Why are you removing any mention of the investigations from the lead? Surely the info belongs in there. BTW, the term might "convenient" but in this context it is also POV.radek (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Imagine you have a locked closet. There are 2 issues. 1) Nobody knows where the key is. 2) Nobody knows what's inside.

Then, there's the following info: 1) People who attempted to find the key, were murdered.

2) There are different versions about what may be inside. Some say there's the treasure, some say there's a skeleton inside.

And you have to write a Wikipedia article about your closet. So you write the intro: "A prominent historian A suggested that there may be a skeleton inside the closet. Independent investigators B and C who attempted to find the key to it, were murdered."

But is it a fair depiction?

I don't think so. What if there's the treasure inside? I tell you: as you failed so far to depict the locked closet issue fairly, let's don't mention it in the intro.

ellol (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly clear on what kind of a point you're trying to make here, but best I can make out you're simply offering a false analogy. The independent investigations are notable, important and hence belong in the lede. It's as simple as that. I still haven't seen a decent argument why they're not important, aside from some POV suggestions that they are "conspiracy theories" (which they're not).radek (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You may ignore my counter-argument all you want, but I will repeat it nonetheless. These are not independent investigations. (Igny (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

To Offliner

This edit summary this version has too many problems, as described on talk is not very helpful. Obviously the other version has too many problems. You articulated the problems you have with something like this version above, [10], I took care of one problem, explained why the other ones weren't problems (because asserting something isn't the same thing as making an argument) and further work for a compromise version was done by Biophys. You have not responded to my response. At this point this is beginning to look like completely obstinacy to insist on "your" version, rather than working with other editors in building consensus. Please respond above and here.radek (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problems are described by me and ellol in the two sections above. What is it in them that you do not understand? Offliner (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The legit concerns you've had have been addressed. What's left? Can you articulate here what your problems are with the compromise version? And I mean, valid concerns, per wiki policies and guidelines, not simply IDON'TLIKEIT.radek (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically IDONLIKEIT does not apply here, because the points are not removed from the article. They are removed from the lead per WP:LEAD to keep it concise, per WP:UNDUE because prominence of the conspiracy theories can not be on par with coverage of the official investigation and obviously can not exceed it. (Igny (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Actually IDONTLIKEIT applies whenever subjective tastes, rather than solid arguments, are used to justify an edit of whatever sort. Re, rest of the comment - as I said before, these aren't "conspiracy theories", they're independent investigations and opinions of respectable persons. Calling them "conspiracy theories" betrays strong POV and is a thinly veiled attempt at tilting the ground in favor of that strong POV. Second, independent investigations and opinions of respectable persons, even if they don't agree with the official position of the Russian government, SHOULD be covered on part with the official position if that position is being seriously questioned in respectable sources.radek (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, independent, says who? (Igny (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Radek, those investigation attempts led to no results so far. They prove nothing.

On the other hand, those opinions are not based on any facts. They are ungrounded.

Yet you want to take these two and compose a conspiracy theory.

Okey. But let's first view what seems to be more credible information. ellol (talk) 08:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you just showed that your own edits fall under IDONTLIKEIT per your own arguments. The fact that you do not like the official investigation, does not justify pushing POV into the lead. (Igny (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Which concerns have not been addressed? Can somebody explain this in more detail? I read the versions and the one Radek reverted to seems more neutral to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to argue with that. It is apparent that one version seems more neutral than the other to different people, and that caused this edit war over the lead. In particular this version looks more neutral to you. This is not enough just to say that and ask the other side what they didn't like about that. If you want you arguments be taken more seriously, present them in a better way than you just did. Now, WHY do you think that this lead is more neutral? (Igny (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

The key point is to notice the existence of FSB involvement theory in introduction, because it is so notable and supported by a lot of indirect evidence. Yes, it's fine to tell that all evidence is circumstantial (this is the essence of criticism by several researchers). That was precisely what I did to satisfy elol. However, he simply reverted this version. Fine, I made another, more detailed version, one that Igny found more satisfactory. But my edit was simply reverted again. This is unconstructive and disruptive. If this continue, we should ask 3rd opinion and perhaps mediation.Biophys (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I repeat the points:

1) You don't barely mention the conspiracy. You discuss it in more details and ahead the official version.

2) No criticism of the conspiracy is mentioned. Note, that Sakwa did not criticise the conspiracy, but did not even mention it. He provided his own view of the situation -- that is, he described the official version, noting doubts in some places.

3) History of the independent investigations is essentially used as a fodder for the conspiracy.

4) To summarize, the intro states more than less than FSB blew up the apartments. While reasonable sources do not even mention this theory. ellol (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

I corrected usages of commas, definite articles, and indefinite articles in sentences, and tried to clarify some of the more poorly written areas. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rickyrab, for the meticulous proof-reading. --ilgiz (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Berezovski's Conspiracy Theory

It should be mentioned that all of the people claiming that the Russian Government was involved in the bombings, (instead of being too inept to prevent them as a result of Yeltsin's "Democratic Reforms") all have ties to Boris Berezovski, who claimed that he wants to topple Putin via a revolution.

It should also be mentioned that Berezovski has a history of trying to frame Putin for everything under the Sun, including Basaev asking Putin invade Dagestan, but stop at the Terek River, before reaching Chechnya. I have discussed why that is ridiculous here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)#Berezovki.27s_Conspiracy_Theory.2C_aka_why_we_all_should_learn_Georgraphy, and interested users can find the link. Additionally, Berezovski tried to blame Putin, (not Kadyrov) for the assasination of Anna Politkovskaya. Of course people like Berezovski don't need proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)#Berezovki.27s_Conspiracy_Theory.2C_aka_why_we_all_should_learn_Georgraphy. And of course who can forget the Berezovski clique blaming Russia for daring to defend herself. Those statements were so dead wrong, that even Rupert Murdoch withdrew his statements.

Why the frame up? Well here's an article: http://www.siberianlight.net/berezovsky-says-he-wants-to-overthrow-putin-by-force/. Berezovsky says he wants to overthrow Putin – by force. It'd be funny if it wasn't true. Of course the rabble rousers will yell "that's a Russian Newspaper!" How's the Guardian for you? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/13/topstories3.russia I am plotting a new Russian revolution. London exile Berezovsky says force necessary to bring down President Putin. Quoting the article: "We need to use force to change this regime," he said. "It isn't possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure." Asked if he was effectively fomenting a revolution, he said: "You are absolutely correct."

Wouldn't a person plotting to remove Putin from power, or Medvedev from power who came out of Putin's United Russia, blame Putin for everything under the Sun? Why are certain editors using Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories? BTW, Wikipedia has something about Conspiracy Theories. Something about "not making conspiracies look more credible than they already are. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Remember of the text just a single section above; that gal Yulia Latynina said: "Now I'll briefly say that I believe that the version that the explosions were done by FSB is not just absurd. I think that this version was devised for some purpose by Boris Abramovich Berezovsky after he was refused of the power." ellol (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Я стала читать эту статью и немножко обалдела. Например, я прочла в этой статье, что чеченцы не взрывали дома, потому что им это не выгодно. С таким же успехом можно сказать, что Кремль, видимо, не имеет никакого отношения к запрещению статьи г-на Андерсена, потому что это же ему не выгодно. Не говоря уж о том, что это точно не Кремль отравил Литвиненко, ему же это не выгодно. Или, например, я прочла в статье г-на Андерсена, что из членов парламентской комиссии, которые занимались расследованием взрывов в Москве, двое погибли. I love how she flips the terms, and argues for the other side. That is sexy. In terms of argumentation.

Basically (for the non-Russian speaking crowd), she takes the argument made by Berezovsky and Co. that "Basaev and Co. aren't going to blow up the buildings, because it's bad PR" and turns it around saying "Kremlin won't be poisoning Litvinenko, as it is bad PR". And according to that logic, neither US, nor USSR, would be toppling governments, as it is also bad PR. Nor was Vietnam invaded, cause that is really bad PR. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I can also flip the argument, and claim that "Berezovsky and Co. would blame the Kremlin for the bombings, because it is great PR for them". Of course on this basis, the argument fails. But adding the fact that Berezovsky wants to overthrow Putin via a revolution, (as if Russia didn't have enough blood spilled already,) suddenly the argument, supplemented by actual evidence, starts to make sense. What Latuynina pointed out, is that Berezovsky's argument has no evidence, except hearsay. To quote one of the many lawyers: "Objection. Hearsay is not evidence." And to summarize Wikipedia: "a conspiracy theory should not be treated as anything, except a conspiracy theory, and Wikipedia should not be used to give it credibility".

An interesting tactic I noticed here, is that some users, trying in vain to make Berezovsky's argument for him, claim that the people who call conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory, are really KGB agents, and if KGB agents are suppressing it, clearly it must be right. The problem with that tactic, is that there is no proof showing that Wikipedians who call a conspiracy theory - by its name, a conspiracy theory, are KGB agents. The color blue contains shades of blue. Does saying this make me a secret service agent? Then why does calling a conspiracy theory, what it is, make others KGB agents?

(Warning: Sarcasm Ahead) Reading certain commentaries, if true, would make me tremble, because according to these commentaries, half of the people editing Russia-related articles are KGB agents, and the other half are CIA agents; cause you know, bin Laden is caught, Umarov is toast, and KGB with the CIA have nothing to do, but edit Wikipedia all day.

Seriously, I know conspiracy theories are exciting, I get it, but come on, fellow Wikipedians, you know who you are, enough with the dirty tactics; start living up to your name. If you got a great argument, make it. If not, then don't spent your time crafting up more and more conspiracy theories, and using dirty tactics to claim that these theories are not conspiracy theories. So far it's only been a few people, and I hope the dirty tactics trend doesn't continue. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Latynina's claims

Yulia Latynina recently spoke with criticism of Anderson's article at Echo Moskvy:

“ Теперь собственно о взрывах домов. Десять лет прошли при полном молчании власти и шумном торжестве либеральной оппозиции, обсуждавшей только одну версию – версию о причастности к взрывам ФСБ. Причем масло в огонь подлила статья Скотта Андерсена «Владимир Путин – темное восхождение к власти», опубликованная в американском «GQ», запрещенная к переводу в российском. Статью мгновенно везде перепечатали. Даже те, кто ее не читал, знают, что она была. Статья г-на Андерсена почти дословно воспроизводит утверждение Михаила Трепашкина. Это бывший сотрудник ФСБ РФ, который за свои утверждения был совершенно несправедливо посажен в тюрьму и отсидел, единомышленник г-на Литвиненко, с которым, как известно, случилось еще хуже – его угостили полонием. Так что вокруг этих обеих фигур, бесспорно, заслуженный ими ореол мучеников.

Я стала читать эту статью и немножко обалдела. Например, я прочла в этой статье, что чеченцы не взрывали дома, потому что им это не выгодно. С таким же успехом можно сказать, что Кремль, видимо, не имеет никакого отношения к запрещению статьи г-на Андерсена, потому что это же ему не выгодно. Не говоря уж о том, что это точно не Кремль отравил Литвиненко, ему же это не выгодно. Или, например, я прочла в статье г-на Андерсена, что из членов парламентской комиссии, которые занимались расследованием взрывов в Москве, двое погибли.

Я бы сказала, что это, мягко говоря, нечистоплотное утверждение. Это типичный «черный пиар». Действительно, Сергей Юшенков и Юрий Щекочихин погибли. Мы знаем, кто убил Юшенкова, даже человек сидит, мы догадываемся, почему убили Щекочихина. Это в любом случае не имело никакого отношения ко взрывам в Москве. И когда видишь такой аргумент в статье, то, естественно, начинаешь сильно сомневаться.

Я буду говорить о взрывах в Москве уже после новостей. А сейчас вкратце скажу, что я считаю версию о том, что взрывы сделала ФСБ, не просто абсурдной версией. Я считаю, что эта версия нарочно придумана Борисом Абрамовичем Березовским после того, как его отлучили от власти. Я сейчас постараюсь это доказать. И мой главный аргумент заключается в том, что, поскольку Борис Абрамович был одним из тех людей, которые приводили Путина к власти, то он совершенно точно знает, что это не так. Потому что если бы не Борис Абрамович приводил Путина… Он инсайдер. Если бы он в момент того, когда они делали Путина (как вся семья делала Путина), почувствовал, что за Путиным стоит кто-то еще, какие-то страшные силовики, которые дома взрывать могут, то они бы Путина выкинули, как горячую картошку. Т.е. это версия не интеллигента, а инсайдера, который точно знает, что это не так. Перерыв на новости. [11]

”

Not sure what article does this info fit the best -- GQ, Russian apartmtnt bombings, or the Theories, but it's certainly interesting. Latynina is not a person who thinks favourably about the Kremlin or Putin, rather than that, she counted among their harshest opponents.

ellol (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Latynina belongs under analysts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of the Sources, aka me pointing out where some people flat out lie

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SatterHouseTestimony2007.pdf

1. Putin was never head of the secret service. He was (is?) a Col. of the KGB. That's not the same as head of the KGB.

2. Criminal Division of property was actually subject to re-examination.

3. The Second Chechen War didn't achieve popularity overnight.

4. Article states that bribes grew ten times in value; article doesn't mention the inflation, nor that the amount of bribes lessened, nor that the Russian standard of living, at the very least doubled under Putin.

5. Article confuses WWII with Stalin's Purges, which were pre-WWII. This is why historians study those thingies called dates.

6. Attack against Estonia was done primarily by Russian hackers and their allies. The article fails to mention that the attack came in response to Estonia's "Hero of USSR Removal Program".

7. Russia offered to cooperate with Litvinenko's murder, if the trial was to take place in Russia. Article doesn't mention this, instead it portrays Russia as "refusing to cooperate". HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This particular source is used only once in the article. What exactly do you propose to do? Alæxis_¿question? 09:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Find an NPOV replacement that actually gets its facts right. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Re:4. Russian per capita GDP, which is what is usually taken as a standard of living grew by about 60% under Putin (not "at the very least doubled" which would be 100%+). This implies a growth rate of about 4.5-4.7% per year. This is actually nothing to sneeze at - I think basically you're failing to realize how big a doubling of living standard actually is (maybe, just maybe, if you can trust the official data, China's the only country that has ever managed to pull off a doubling within a decade - the 90's). But it doesn't help to be sloppy, with this point, or the others.radek (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually whether we look at GDP per capita at constant prices (www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Per-Capita.aspx?Symbol=RUB) or GDP per capita by PPP we see about a twofold increase. The growth was greater than 4.5-4.7%, besides the population became less. Alæxis_¿question? 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It probably depends on which set of figures you look at. I was using Penn World Tables [12] which is the dataset most relied on academically. Growth of GDP per capita already embodies changes to population (% change in GDP per capita = % change in total GDP - % change in population). I think the doubling would be an upper bound estimate.radek (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

What's probably going on here is the difference in PPP adjustment - basically during Putin's time, in addition to other factors, Russia also benefited from a substantial improvement in its terms of trade, specifically with the price of oil. So yes, it does seem that in PPP adjusted terms, it grew at close to 100%.radek (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, the population decreased by 3-4 million, out of roughly 141-145 million. Taking that decrease, 4/141 is a minuscule factor, that's roughly 3 percent. When the Standard of Living doubles, you are looking at a 100 percent increase. Using the table that Radek suggested, the PPP, from 1999 to 2007, increased from 5.32 to 15.71. The real GDP increased at an astonishing rate, averaging over 7 percent. The distribution evened out. Irrespective of the three percent (at most) population change, the GDP still increased by over 100%. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Quite a nice article by the telegraph

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putley

Here is the previously inserted quote by Jeremy Putley:

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

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

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

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

About the Caucasian accent

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

Testing the sugar

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

POV Tag Discussion

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

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

Biophy continues:

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

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

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

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

• cite an NPOV that those were FSB agents According to the April 29, 2003 article by Leonid Berres, Izvestia[13], residents of an apartment building in Ryazan found sacks with hexagen. Following this, FSB director Patrushev stated that there were training exercises in the city. --ilgiz (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Good try Ilgiz, but I asked to have this cited, it's why you don't respond to me out of context: The local police caught two Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who planted the bomb in Ryazan shortly afterwards. So I am asking to cite, an NPOV source, if the people who placed the bomb were FSB agents. According to the source: Как удалось выяснить корреспонденту "Известий", заказчики этого преступления - прежде всего Шамиль Басаев и два араба, инструкторы диверсионных лагерей в Сержень-Юрте и Урус-Мартане Хаттаб и Абу Умар, убитые в прошлом году. . In other words, Izvestia states that the bomb was ordered by Khattab and Basaev. So the FSB agents placing it, had to be turncoats, since neither Khattab, nor Basaev work for the FSB; in fact they work against the FSB. The newspaper states that according to Berezovksy, which the newspaper admits is not a credible source: озвученную опальным предпринимателем Борисом Березовским, yeah that word in Russian, the bolded one, not a good description to have of your persona. So yeah, according to Berezovsky, who wants to overthrow the FSB, the FSB placed the bombs. And that's what the paper says. If an NPOV paper says it's POV quote, guess what - it's a POV quote. Good article though, I agree with it. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
    • The first quote from the Izvestia article is about Procurator office's investigation (opinion) on the Moscow bombings. The quote I showed did not attribute the Ryazan sack discovery and Patrushev's statement to Berezovsky. You seem to imply that Patrushev did not make the statement. Besides, I am not sure what the word "disgraced" has anything to do with the opinion of the "disgraced" person. It was never disputed that the sacks were found, that the search for perpetrators was halted after few people were found, released and that Patrushev declared the events an exercise. --ilgiz (talk)
      • Ilgiz, you are very welcome to fix anything you want. You know this subject well.Biophys (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Biophys, are you going to respond the POV tag? It came to the article as a result of your edits. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • No, I am saying that Russian FSB forces did not blow up their own civilians, and the only ones who say otherwise, are the disgraced Berezovki clique, as the article that you cited points out. When claiming otherwise, show me the quotes from the article, so I can see your evidence, as I am a huge fan of evidence, over mere claims. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia editors do not carry the burden of verifying facts (primary sources) described by the publications (secondary sources). Only the facts that the references were published need to be verified. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. --ilgiz (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Ilgiz, when you make an edit in Wikipedia, you actually have to cite the information where that came from. And is the source is a conspiracy theories, Berezovsky, the source has to either be identified as a conspiracy theorist, or removed. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's focus on factual events

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, as stated in Russian wiki entry for FSB,

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

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

Keeping discussions of theories in this article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal

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

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

Bombing by FSB agents is a majority view

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

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

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

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

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

1. A book by Sakva?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Biophys, your sources are dishonest:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Biophys - is there anything wrong with this fact pattern?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other your proposals also aren't ethically clean. Romanovich died in April 1998 [14] -- long before the events. Ugrumov died because of a heart attack [15] in 2001. ellol (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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