Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:15, 31 January 2010 editHodja Nasreddin (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits Let's count books on the subject, please.← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 17:51, 20 October 2024 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk \| contribs)Bots2,048,701 editsm →top: Task 30: banner adjustment following a discussion Tag: AWB
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~Talkheader~~}}		{{Talk header}}
	{{Calm ~~talk~~}}		{{Calm}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|1=
	{{WikiProjectBanners\|1=
	{{WikiProject ~~Russia~~}}		{{WikiProject Disaster management\|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Terrorism~~}}		{{WikiProject Russia\|importance=Mid\|hist=yes\|pol=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Crime\|terrorism=yes\|terrorism-imp=Low\|importance=Low}}
	{{disaster management}}
	}}		}}
			{{Contentious topics/talk notice\|topic=e-e}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = 100K		\|maxarchivesize = 100K
	\|counter = 5		\|counter = 11
	\|algo = old(~~100d~~)		\|algo = old(180d)
	\|archive = Talk:Russian apartment bombings/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings/Archive %(counter)d
	}}		}}
			{{old move\|date=21 April 2023\|from=Russian apartment bombings\|destination=1999 Russian apartment bombings\|result=moved\|link=Special:PermanentLink/1152175771#Requested move 21 April 2023}}
	{{Archive box\|auto=yes\|
	\|1. ]}}

	== ~~Grammar~~ ==		== Perpetrators ==
			The perpetrators of this were the ] and other Russian Government agencies. The infobox should say so. The second paragraph makes this clear:
			{{tqb\|A suspicious device resembling those used in the bombings was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September. On 23 September, Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War. Three FSB agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police. The next day, FSB director Nikolay Patrushev announced that the incident in Ryazan had been an anti-terror drill and the device found there contained only sugar.}}

			This is contradicted only by Russian Government "investigations". But the Russian Government is not a remotely credible source. ] (]) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
	I corrected usages of commas, definite articles, and indefinite articles in sentences, and tried to clarify some of the more poorly written areas. <nowiki></nowiki> — ] \| ] 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
			:This is not true, as the ] section shows. Also, recently ] wrote that Ibn Khattab told him he had done it. Personally, I find the government involvement version plausible and even likely but it's still disputed and should be described as such. ]<sub>]</sub> 11:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
	: Thanks, Rickyrab, for the meticulous proof-reading. --] (]) 22:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
			:Changing the infobox so that only the accused Islamists are named or only the FSB is quite obviously pushing a POV. The paragraph does not say the FSB were in fact behind the bombings. ] (]) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
			:These recent POV edits are also unhelpful. ] (]) 18:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

			== Requested move 21 April 2023 ==
	== Latynina's claims ==
			<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->

			:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
	] recently spoke with criticism of Anderson's article at ]:

	{{cquote\|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. }}

	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.

	] (]) 09:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

	:I think Latynina belongs under analysts. ] (]) 06:17, 25 November 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/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/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 Misplaced Pages to promote conspiracy theories? BTW, Misplaced Pages has something about Conspiracy Theories. Something about "not making conspiracies look more credible than they already are. ] (]) 08:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

	:Remember of the text just a single section above; that gal ] 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." ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages: "a conspiracy theory should not be treated as anything, except a conspiracy theory, and Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 00:49, 15 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". ] (]) 21:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
	: This particular source is used only once in the article. What exactly do you propose to do? ]<sub>]</sub> 09:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
	::Find an NPOV replacement that actually gets its facts right. ] (]) 10:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

			The result of the move request was: '''moved'''. <small>(])</small> – ]] 17:34, 28 April 2023 (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.] (]) 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 we see about a twofold increase. The growth was greater than 4.5-4.7%, besides the population became less. ]<sub>]</sub> 11:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

	It probably depends on which set of figures you look at. I was using Penn World Tables 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.] (]) 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 ], specifically with the price of oil. So yes, it does seem that in PPP adjusted terms, it grew at close to 100%.] (]) 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%. ] (]) 10:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

	== Galkin's Testimony ==

	Considering that Galkin's Testimony was extracted under torture, why are we using it? I mean heck, if someone's beating me up 24/7 and gives me a text to read to stop the beatings, I'll read the text. So would anyone else. Even James Bond, (in the movie with the North Korean thingy in the air) broke under torture. (M admitted that he was "leaking intel".) No one can withstand torture, especially if it's done over a long period of time. You can force your brain to forget the information, so torture confessions often don't help Recon, but in terms of forcing a person to read a testimony, that's pre-written, it's not complicated at all. Which other Misplaced Pages Articles sink to the level of using "testimony" obtained under torture? ] (]) 03:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

	:What?! It's absolutely inadmissible in the world practice. Quoting his evidence here, we effectively support torture. '''I strongly vote for removal of his evidence'''. ] (]) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

	:''Three Worlds Gone Mad'', ]. Good. The piece from that book about the captive officer's testimony must be translated into Russian. What the barbarism. ] (]) 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

	:From Galkin's interview to Novaya Gazeta:
	:''After I got to ours, I was immediately put into hospital. Half a year was spent for medical treatment. I described what happened with me to my commanders. After the hospital, when I learned writing anew (yes, it's exactly so, I had to learn walking, had to learn writing, and my friend had to learn talking -- he stuttered too much), I reported everything in a short document.''
	: ''...''
	:''It's a fate that we stayed alive. When I passed a medical investigation, got an x-ray, doctors revealed that four ribs are broken. During the captivity they healed a bit with displacement of a rib fracture inside a lung. The jaw was broken three times, head traumatized, arms shot through... With my health condition I couldn't continue serving in the Armed Forced. Got dismissed to reserve in Summber 2002 after a rehabilitation course. And psychologically... I would just like to forget it all. And as such things can't be forgotten, I try to imagine it happened not with me.''
	:
	:] (]) 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

	HistoricWarrior007, I only want to add to your comment, that as Galkin is alive today, using the evidence obtained from him under torture in this article may lead to further traumatizing the man. (Imagine, he opens English wikipedia with this article, and sees the "evidence" he was tortured to say. That's horrific.) ] (]) 16:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

	:Not to mention that the HRW, which according to Misplaced Pages is a valid source, states that evidence extracted under torture cannot be used. Evidence extracted under torture is inadmissible in civilized countries. We must defend Misplaced Pages from becoming as accepting of evidence, as the North Korean Courts! Where is Radio Free Europe's outrage on this? I cannot believe that they missed it, only because the testimony extracted was anti-Russian. If that's true, that would be an atrocious thing to do! ] (]) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

	I feel very uncomfortable removing well-referenced relevant information that is widely used by proponents of a point of view. On the other hand the text labeled words extracted under torture as "volunteer interview" and only then added that after escaping from his prison Galkin changed his "confession" saying that he was tortured. IMHO we should restore the section changing a few words in the first paragraph so to emphasize that this "confession" was extracted under torture and has very little reliability. We might want to add a few details of how exactly he was tortured (in the notes) so the reader would get an idea ] (]) 23:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

	:So you are ok with testimony extracted under torture if it is well-referenced? Doesn't torture contradict being well-referenced, as, when you are under torture you will confess to anything? In the Salem Witch Trials, Mary confessed that John was pure evil, and that testimony was very well referenced. It was allowed to convict John, who later turned out to be innocent. I don't see why we should follow that mistaken precedent, why we should quote others, when they said something against their will. What is the difference between someone, say Galkin, confessing under torture, or someone simply misquoting Galkin? Both are false, and a waste of the reader's time. Yet you propose allowing one, but not the other. ] (]) 06:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

	::I think it's pretty much clear, that Chechens forced him to say that his interview was "volunteered". But it's likely that he had at that moment broken ribs or arms shot through -- what the interviewer did not care to check. During the interview his Chechen captors were present (you can see that from Pelton's interview), so he had to say what pleased them.

	::It's not a merely Misplaced Pages rules issue. But if we leave the "evidence", we collectively are to held responsibility for extending the mental sufferings of the living person who suffered physically and mentally much worse than you or I can ever imagine.

	::I emphasize that Galkin is not an acting officer now. He retired from the Armed forces in 2002 -- that means, he is a civilian. I think it's the general respect of mercy that we shouldn't prevent that person from living a normal life now. The mention of his "evidence" in a political article may actually hurt the living person -- himself. Imagine he opens this article and sees that "evidence" -- what would he think, that people in the world support the torture applied to him?

	::But we are not the enemies of civilians who did not committ any crime! ] (]) 14:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

	::: I see no point in removing the ''references'' about the rendition. The rules only require to verify the facts of publishing. So referring to the rendition directly is not allowed, but including references to the publications about the rendition and presenting their summaries is OK. The ] policy mandates to stay away from monopolizing the truth. Only published statements and contradictions between them matter. As for the ], I did not see that Galkin's personality was denigrated, taking into account the possibility of tortures. Whether the Misplaced Pages editors are extending the mental suffering of Galkin or of the relatives of the bombings' victims who might feel betrayed by the state secret service has little to do with libel. --] (]) 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

	:::: Publishing tortured testimony is by its very definition unverifiable. How can you even be talking about truth and NPOV, if it's crystal clear that the testimony was obtained under torture? Any testimony obtained under torture isn't going to be NPOV, and violated ]. It's also not the truth, it's complete bullshit. And about Galkin being betrayed by the state secret service, that's your own original research, please see ]. Agents get captured and tortured, that's part of the job. This has nothing to do with NPOV, as how can you be NPOV, if you are told what to say at gunpoint? "Read this document, or we shoot your kid, but say it's NPOV, k?" ] (]) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Ilgiz, do you think that testimonies obtained with the use of torture are valid? ] (]) 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
	::::: I have no strong opinion on this. The editors' beliefs or "common sense" should be irrelevant in representing the summaries of references. --] (]) 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: I believe that the use of torture to obtain evidence is the most disguisting behaviour, and using the data obtained with torture in a Misplaced Pages article really stinks. That's my opinion, you can have yours. ] (]) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::::: I have a very strong and firm belief that common sense should not be irrelevant. And here, common sense, dictates, that a testimony obtained under torture isn't NPOV. Editors must strive for NPOV. Thus, we cannot use testimony obtained under torture, irrespective if it's pro-Berezovski or pro-Tooth Fairy. How can one speak from a neutral point of view, if he or she is being tortured? And this is the first time I see Common Sense challenged on Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
	::::::: The ] policy talks about verifying the fact that the reference was published. Verifying the facts presented in the publication and tossing publications deemed untrue is beyond Misplaced Pages's policies. --] (]) 00:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::: From the policy: ''The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.''

	:::::::: ''Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is one of Misplaced Pages's core content policies, along with Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles. '''They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another''', and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.''

	:::::::: Is testimony extracted under torture NPOV? No. Is testimony extracted under torture reliable? No. You must have all three, not just one. Here you only have verifiability, and the other elements for inclusion are simply not met. Quoting from Misplaced Pages's policies: "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". And yet here you are doing exactly that. ] (]) 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

	::::::::: The NPOV policy refers to the relationship between publications and their editorial summaries. Your understanding seems to imply that NPOV is focused on dissonances between the facts and their interpretation in the publications. As for the reliability criteria, again, they are about the authors of the publications not the facts or persons covered by the publications. --] (]) 06:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

	:::::::::: Here is ] - ''Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.'' Do you honestly believe that a view extracted under torture is significant in any way, shape or form? ''"Neutral point of view" is one of Misplaced Pages's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies '''determine the type and quality''' of material that is acceptable in Misplaced Pages articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.'' Ilgiz, do you honestly believe that "evidence" extracted under torture, can ever be considered to have NPOV quality? It's right there in the definition. You need NPOV and Verifiability. Verifiability you have, NPOV you do not have. Anything extracted under torture cannot ever be NPOV type or NPOV quality. You need both. You cannot just pick and choose what you like. As per ] '''this is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors'''. ] (]) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::::: HistoricWarrior007, I wonder what the next discussion will we have, after discussing whether torture is a proper means to get information. Justification of pedophilia, or morality of cannibalism? I always thought that such questions are just too much neanderthalean. It's really a wonder for me that there are people like Ilgiz, eager to justify things like torture.
	::::::::::: I really wonder, in fact. Usually in criminal codes of various countries there is no law prohibiting cannibalism -- there's just no need of it. Is then cannibalism an acceptable sort of behaviour for Ilgiz?
	::::::::::: IMHO, the whole topic is just that much nauseating and humiliates our human nature as discussing cannibalism does. Like hell, we are the people of certain culture, that stands against torture, regardless of who is the victim. We are, like, people, not a bunch of animals. Don't you think so? ] (]) 11:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::::::::::: I agree with that entirely. Both, governmental rules and rules of society must be respected, but not worshiped. Often we forget that rules are created by humans and they can change. If we never broke the law, there would still be De Facto segregation in the South, India would be in British hands, etc. As Lincoln said, "A House Divided cannot stand". When societal rules clash with governmental rules, one or the other must go, and often society is correct. But certain people worship rules of government, and ignore societal rules, and are later surprised when society punishes them for it. At least it provides good, societal entertainment for historians. But I think that a lot of people don't get this concept, so I won't apply it to anyone here. ] (]) 20:41, 26 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. ] (]) 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/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/search/?title=Russian_apartment_bombings&action=historysubmit&diff=329775558&oldid=329774888 Misplaced Pages 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 ... ] (]) 06:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

	: Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 12:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

	:::You guys want to change this article's name too? http://en.wikipedia.org/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? ] (]) 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/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? ] (]) 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. ]<sub>]</sub> 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. ] (]) 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'''. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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). ]<sub>]</sub> 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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." - from the WP page ]. So who are the ''superhumans'' required for this to be a 'conspiracy'? ;) ] (]) 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 ]: "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. ] (]) 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."

	::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... ] (]) 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/ ] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	::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. ] (]) 02:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

			] → {{no redirect\|1999 Russian apartment bombings}} – This article has a way too general title. Yesterday Russia bombed itself at Belgorod and while doing a Google search I ended up in a Second Chechen War article. That should say something. ] ] ] 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
	== About the Caucasian accent ==
			*'''Support''' per nomination. The main title header, ], is indeed incomplete. —] <small>] • ]</small> 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Rename''' there have been many such inccidents over the centuries -- ] (]) 17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nom—] 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
			*'''Support''' per nom. -- ] (]) 13:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
			<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
			</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>

			== Sources check ==
	Can anyone please source it, is it ] or ] as the context doesn't provide this. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			Let's have a look at sources supporting ''Others disagree with such theories or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks'' in the lead. Because I see for example ''] (2005). "Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies.'' and he is a philosopher. ] (]) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	==Testing the sugar==
			:Looking further, there is 2002 book by ]. Not sure of his reliability - what is his academic degree in a field? His book discusses the matter in only 3 paragraphs and he concludes ''There was no evidence to support this conspiracy theory, although Russian public opinion did indeed solidify behind Putin in his determination to carry out a swift, decisive counteroffensive.'' He provides no explanation and does not mentions Ryazan incident at all. His book has been finished late January 2002 which means just a little bit more than 2 years has passed after the event. ] (]) 16:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	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.] (]) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
			:Going further, Pope, Ronald R. (2004). "Feature review. Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State".<br>The best he says against the FSS bombing is "Pankratov argues that if the alleged attempted bombing in Ryazan was masterminded by the FSS, we should assume they have been able to keep the lid on the cover-up..." so Pope don't ''disagree'' but quotes Pankratov (who is Pankratov?) doubting the "alleged attempted bombing" version, so Pope's position is to not to disagree but to doubt. ] (]) 18:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
			::Hello. What are you suggesting to do about this? ] (]) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::Newer sources should be preferred.{{pb}}<br> ] (]) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::It was previously discussed . Yes, according to the book by ] (based on interviews with ]), one should not cite Talbot as an authority on this subject. At best, he knew nothing of substance and just provided his personal opinion. There are so many sources on this subject that one must be selective. ] (]) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::I think there is an overall consensus of ''best'' sources right now that the bombings were almost certainly conducted by Russian secret services. Some controversy is related to the existence or lack of "direct evidence". But would not someone caught red-handed while planting a bomb be a direct evidence? That is what had happen with FSB agents in the city of Ryazan. ] (]) 01:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::I definitely think the language should be switched up. As of now it sounds like there is a 50/50 split between the two opinions. Most sources I have seen as of late definitely attributes the attacks to FSB, albeit not conclusively. This line "''The attacks were widely attributed to Chechen terrorists, although their guilt has never been conclusively proven.''", also needs a change. It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations. I'm interested in seeing what changes you have in mind so feel free to make them and we can discuss it here further if there is anything. ] (]) 22:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I agree. Let me think about it. Or you can just fix it yourself. ] (]) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::As a double check for "due weight", I am making Google ''books'' search for "Russian apartment bombings", and first 5 books in the list (Satter, Goldfarb, Dunlop, Felshtinsky) strongly assert that the bombings were conducted by the FSB/GRU. These books are specifically on the subject of these bombings or dedicate them at least a big chapter. 6th book (Soldatov) mentions the bombings mostly in passing and expresses a concern that they were work by the "services". Next book (by ]) also says it was conducted by Russian services. And so on. I do not have much time for fixing this page, so will do it quickly. ] (]) 21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't think that using top 5 books from the google books search results is a good method. For all we know, they could generate different results for different users <s>to confirm their beliefs</s>.
			:::::::] is definitely a subject matter expert, so his opinion should stay in the article even if it contradicts other viewpoints, per ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Yes, sure, and I did not remove his opinion, just shortened it. As of note though . I shortened a big paragraph with their views for a few reasons. It says: "and claims by Trepashkin were highly dubious." Which claims by Trepashin? He made a lot of claims. As about the ""Muslim Society", they say ''according to Russian state security services, ...''. Yes, exactly. Everything we supposedly know about the role of Gochiyaev in this "Society" is ''according to Russian state security services'', and they lied a lot regarding these bombings. But OK, we can keep it, just rephrase. ] (]) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Sure, the sentence starting from "According to Russian state security services" can be removed or rephrased if more sources can be found. ]<sub>]</sub> 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::As far as I remember, the claim that Gochiyaev was a leader of this "Muslim Society" was a lie and a part of his framing by the FSB - according to the book by Dunlop. Actually, the only book saying he was indeed a leader of this "Society" ("according to the FSB") is the "Nobility" by Soldatov. No doubts, he had excellent connections with FSB people who fed him various info. ] (]) 16:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{tq\|It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations}}. This is precisely what the source says, and the quote is there. We are not going to rely on ]. ] (]) 19:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Which source? ] (]) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::Last edit by Mellk provides , but the quote is not there. However, this is the lead, a summary of the content on the page. I just removed this phrase for now, simply because it does not to fit the rest of the text. ] (]) 23:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::Well the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory and you have made a lot of edits since then, so I have not checked what was removed. ] (]) 01:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

			===A revert===
	== POV Tag Discussion ==
			*. Well, several participants suggested to change this (see above), and that is exactly what I did. Moreover, the content is sourced to , and the quotation is simply not there. This ref should be either fixed or removed, together with text. ] (]) 01:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			*:. And I see one editor who suggested to change this based on OR. But I guess you do have objections now despite the edit summary? ] (]) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::I am not sure what exactly {{ping\|Manyareasexpert}} and {{ping\|Ola Tønningsberg}} wanted to fix, so would rather wait for their comments. ] (]) 02:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::Well, it is not really possible to have a discussion with you when you go ahead with several changes between each comment, including repeated changes to text being actively discussed. ] (]) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::If you disagree with my edits, please explain why or suggest a new/compromise version. ] (]) 03:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::I reverted you (twice) and responded to the discussion. In the edit summary you said you had no objections to this being restored "somewhere", then started a new section here and said you would rather wait for others' comments, and despite all this, still continued making changes to the text in question and restoring some of the previous changes. So I am not sure, is a 3RR warning needed instead? ] (]) 03:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::I am sorry, but it was you (not me) who made two reverts. Moreover, you did not really explain here ''why'' you did these reverts. Yes, after saying "I have no objections to this being restored somewhere" in edit summary, I did not revert your edit, but rather modified text to improve it. ] (]) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::I just said I reverted you twice, and you continued with partial reverts. You put "per talk" as the reason for this. I gave my reason for reverting you above. But I am not going to play these games anymore. ] (]) 03:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::As I said, I am OK with your last revert. What exactly my edit you disagree with (a diff) and what reason did you give? I have no idea. ] (]) 03:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::::::I already said the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory, therefore your initials changes were not accurate summaries. Anything else I should repeat? ] (]) 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::::::"the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory". Yes, of course. I agree and always agreed with it, and it is reflected in the lead. ] (]) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::As found above, the lead sentence "Some others disagree with this or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks." contain sources which weakly support the statement, their support is questionable or arguable, are old, are not on subject, are not an expert on a subject, or vice versa. This should be reworked, newer sources preferred. ] (]) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::The lead is just a summary of the page and does not require referencing directly in the lead. You are welcome to rewrite or whatever. I am more concerned about first phrase in the same para: "The attacks were attributed... ". Attributed by whom? And this is definitely not a correct summary of content on the page (as already noted in discussion above). This phrase should be removed, rewritten or moved somewhere. ] (]) 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{tqb\|text=The lead is just a summary of the page\|by=My very best wishes\|ts=14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)\|id=c-My_very_best_wishes-20240329141800-Manyareasexpert-20240329135600}}Unfortunately this article doesn't have many active editors/edits so if we would wait for article body to be changed we may never improve. In our situation, let's say it is possible to edit the lead directly.{{pb}}Agree regarding "were attributed". ] (]) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
			:::::::Agree. So, I fixed accordingly. As about the phrase you talked about, I thought just removing it would be OK because we do not say that everyone agrees with the claim in the previous phrase (which perhaps would be a proper balance), but this apparently caused objection by Mellk, hence I kept it. ] (]) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

			== Split of criticism to official and non-official ==
	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 ] on ] and together with the ] were used as a pretext for the military invasion of the breakaway ], which started on September 30 and escalated the ]."

			@], what's wrong with splitting the criticism section into two. Official denials aren't worth much in my view and it would be easier for the reader if they were not mixed with the criticism from uninvolved sources. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
	"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.
			:I'm not opposing the abovementioned. But let's base the article on an academic sources in a field, not journalists . ] (]) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
			:: I just tried to find a name that would work for all the sources in that section. Let's just split the official criticism then. ]<sub>]</sub> 12:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::For example, there is an interesting recent article with a new viewpoint , available via wikilibrary. These academic views should be the prevailing POV. ] (]) 13:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::Thanks, this is fascinating, I haven't heard about this new version. I wouldn't be too surprised if this turned out to be true.
			::::Note that he, like Short, is rather skeptical about Litninenko's "FSB did it" version. Perhaps we should reassess the consensus. ]<sub>]</sub> 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Greetings, I've removed Short since there is no consensus to include it. We are pretty much can concentrate on gathering academic sources since there are plenty. Short's book is ] and I haven't seen academic reviews praising his 1999 bombings arguments. I haven't removed other non-academic works since they were there before. But we can reach the consensus and remove them as well. ] (]) 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::::{{tquote\|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content}}. ] works this way whether the material is new or old.
			::::::Short's book is has been called , and (by the same Edward Lucas who has a different opinion and whose opinion is mentioned in the article] so it might be journalism but it's not a random newspaper article.
			::::::The inclusion of non-scholars' opinions doesn't change the overall weight we give to different viewpoints as they are also divided, but keeping only those who support a certain opinion would certainly violate ]. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

			== Weight of different viewpoints ==
	Biophy continues:

			===Current text===
	"The (then) Russian Prime Minister ] praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians and ordered air attacks on Grozny. The local police caught two ] (FSB) agents who planted the bomb in Ryazan shortly afterwards. "
			{{cquote\|Although the bombings were widely blamed on Chechen terrorists, their guilt was never conclusively proven. A number of historians and investigative journalists have instead called the bombings a false flag attack perpetrated by Russian state security services to win public support for a new war in Chechnya and to boost the popularity of Vladimir Putin prior to the upcoming presidential elections. ... Others argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks.}}

			===Sources===
	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.

			I've created a table with the viewpoints currently mentioned in the article, adding the article by Robert Otto brought up by u:ManyAreasExpert in the previous thread.
	"the secessionist Chechen authorities, claimed that the 1999 bombings were a ] 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 ]'s popularity, brought the pro-war ] to the State Duma and him to the presidency within a few months <ref>

			{\| class="wikitable"
	Fascinating. Biophys neglects to mention that it was Ibn-Khattab who threatened to kill Russian civilians, killed them, took responsibility, and when his people didn't support him, Ibn-Hattab denied responsibility. Now they, and Biophys, claim it was the Russians instead. Bin Laden should try that, claiming that Americans did 9/11. Why not, it worked for Ibn-Khattab.
			\|+ FSB Involvement in the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings
			\|-
			! colspan="4" \| Original source
			\|-
			! Source !! Year !! Position on FSB involvement !! Notes
			\|-
			\| Alexander Litvinenko, Yuri Felshtinsky, and Vladimir Pribylovsky \|\| 2002 \|\| Strongly asserts FSB involvement \|\| Litvinenko, a former FSB officer, along with Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky, accused the FSB of orchestrating the bombings to justify the Second Chechen War.
			\|-
			! colspan="4" \| Academic sources
			\|-
			! Source !! Year !! Position on FSB involvement !! Notes
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2003 \|\| Believes in FSB involvement \|\| Satter argued that the bombings were a political provocation by the Russian secret services similar to the burning of the Reichstag. He believes the evidence strongly supports FSB involvement.
			\|-
			\| Amy Knight \|\| 2012 \|\| Strongly asserts FSB involvement \|\| Historian of the KGB, Knight wrote that it was "abundantly clear" that the FSB was responsible and that Putin's "guilt seems clear."
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2014 \|\| Strongly asserts FSB involvement \|\| In ''Putin's Kleptocracy'', Dawisha concluded that the evidence of FSB involvement, particularly in the Ryazan incident, is "incontrovertible."
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2018 \|\| Considers FSB involvement possible \|\| Historian Snyder wrote that it "seemed possible" the perpetrators of the bombings were FSB officers.
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2012 \|\| Dismisses FSB involvement \|\| Ware argued that Islamist extremists from the North Caucasus were responsible for the attacks as retribution for federal actions in Dagestan.
			\|-
			\| Brian Taylor \|\| 2018 \|\| Skeptical of FSB involvement \|\| Taylor cited multiple reasons to doubt FSB involvement, noting a lack of conclusive evidence and suggesting the Ryazan incident could have been a failed FSB "training exercise."
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2013 \|\| Skeptical of FSB involvement \|\| Abrahms suggested the bombings were counterproductive for Chechen independence, but argued the conspiracy theories arose because of the clear benefit to the Russian government.
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2014\|\| Supports FSB involvement theory \|\| The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule
			\|-
			\| Robert Otto \|\| 2023 \|\| Skeptical of FSB involvement \|\| Otto argued that there is no conclusive evidence that the FSB or Putin were responsible for the bombings, although he concedes that Putin failed to conduct a proper investigation, which makes him complicit in them. He also suggests an alternative explanation involving Berezovsky and Rushailo.
			\|-
			! colspan="4" \| Other sources
			\|-
			! Source !! Year !! Position on FSB involvement !! Notes
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2008 \|\| Strongly supports FSB involvement theory \|\| In ''The New Cold War'', Lucas concluded that the weight of evidence supports the view that the bombings were a planned stunt to solidify Putin's rise to power.
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2009 \|\| Suggests FSB involvement \|\| Anderson wrote in ''GQ'' about Putin's role in the bombings, drawing on interviews with Mikhail Trepashkin, a former FSB agent.
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2022 \|\| Skeptical of FSB involvement \|\| Short argued that while it cannot be conclusively proved that no one from the FSB was involved, there is no factual evidence of Russian state involvement.
			\|-
			\| ] \|\| 2022 \|\| Supports FSB involvement theory \|\| Christopher Steele voiced support for the idea that the bombings were a false flag operation conducted by Russian security services.
			\|}

			]<sub>]</sub> 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
	Biophys has a history of "reinterpreting" Russian sources. For instance he doctored the song that I posted, changing the original lyric, "bayonet hits the body" to "bayonet hits the trembling body of your enemy", despite the lack of the words "trembling" and "enemy" in the entire song. So I was a bit suspicious when Biophys claimed that this edit "On the 23 of September 1999 the NTV broadcasting company transmitted in its News block at 4 p.m. there were no explosives detected during the suspicious-looking sacks testing.<ref>www.lenta.ru/russia/1999/09/23/ryazan/</ref>" 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.

			Please let me know if you notice inaccuracies or believe that an important source is missing. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
	And I think the Ryazan explanation and expansion should go into the Ryazan column. Just my two cents. ] (]) 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, 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. --] (]) 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 ] (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. ] (]) 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, you are very welcome to fix anything you want. You know this subject well.] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 07:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	***** Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source. --] (]) 15:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	****** Ilgiz, when you make an edit in Misplaced Pages, 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. ] (]) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

			:John B. Dunlop in "''The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule''" also makes a strong case for FSB involvement. He's a good source. Overall most sources certainly believe FSB involvement ] (]) 22:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
	==Appeal==
			::{{Done}}. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
	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. ] (]) 13:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
	* ~~Misplaced Pages~~ ~~articles~~ ~~would~~ ~~not~~ ~~have~~ ~~much~~ ~~value~~ ~~without~~ ~~presenting~~ ~~references~~ ~~to opinions and works. --~~] (]) 15:44, 27 ~~January~~ ~~2010~~ (UTC)		:Also, please remove non-academic sources like Short from the comparison, thanks! ] (]) 22:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
			::If I'm not mistaken we have 4 non-scholars in the list (Steele, Lucas, Short and Litvinenko himself). I'm not sure about removing them, Steele's account in particular is quite thorough (he interviewed several experts for that chapter) and his book has been praised for its meticulousness.
	** Right, can you have to cite them. And if they are conspiracy theorists, they must be identified as such. ] (]) 20:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
			::But even if give less weight to all non-scholars, it doesn't really change the calculus. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
			:::Short's book is not published by academic publishers so it's a ] and should be omitted. Litvinenko's work is pretty much a primary source by today and should be assessed by academic works, whose opinion should be presented instead. Please check others from your list above. ] (]) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
			::::I've moved all non-scholarly sources to a separate section in the table. ]<sub>]</sub> 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

			===Assessment===
	===Bombing by FSB agents is a majority view===
	:I believe that comment by ellol has some merit as a reminder to follow ]. 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:
	#Two books by an FSB insider ] who said "we did it".
	#A book by ] who also reported this to US Congress
	#A book by ]
	#Book "Age of Assassins" by historians ] and ]
	#Several documentary movies by ]
	#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 ]

			If we simply count "support" and "skeptical" sources we'd have 8 (or 10 if we count Litvinenko, Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky separately) sources ranging from strong support to "seems possible" and 5 that are generally skeptical.
	Books that provide no definitive conclusion, but consider such scenario highly probable:
	# by ], Psan Publishing House 2006.
	#Book by Alex Goldfarb

			Please note that the "skeptical" ones are generally newer. If we take only post-2010 or post-2020 sources, the supporting ones would be a minority.
	Books claiming that bombings ''definitely'' were not committed by the FSB:
	#A book by Sakva?

			It seems like the current text does not give due weight to the two main viewpoints. I would suggest something along the lines of {{tquote\|The identity of the perpetrators is disputed. The official investigation blamed the Chechens. Some scholars believe that it was a false flag attack by the Russian security services while others consider it unlikely}}. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
	Everyone is welcome to continue these lists of ''books by experts'' to see which list will be longer. Thank you.] (]) 04:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
			:First thing the reader would know is if sources support or disprove the official version. ] (]) 12:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
			:"The official investigation blamed the Chechens."
			:Is this the correct way to word it? Since the official investigation only produced non-chechen perpetrators. ] (]) 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
			::Let's say we were to consider the "official investigation" to be an at-face-value-equally-valid historical analysis, dated 2001--2002 (and possibly also consider the court in 2004 and 09 reviewed some more stuff in their limited scope). That's quite old compared to the rest of the sources we have (and counters the noted trend in argument, although the sample is small of self-selecting scholars who chose to study this). Is there any significant evidence that emerged since 2002 that weighed scholarship one way or another? (I don't see any indicated in the article, but I haven't read good amounts of any of the books above?
			::Example: if the evidence has been mostly unchanged since 2002 (and depending on what is identified as the change in tone of the scholarship), then the sources probably have about equal weight, with slight preference to both the official version (more access to secret info, inherent notability) and the best-most-recent version. ] (]) 15:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
			::@], that's a good point, we should say "Islamic terrorists from Caucasus" or smth like that. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:51, 20 October 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1999 Russian apartment bombings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 6 months

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: History / Politics and law Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

On 21 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Russian apartment bombings to 1999 Russian apartment bombings. The result of the discussion was moved.

Perpetrators

The perpetrators of this were the FSB and other Russian Government agencies. The infobox should say so. The second paragraph makes this clear:

A suspicious device resembling those used in the bombings was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September. On 23 September, Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War. Three FSB agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police. The next day, FSB director Nikolay Patrushev announced that the incident in Ryazan had been an anti-terror drill and the device found there contained only sugar.

This is contradicted only by Russian Government "investigations". But the Russian Government is not a remotely credible source. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not true, as the Russian_apartment_bombings#Criticism section shows. Also, recently Aimen Dean wrote that Ibn Khattab told him he had done it. Personally, I find the government involvement version plausible and even likely but it's still disputed and should be described as such. Alaexis_¿question? 11:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Changing the infobox so that only the accused Islamists are named or only the FSB is quite obviously pushing a POV. The paragraph does not say the FSB were in fact behind the bombings. Mellk (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

These recent POV edits are also unhelpful. Mellk (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material Works 17:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Russian apartment bombings → 1999 Russian apartment bombings – This article has a way too general title. Yesterday Russia bombed itself at Belgorod and while doing a Google search I ended up in a Second Chechen War article. That should say something. Super Ψ Dro 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Support per nomination. The main title header, Russian apartment bombings, is indeed incomplete. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Rename there have been many such inccidents over the centuries -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Support per nom—blindlynx 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources check

Let's have a look at sources supporting Others disagree with such theories or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks in the lead. Because I see for example Ware, Robert Bruce (2005). "Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. and he is a philosopher. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking further, there is 2002 book by Strobe Talbott. Not sure of his reliability - what is his academic degree in a field? His book discusses the matter in only 3 paragraphs and he concludes There was no evidence to support this conspiracy theory, although Russian public opinion did indeed solidify behind Putin in his determination to carry out a swift, decisive counteroffensive. He provides no explanation and does not mentions Ryazan incident at all. His book has been finished late January 2002 which means just a little bit more than 2 years has passed after the event. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Going further, Pope, Ronald R. (2004). "Feature review. Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State".
The best he says against the FSS bombing is "Pankratov argues that if the alleged attempted bombing in Ryazan was masterminded by the FSS, we should assume they have been able to keep the lid on the cover-up..." so Pope don't disagree but quotes Pankratov (who is Pankratov?) doubting the "alleged attempted bombing" version, so Pope's position is to not to disagree but to doubt. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello. What are you suggesting to do about this? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Newer sources should be preferred.Developments in Russian Politics 10 - Google Books
The 1999 Moscow Bombings Reconsidered in: Russian Politics Volume 8 Issue 3 (2023) (brill.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It was previously discussed here. Yes, according to the book by Pete Earley (based on interviews with Sergei Tretyakov (intelligence officer)), one should not cite Talbot as an authority on this subject. At best, he knew nothing of substance and just provided his personal opinion. There are so many sources on this subject that one must be selective. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there is an overall consensus of best sources right now that the bombings were almost certainly conducted by Russian secret services. Some controversy is related to the existence or lack of "direct evidence". But would not someone caught red-handed while planting a bomb be a direct evidence? That is what had happen with FSB agents in the city of Ryazan. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I definitely think the language should be switched up. As of now it sounds like there is a 50/50 split between the two opinions. Most sources I have seen as of late definitely attributes the attacks to FSB, albeit not conclusively. This line "The attacks were widely attributed to Chechen terrorists, although their guilt has never been conclusively proven.", also needs a change. It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations. I'm interested in seeing what changes you have in mind so feel free to make them and we can discuss it here further if there is anything. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Let me think about it. Or you can just fix it yourself. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As a double check for "due weight", I am making Google books search for "Russian apartment bombings", and first 5 books in the list (Satter, Goldfarb, Dunlop, Felshtinsky) strongly assert that the bombings were conducted by the FSB/GRU. These books are specifically on the subject of these bombings or dedicate them at least a big chapter. 6th book (Soldatov) mentions the bombings mostly in passing and expresses a concern that they were work by the "services". Next book (by Amy Knight) also says it was conducted by Russian services. And so on. I do not have much time for fixing this page, so will do it quickly. My very best wishes (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that using top 5 books from the google books search results is a good method. For all we know, they could generate different results for different users ~~to confirm their beliefs~~.

Andrei Soldatov is definitely a subject matter expert, so his opinion should stay in the article even if it contradicts other viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, sure, and I did not remove his opinion, just shortened it. As of note though . I shortened a big paragraph with their views for a few reasons. It says: "and claims by Trepashkin were highly dubious." Which claims by Trepashin? He made a lot of claims. As about the ""Muslim Society", they say according to Russian state security services, .... Yes, exactly. Everything we supposedly know about the role of Gochiyaev in this "Society" is according to Russian state security services, and they lied a lot regarding these bombings. But OK, we can keep it, just rephrase. My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, the sentence starting from "According to Russian state security services" can be removed or rephrased if more sources can be found. Alaexis_¿question? 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the claim that Gochiyaev was a leader of this "Muslim Society" was a lie and a part of his framing by the FSB - according to the book by Dunlop. Actually, the only book saying he was indeed a leader of this "Society" ("according to the FSB") is the "Nobility" by Soldatov. No doubts, he had excellent connections with FSB people who fed him various info. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations. This is precisely what the source says, and the quote is there. We are not going to rely on WP:OR. Mellk (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Which source? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Last edit by Mellk provides this link, but the quote is not there. However, this is the lead, a summary of the content on the page. I just removed this phrase for now, simply because it does not to fit the rest of the text. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Well the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory and you have made a lot of edits since then, so I have not checked what was removed. Mellk (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A revert

. Well, several participants suggested to change this (see above), and that is exactly what I did. Moreover, the content is sourced to this link, and the quotation is simply not there. This ref should be either fixed or removed, together with text. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
. And I see one editor who suggested to change this based on OR. But I guess you do have objections now despite the edit summary? Mellk (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what exactly @Manyareasexpert: and @Ola Tønningsberg: wanted to fix, so would rather wait for their comments. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is not really possible to have a discussion with you when you go ahead with several changes between each comment, including repeated changes to text being actively discussed. Mellk (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If you disagree with my edits, please explain why or suggest a new/compromise version. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you (twice) and responded to the discussion. In the edit summary you said you had no objections to this being restored "somewhere", then started a new section here and said you would rather wait for others' comments, and despite all this, still continued making changes to the text in question and restoring some of the previous changes. So I am not sure, is a 3RR warning needed instead? Mellk (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but it was you (not me) who made two reverts. Moreover, you did not really explain here why you did these reverts. Yes, after saying "I have no objections to this being restored somewhere" in edit summary, I did not revert your edit, but rather modified text to improve it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I just said I reverted you twice, and you continued with partial reverts. You put "per talk" as the reason for this. I gave my reason for reverting you above. But I am not going to play these games anymore. Mellk (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I am OK with your last revert. What exactly my edit you disagree with (a diff) and what reason did you give? I have no idea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I already said the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory, therefore your initials changes were not accurate summaries. Anything else I should repeat? Mellk (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

"the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory". Yes, of course. I agree and always agreed with it, and it is reflected in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

As found above, the lead sentence "Some others disagree with this or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks." contain sources which weakly support the statement, their support is questionable or arguable, are old, are not on subject, are not an expert on a subject, or vice versa. This should be reworked, newer sources preferred. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead is just a summary of the page and does not require referencing directly in the lead. You are welcome to rewrite or whatever. I am more concerned about first phrase in the same para: "The attacks were attributed... ". Attributed by whom? And this is definitely not a correct summary of content on the page (as already noted in discussion above). This phrase should be removed, rewritten or moved somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The lead is just a summary of the page
— User:My very best wishes 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article doesn't have many active editors/edits so if we would wait for article body to be changed we may never improve. In our situation, let's say it is possible to edit the lead directly.Agree regarding "were attributed". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree. So, I fixed accordingly. As about the phrase you talked about, I thought just removing it would be OK because we do not say that everyone agrees with the claim in the previous phrase (which perhaps would be a proper balance), but this apparently caused objection by Mellk, hence I kept it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Split of criticism to official and non-official

@Manyareasexpert, what's wrong with splitting the criticism section into two. Official denials aren't worth much in my view and it would be easier for the reader if they were not mixed with the criticism from uninvolved sources. Alaexis_¿question? 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the abovementioned. But let's base the article on an academic sources in a field, not journalists . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I just tried to find a name that would work for all the sources in that section. Let's just split the official criticism then. Alaexis_¿question? 12:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

For example, there is an interesting recent article with a new viewpoint The 1999 Moscow Bombings Reconsidered in: Russian Politics Volume 8 Issue 3 (2023) (brill.com) , available via wikilibrary. These academic views should be the prevailing POV. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, this is fascinating, I haven't heard about this new version. I wouldn't be too surprised if this turned out to be true.

Note that he, like Short, is rather skeptical about Litninenko's "FSB did it" version. Perhaps we should reassess the consensus. Alaexis_¿question? 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Greetings, I've removed Short since there is no consensus to include it. We are pretty much can concentrate on gathering academic sources since there are plenty. Short's book is journalism and I haven't seen academic reviews praising his 1999 bombings arguments. I haven't removed other non-academic works since they were there before. But we can reach the consensus and remove them as well. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. WP:ONUS works this way whether the material is new or old.

Short's book is has been called impressive, meticulous and exhaustively researched (by the same Edward Lucas who has a different opinion and whose opinion is mentioned in the article] so it might be journalism but it's not a random newspaper article.

The inclusion of non-scholars' opinions doesn't change the overall weight we give to different viewpoints as they are also divided, but keeping only those who support a certain opinion would certainly violate WP:NPOV. Alaexis_¿question? 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Weight of different viewpoints

Current text

“

Although the bombings were widely blamed on Chechen terrorists, their guilt was never conclusively proven. A number of historians and investigative journalists have instead called the bombings a false flag attack perpetrated by Russian state security services to win public support for a new war in Chechnya and to boost the popularity of Vladimir Putin prior to the upcoming presidential elections. ... Others argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks.

”

Sources

I've created a table with the viewpoints currently mentioned in the article, adding the article by Robert Otto brought up by u:ManyAreasExpert in the previous thread.

FSB Involvement in the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings
Original source
Source	Year	Position on FSB involvement	Notes
Alexander Litvinenko, Yuri Felshtinsky, and Vladimir Pribylovsky	2002	Strongly asserts FSB involvement	Litvinenko, a former FSB officer, along with Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky, accused the FSB of orchestrating the bombings to justify the Second Chechen War.
Academic sources
Source	Year	Position on FSB involvement	Notes
David Satter	2003	Believes in FSB involvement	Satter argued that the bombings were a political provocation by the Russian secret services similar to the burning of the Reichstag. He believes the evidence strongly supports FSB involvement.
Amy Knight	2012	Strongly asserts FSB involvement	Historian of the KGB, Knight wrote that it was "abundantly clear" that the FSB was responsible and that Putin's "guilt seems clear."
Karen Dawisha	2014	Strongly asserts FSB involvement	In Putin's Kleptocracy, Dawisha concluded that the evidence of FSB involvement, particularly in the Ryazan incident, is "incontrovertible."
Timothy Snyder	2018	Considers FSB involvement possible	Historian Snyder wrote that it "seemed possible" the perpetrators of the bombings were FSB officers.
Robert Bruce Ware	2012	Dismisses FSB involvement	Ware argued that Islamist extremists from the North Caucasus were responsible for the attacks as retribution for federal actions in Dagestan.
Brian Taylor	2018	Skeptical of FSB involvement	Taylor cited multiple reasons to doubt FSB involvement, noting a lack of conclusive evidence and suggesting the Ryazan incident could have been a failed FSB "training exercise."
Max Abrahms	2013	Skeptical of FSB involvement	Abrahms suggested the bombings were counterproductive for Chechen independence, but argued the conspiracy theories arose because of the clear benefit to the Russian government.
John B. Dunlop	2014	Supports FSB involvement theory	The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule
Robert Otto	2023	Skeptical of FSB involvement	Otto argued that there is no conclusive evidence that the FSB or Putin were responsible for the bombings, although he concedes that Putin failed to conduct a proper investigation, which makes him complicit in them. He also suggests an alternative explanation involving Berezovsky and Rushailo.
Other sources
Source	Year	Position on FSB involvement	Notes
Edward Lucas	2008	Strongly supports FSB involvement theory	In The New Cold War, Lucas concluded that the weight of evidence supports the view that the bombings were a planned stunt to solidify Putin's rise to power.
Scott Anderson	2009	Suggests FSB involvement	Anderson wrote in GQ about Putin's role in the bombings, drawing on interviews with Mikhail Trepashkin, a former FSB agent.
Philip Short	2022	Skeptical of FSB involvement	Short argued that while it cannot be conclusively proved that no one from the FSB was involved, there is no factual evidence of Russian state involvement.
Christopher Steele	2022	Supports FSB involvement theory	Christopher Steele voiced support for the idea that the bombings were a false flag operation conducted by Russian security services.

Alaexis_¿question? 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Please let me know if you notice inaccuracies or believe that an important source is missing. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

John B. Dunlop in "The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule" also makes a strong case for FSB involvement. He's a good source. Overall most sources certainly believe FSB involvement Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. Alaexis_¿question? 19:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, please remove non-academic sources like Short from the comparison, thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken we have 4 non-scholars in the list (Steele, Lucas, Short and Litvinenko himself). I'm not sure about removing them, Steele's account in particular is quite thorough (he interviewed several experts for that chapter) and his book has been praised for its meticulousness.

But even if give less weight to all non-scholars, it doesn't really change the calculus. Alaexis_¿question? 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Short's book is not published by academic publishers so it's a journalism and should be omitted. Litvinenko's work is pretty much a primary source by today and should be assessed by academic works, whose opinion should be presented instead. Please check others from your list above. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I've moved all non-scholarly sources to a separate section in the table. Alaexis_¿question? 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Assessment

If we simply count "support" and "skeptical" sources we'd have 8 (or 10 if we count Litvinenko, Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky separately) sources ranging from strong support to "seems possible" and 5 that are generally skeptical.

Please note that the "skeptical" ones are generally newer. If we take only post-2010 or post-2020 sources, the supporting ones would be a minority.

It seems like the current text does not give due weight to the two main viewpoints. I would suggest something along the lines of The identity of the perpetrators is disputed. The official investigation blamed the Chechens. Some scholars believe that it was a false flag attack by the Russian security services while others consider it unlikely. Alaexis_¿question? 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

First thing the reader would know is if sources support or disprove the official version. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 12:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

"The official investigation blamed the Chechens."

Is this the correct way to word it? Since the official investigation only produced non-chechen perpetrators. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's say we were to consider the "official investigation" to be an at-face-value-equally-valid historical analysis, dated 2001--2002 (and possibly also consider the court in 2004 and 09 reviewed some more stuff in their limited scope). That's quite old compared to the rest of the sources we have (and counters the noted trend in argument, although the sample is small of self-selecting scholars who chose to study this). Is there any significant evidence that emerged since 2002 that weighed scholarship one way or another? (I don't see any indicated in the article, but I haven't read good amounts of any of the books above?

Example: if the evidence has been mostly unchanged since 2002 (and depending on what is identified as the change in tone of the scholarship), then the sources probably have about equal weight, with slight preference to both the official version (more access to secret info, inherent notability) and the best-most-recent version. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ola Tønningsberg, that's a good point, we should say "Islamic terrorists from Caucasus" or smth like that. Alaexis_¿question? 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Categories: