Misplaced Pages

Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Illythr (talk | contribs) at 19:57, 1 May 2009 (→Content fork detected). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:57, 1 May 2009 by Illythr (talk | contribs) (→Content fork detected)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
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: 30 days 
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconRussia
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Terrorism task force.
WikiProject iconDisaster management
WikiProject iconThis 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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Explosives controversies: Moscow and Ryazan

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

(a) Hexogen.
(b) Custom-made aluminum/nitrate mixture.

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

(i) Vapours of hexogen, real detonator (according to Tkachenko and the official statement of the Interior Ministry), yellow granulated powder (according to the residents)
(ii) Putin's praise of the residents who "correctly responded to the events" (my translation -- ilgiz) in the 7pm, September 23 Vesti TV news program, p.82 of the first Russian edition of "FSB blows up Russia".
(iii) Sugar, fake detonator (according to Patrushev).

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

I guess you are right. These are two completely different controversies. They should be described separately. Why would not you do it?Biophys (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
In particualr, This LA Times article tells: "The video showed sacks of chemicals that government investigators identified as ammonium nitrate, which they said was used in the Moscow bombs." But most other sources tell that was actually RDX. "We were not informed about the exercise in advance, and that's why we acted in full and by the book," says Yuri V. Bludov, spokesman for the security agency's Ryazan regional office. FSB in Ryzan did not know about the "exercise". Biophys (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

More sources

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

Yes, your last source by John Sweeney shows an interesting photo and tells:
The photographs of a detonator, taken by a Russian bomb squad, and other fresh evidence point to a plot carried out by the FSB working to assist their old spymaster, Vladimir Putin, in his rise to control the world’s number two superpower and its nuclear arsenal.

.

Latest edits

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

If effort is made to keep the new article balanced, I think this could indeed be a good idea. Offliner (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Then let's talk further. Just like everyone else who critically studied this subject, we both know that the bombings in fact have been committed by FSB/GRU professionals. So how many articles do we want to create about this? Let's make a list. I would suggest Investigation of Russian apartment bombings just for starters.Biophys (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the investigation chapter should be created, we should keep that material in the main article instead. Like I've said, the articles I would create would be Ryazan incident and Conspiracy theories of Russian apartment bombings. As for this: Just like everyone else who critically studied this subject, we both know that the bombings in fact have been committed by FSB/GRU professionals - this is simply not true. Most academic sources I've seen say that there isn't enough evidence for either version. Especially Satter, Litvinenko, Berezovsky & Co. did not provide any direct evidence for their claims, and every academic source I've seen points this out. A piece of advice: I suggest that you read more peer-reviewed academic material on the bombings, not just conspiracy theory books sponsored by Berezovsky. Offliner (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Your list is very short. As about your second note, facts speak for themselves. Let's consider this as an ordinary crime, and ask all standard questions for the criminal cases. (1) Who was caught red-handed at the scene of the crime? FSB agents while planting the bomb. FSB agent Romanovich was also caught. (2) Who was the beneficiary of the crime? Only Putin who was elected. Who was the loser? The Chechens. (3) Who had technical capacities to commit such sophisticated and technically advanced crime? Only FSB or GRU sptesnaz. (4) Who tried to cover up the traces of the crime? FSB did (the arrest of Trepshkin who identified Romanovich). (5) Who are alternative suspects? Gochiyaev who called himself to police to warn about the bombs (so two bombings in Moscow have been prevented). Any juror in the court would vote that FSB guilt was proven "beyond the reasonable doubt". And I did not tell a lot of other things, like changing the story about explosives or hunting investigators like Trepashkin. Even German Ugryumov was apparently killed.Biophys (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let the facts indeed speak for themselves. Which one of the suspects is a convicted, confessed, extremely deadly and dangerous terrorists? Khattab, not FSB. Who has himself said that Russia is his greatest enemy? Khattab, not FSB. Who warned already in early August, that "our trucks go everywhere. If they start bombing us, we know where our bombs will explode" - the Dagestani Wahhabis, Khattab's little helpers, not FSB. Who claimed responsibility for the blasts? The Wahhabis, not FSB. How was Putin the beneficiary, since Basayev's and Khattab's invasion of Russian terroritory had already given enough reason to start the war? The attacks were hardly "sophisticated" or "technically advanced" as you claim - this is again just Berezovsky propaganda you are picking from Satter & al's books (which seem to be the only source of knowledge for you.) RDX was readily available in Dagestan in huge amounts. Khattab and Basayev had already demonstrated that they have the ability to launch massive attacks. Both had trained in Al-Qaida's terrorist training camps in Afganistan, and such camps had also been set up in Chechnya. Gochiayev did not call - this is again a baseless claim you have picked from the books of Berezovsky's teams (which usually don't name their sources or contain evidence anyway.) And last, but not least: who was it that (at first) claimed that the Chechens were responsible, but later started furiously to spread conspiracy theories after going to opposition, funding a documentary and sponsoring a book based on the same material? All of the books you love to use as sources for everything were sponsored by Berezovsky or written by his associates. And who exactly is this Berezovsky? A convicted criminal, who has been accused of financing Chechen terrorists, who has publicly stated that he is "plotting to bring down the Russian government by force" and whose behaviour is (according to Richard Sakwa) always marked with audacity and cunning. Not exactly a reliable man this Berezovsky, I'd say. Offliner (talk) 02:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Khattab did not claim responsibility for the bombings. No one did except an anonymous caller from a bogus Islamist organization who called after every terrorism act arranged by the FSB (there were quite a few of them). There are also quite a few books mentioning this subject (besides David Satter, Litvinenko, Pribylovsky and Felshtinsky). Look at New Cold War by Edward Lucas or The Security Organs of the Russian Federation. A Brief History 1991-2004 by Jonathan Littell, Psan Publishing House 2006. All of them admit the obvious: the bombings were organized by the FSB. You want to bring this up front? Fine. Let's create the articles. Biophys (talk) 04:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Khattab did not claim responsibility for the bombings - so you are using the word of a convicted and confessed terrorist, who is responsible for the deaths of thoundands of civilians, who trained in Al-Qaida's camps in Afganistan and established similar camps in Chechnya, as evidence that he didn't order the blasts? Give me break. Offliner (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, he did not claim responsibility for the bombing but claimed that he was not involved. Nothing more, nothing less.Biophys (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This "Psan Publishing". It seems to me to be a minor online website, rather than a mainstream publishing house. Have I misunderstood? I see no sign of ANY peer-review or mainstream critical editing of the works "published". This would make all their stuff NOT RELIABLE. Have I misunderstood this as well?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Jonathan Littell seems to be a novelist. What makes him reliable in this case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't seem reliable to me. Offliner (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Balance

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

Of course nutty conspiracy theory is my POV, and I only used it in the edit summary, I haven't said it within the article. Almost every single link is relating to the conspiracy theory and pushing that line. I also think that people need to read WP:EL; the reliable ones amongst these links should be used within the references, and removed completely from the external links section. The non-reliable ones, and the WP:LINKVIO (such as those on terror.ru), should also be removed. And dare I say it, the official version would have received as much (if not more) attention than the conspiracy theory, particularly within the academic world. The external links needs gutting; use them as references, or get rid of them. We aren't here to advocate. --Russavia 19:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Colchicum. I have seen much more reliable secondary sources that support the involvement of FSB than another way around. Just to make sure, one would have to create a Table of secondary sources written by notable people (those who have at least a WP article about them).Biophys (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. Its me again, after a long absence. THe bit about sources with a wikipedia rticle about the author is surely a case of using wikipedia as a source. Someone can easily create articles for all the required people, and then quote their link to the bombings as to why they are notable. So the idea is recursive, and redundant. Also, there are a lot of notable people who don't have wiki articles about them - have you ever referenced a work such as "Who's Who" (it is specifically a book of notable people!!) against Misplaced Pages? - if you do so you will see what I mean Surely it would be more relevant to assess whether the source fite the reliability criteria (which as we all know puts Litvenyenko et. al. in a less favourable light) Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of important factual information

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

If the "attempted bombings" really are factual, then you should easily be able to provide international mainstream media sources confirming them. So far, I've seen absolutely no mention at all of any such attempts on 13 September in mainstream sources. We cannot base the description of events on just one fringe source. Satter and Felshintinsky's books are not mainstream media sources. They are not even academic works. Worse yet, they are polemic opinion pieces based on the theories of the writer (without providing any evidence, of course.) If you can provide a link for a high-class reliable source such as Reuters or AP confirming the "attempted bombings" then I have no problem at all in including that info to the main chapter. Until that happens, Satter's claims go into the conspiracy theory chapter. Offliner (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
And we really don't need a "second introduction" based on Satter's opinions. It is completely redundant. We are not basing the description of events in September 11 attacks on the opinions of a single Russian journalist either. We base them on multiple mainstream high-class sources. Offliner (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yuri Felshtinsky is one of best known Russian historians who now lives in the US, an author of 10+ serious research books on recent Russian history. His book with Litvinenko is differ, because it was mostly written by Litvinenko, but his participation and placing his name on the book made it as credible as his other studies. I will check for more sources just in case.Biophys (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The segment about bombings prevented in Moscow was sourced to book by Goldfarb. Here are some Russian publications about explosives found in Moscow near Borisov Ponds see here. The basement was allegedly rented by someone Laipanov see here. Second warehouse with explosives was found in Kapotnya But wait a minute... It tells: "Лайпанова-Гочияева начали искать по всей стране, хотя сыщики и не надеялись, что хотя бы одна из фамилий принадлежит преступнику. Их подозрения подтвердились: настоящий Лайпанов погиб в начале года в ДТП. А Гочияев, похоже, вообще никогда не существовал. Зато второй персонаж оказался вполне реальной личностью. Им оказался уроженец узбекского города Карши, прописанный в Набережных Челнах Денис Сайтаков." Biophys (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. This is official sentence, Links to other documents, publications in Novaya gazeta, See - Почему под давлением ФСБ закрыто следствие о передаче гексогена с военных складов в подставные фирмы через НИИ Росконверсвзрывцентр? .
Here a claim which may or may not be true: "Согласно собранной нами информации, полученной от различных участников операции разного уровня, заказчиком операции по взрывам в России в сентябре 1999 года является Федеральная служба безопасности РФ. В этой связи неоднократно и точно упоминалась фамилия директора ФСБ Николая Платоновича Патрушева. Куратором всей программы взрывов являлся Герман Угрюмов, ликвидированный затем, по нашим сведениям, самой ФСБ. Общее число членов группы составляло, по нашей информации, более тридцати человек. Как руководителей среднего звена мы знаем только двоих: 1) подполковник, татарин по национальности, кличка (псевдоним) Абубакар; 2) полковник, русской по национальности, псевдоним Абдулгафур. Мы предполагаем, что Абдулгафур и известный сотрудник российских спецслужб Макс Лазовский ≈ это одно и то же лицо.see ref here. Biophys (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Conspiracy theories are split now.

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

We suppose to discuss prior to making drastic changes like that. To be honest, I hesitated to start the process of creating a lot of sub-articles about these important events for the reasons that should be clear from our debate with Offliner (I would rather not). Now we are going to create many. Fine, that was your initiative.Biophys (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Why many? I do no understand your reasoning. If anything had to be split that was the conspiracy theories. Just read 9/11 conspiracy theories and follow the suit.(Igny (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
There is nothing to follow. 9/11 conspiracy theories are not part of the mainstream, these false flag theories are. The jury is still out, as most of the sources admit. Colchicum (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
This changes nothing. If you got references for your claim about the jury, whatever jury that is, just add your claim to Russian apartment bombings conspiracy theories instead of this article. (Igny (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
The references have been here for a year or so, see Ware and others. The problem is that you guys don't read your references and presume that they dismiss the "conspiracy theories" altogether. This is not the case. E.g. Ware explicitely claims hat the jury is still out, and this is relevant to this article per WP:NPOV. I don't care about the fate of the POV-fork, though it will probably end up at AfD eventually. Colchicum (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I support the move. But I don't know yet what to do about the lead; I've restored the old version for now. Offliner (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I oppose the split. It would be nice to discuss the things prior to such changes. Colchicum (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
The idea to split have been floating around for quite long now. I just did it per WP:BOLD. The split was long overdue, I suggest to discuss the details of how it was done, the title, the intros, etc. (Igny (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
It shouldn't have been done without consensus in the first place. Many ideas are floating somewhere, so what? Colchicum (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
It has been done. What's now? We get consensus to undo it? (Igny (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
We add the necessary information back in proportion to its prominence in reliable published sources, as required per WP:NPOV, which no consensus can override. This is a policy, we don't need a consensus to enforce it. I don't care about the POV-fork, it is up to you to develop it. We may consider AfDing it, but I don't insist. Colchicum (talk) 22:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
You keep saying POV fork. It seems that you do not know what the phrase means. If you look carefully you would notice that I just copy-pasted some %30 of this article into a legitimate subarticle. If anything is a POV-fork it is List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings. (Igny (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.. This is non-negotiable. The "conspiracy theories", unlike the 9/11 conspiracy theories, were extensively covered in reliable published sources, so they are very prominent. Even more so, as the official investigation was kept secret, and little is published about the details. Colchicum (talk) 10:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
That is all good. Now all these significant viewpoints are very prominently represented in Russian apartment bombings conspiracy theories. (Igny (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Which part of this have you missed? Colchicum (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
When an article gets too big as was argued by Biophys not so long ago, it is natural to split it into subarticles. In fact, WP:SPLIT requires to do so. The very fact that the conspiracy theories got their own subarticle says a lot about their prominence in the representation. (Igny (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
Just read carefully. I left most of these conspiracy theories in this article. I moved criticism of the theories and criticism of the criticisms to the other article. If anything I did you a favor. (Igny (talk) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
You are mistaken if you think it is a vote. (Igny (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
  • Regardless to the split, all prominent views must be properly represented in this article (agree with Colchicum), and the view about FSB involvement is a majority of scholars view. Claims by Russian government has nothing to do with WP policiesBiophys (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I see no problem with that as long as you can prove it is indeed a majority of scholars' views. (Igny (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
DittoMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead

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

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

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

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

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

-- This complete sentence is an editorial POV, because it looks like the supporters of the "conspiracy theories" had hidden agenda and used the incident to achieve their unnamed goals. Subsequent references do not have anything close to this claim. One of the references is a link to the copy of the main article by a Misplaced Pages clone.
Removing the Moscow, attempted bombings section is too drastic to me. Even though a shorter paragraph exists in a section on the opposing theory, it is always possible to group the remaining refs and summaries, giving the appropriate attribution, instead of just deleting the summary and the refs. Unfortunately, the deleted section did not attribute the described events to the sources inline. If you think that the events described in the section did not happen, attribute their description to the sources inline. For example, add phrases like "According to an article by ... in ..., ...".
You described your reverts as removing "lies". I think this stems from misunderstanding the WP:NPOV policy. Labeling the sourced POVs that were expressed in a neutral editorial voice sounds like diverging from good faith to me.
My last 2 cents is that your revert threw out the re-factoring of the refs.
--ilgiz (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The deletion of sourced information about the attempted bombings was entirely inappropriate. The Kommersant is a perfectly reliable source. Offliner may add "according to the Kommersant" or something like that. Colchicum (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I guess we could reinsert the material if we attribute it to Kommersant. Still, we should be careful not to give the "attempted bombings" undue weight, as their coverage in mainstream media seems to be very weak, almost nonexistent. Offliner (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Kommersant certainly qualifies as mainstream media. Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
        • But for the actual bombings we have a million different mainstream sources. For the attempted bombings, we have only one. It's a bit suspicious, and WP:UNDUE comes into play here. Therefore, we shouldn't give the "attempted" bombings too much space. Offliner (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
          • So far your suspicions have been your personal OR. The different mainstream sources mostly reprint one another and don't add much. The attempted bombings are documented and should be listed along with the others. As to the claim that Kommersant was Berezovsky's newspaper, it doesn't matter. Kommersant is a mainstream reliable source with a good fact-checking reputation. Go ask at some noticeboard if in doubt. By the way, may I remind you that in 1999 Mr. Putin himself was a close ally of Berezovsky. Colchicum (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
          • Here are your mainstream sources of all stripes: , , , , . More than enough. Colchicum (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Following the lead from lenta.ru, I found the transcript of the interview with director of the FSB Public Relations Center Alexander Zdanovich and head of the MVD information department Oleg Aksyonov:
original transcript in Russian, computer translation
The former said that militia found a cache of detonators and sacks filled with explosives on Borisovskiye Prudy street. The latter said that FSB and Moscow's Criminal Investigation found 6 timers set to various dates up to September 21. --ilgiz (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Ilgiz and Colchicum.Biophys (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars

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

I do not see anything wrong with marking this topic as controversial. It is controversial.Biophys (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not the point I was trying to make. I was saying that if we all keep hacking out chunks we don't like, we may as well REPLACE the content for the entire article with the single phrase "THIS TOPIC IS CONTROVERSIAL" . Hope this clarifies Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of factual materials and insertion of unconfirmed claims

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

The threats and claims of responsibility are factual events and directly supported by reliable sources. Whether the threats really are related to the bombings and whether the callers are who they claim to be, is another matter. But many reliable sources think that they are. Note that my edit was done in response to this. Offliner (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's move step by step. Do you agree that factual events relevant to the bombings per sources (like those in the diff you "responded") be included?Biophys (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Here's my opinion:
The type of explosives controversy and A military storage with RDX disguised as "sugar" should go to Theories of the Russian apartment bombings as they are actually part of the explosives controversy that is covered there in a separate chapter.
Incident in Russian Parliament is relevant to the bombings only according to Litvinenko (who, of course provides no evidence of course as usual, and who is not a reliable source.) It doesn't belong here.
Testimony by Alexey Galkin does not belong in the main article either, as it is "evidence" used by the conspiracy theory proponents. It goes to Theories of the Russian apartment bombings
Sealing of all materials by Russian Duma and Arrest of independent investigator Trepashkin are utterly irrelevant to the bombings itself. Maybe they should go to Theories of the Russian apartment bombings as well ? Offliner (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you are obviously mistaken. All of that are factual events (and you seem to agree with that). If these are events are related to the bombings should be defined by sources, and all sources indeed describe these events as relevant to the bombings.Biophys (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see that deletions of sourced factual materials continue, now also by Russavia. Could you be more cooperative, please? Please keep in mind that certain overlap of material is perfectly fine, as long as it provides an important and relevant information for a reader. Also keep in mind that one could just as easily create an article Operation "Successor" that also includes Dagestan war as a Russian government plot, in addition to the bombings (that part of the story involves Udugov, Basayev, Voloshin, Stepashin and Berezovsky, and others).Biophys (talk) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
So, that was your response to my offer to be more cooperative? Thank you, your response was clear enough.Biophys (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Please stop creating WP:CFORKs. This article is not large enough that it requires selective splitting into other article, which means that we are now in the position where the same content is contained within 4-5 articles. This is a ridiculous situation to be in, and makes this project look like a joke. That is why I have redirected the forks back here. Splits were not discussed at all before splitting. --Russavia 18:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
But that is your personal opinion. The articles have different subjects, and in spite of having some content overlap, they are not copy-paste moves. You suppose to ask opinion of others per WP:Consensus. You are welcome to mark any articles you do not like for deletion or merging. As you are telling about similar content, WP:Merge is probably the way to proceed.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I can show that they are copy-paste moves. Do I really need to demonstrate this? --Russavia 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
No, this particular talk page serves only to discuss improvement of this article. If you have any issues with other articles, please debate them at talk pages of the corresponding articles. You are very welcome to demonstrate any problems there.Biophys (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Responsibility claims

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

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

Recent revert

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

Related events

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

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

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

I have commented on this above. I don't think they belong here. Offliner (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, unlike you, others do think so. Colchicum (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Not many "others". Support Offliner. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Many others, but Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and this is not a vote. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Colchicum (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Now guys, once your edits get challenged, you need to have a consensus on the talk page to change the status quo. Otherwise your behavior constitutes edit-warring. Colchicum (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
No problems. I agree with Offliner reasoning. I can also add that controversy, testimony, storage are simply not events. Sourced, but irrelevant as "related events". Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You need to reach anything at least remotely similar to a consensus and not just state your personal opinion, and you need to do that before reverting, not after it. Colchicum (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again. Looks like pure OR an SYN as "events". Exchanging personal opinions is a way to reach "consensus". There is no rule whether I should leave a message on talk before or after my edit. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing, it is hard to reach a consensus if you don't even try and aren't ready to listen to others, preferring wholesale reverts instead. However, actually there is a rule that edit-warring is not on, and multiple reverts without a discussion (and I mean discussion rather than mere statement of WP:IDONTLIKEIT) constitute edit-warring. If you don't like the wording, you might change it (though your interpretation of the word event is very peculiar. An event is usually understood as merely something localized in space and time). But the stuff was sourced and relevant. Colchicum (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, ok you mix up WP:IDONTLIKEIT with rational arguments. I took a deeper look. These are not even "events", this is a collection of (direct and indirect) claims in favor of one and only theory. Presenting them in a narrative about bombings is POV, OR and SYN. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually admit that you managed to make two reverts without even taking a deeper look??? Well, those are events. Try to look in a dictionary for the meaning of the word. If you have other sourced events, you are welcome to add them, but there is nothing wrong when certain facts don't fit equally well into every theory, in fact it is natural. Colchicum (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Words "deep" and "deeper", "favorite" and "reasoned" differ a little. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Ok, then tell us as a man, what was removed from the article? "Relevant sourced content" or "All content forks"? Beatle Fab Four (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I've just been watching this one from the sidelines, but I do have to ask exactly how you can delete controversy as irrelevant (based on a recent edit tag). No response required. PetersV       TALK 05:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe these things should be mentioned in this article, as they are the cornerstone on which the FSB involvement theory rests.Please don't tell my KGB superiors I said this However, there are currently TWO articles detailing this content, so I would suggest listing a summary of them here with a link to the result of the POVFORK merger. --Illythr (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. They should be either briefly summarized or included in all detail (see my comment below).Biophys (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Article protected

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

Content fork detected

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

  • If you compare texts, they are not identical. I believe we have two options: (a) the content of "Evidence" will be merged to this article and "Evidence" deleted, or (b) "Evidence" is treated as a separate sub-article, and its content is briefly summarized in this article and in "Theories" article.Biophys (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    While some difference does exist, the two are highly redundant. Considering that the FSB involvement is neither a proven fact, nor a conspiracy theory, and is a highly controversial topic, I think the merger is justified. Merging any of those articles' full content into this one would badly upset the WEIGHT balance (this article will spend more space discussing the FSB involvement in either a positive or negative light, depending on what you merge than the actual bombings). This article already does have a section about FSB involvement, but that section lacks the factual foundation its proponents use, so that should be included, preferably in a single paragraph. As both "Evidence" and "Conspiracy theory" characteristics are judgmental POV, I think a unified "Controversy" article would serve the NPOV cause, if not suite both opposing sides. --Illythr (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Categories: