Misplaced Pages

Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings: Difference between revisions

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.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:02, 1 May 2009 editBeatle Fab Four (talk | contribs)709 editsm →Related events← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:51, 20 October 2024 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,066,063 editsm →top: Task 30: banner adjustment following a discussionTag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{Calm talk}} {{Calm}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProjectBanners|1=
{{WikiProject Russian History}} {{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 = 4 |counter = 11
|algo = old(30d) |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. ]}}

== 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).
-- ] (]) 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?] (]) 00:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:::In particualr, tells: "The video showed sacks of chemicals that government investigators identified as ], which they said was used in the Moscow bombs." But most other sources tell that was actually ]. ''"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". ] (]) 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== More sources ==

I see more sources describing the Ryazan events in addition to Felshtinsky's book. --] (]) 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
* Maura Reynolds published on January 15, 2000 in LA Times, . She quotes Alexei Kartofelnikov, one of the 2 residents who persisted in calling militia, Tatyana Borycheva, Tatyana Lukichyova, also residents, Lt. Col. Sergei Kabashov, Yuri Bludov, the spokesman for the regional FSB,
* Helen Womack published on January 27, 2000 in The Independent, She quotes Alexei Kartofelnikov's daughter Yulia, police officer Major Vladimir Golev, Lt. Col. of the Ryazan police Sergei Kabashov.
* ] a journalist at Observer, later for BBC, published in Cryptome on November 24, 2000, . He quotes Vladimir Vasiliev, one of the 2 Ryazan apartment residents who tipped militsia, an "inspector" "from the local police" Andrei Chernyshev, "grandmother Clara Stepanovna", "head of the local bomb squad" Yuri Tkachenko, head of the regional FSB Alexander Sergeyev and others.

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

:::Yes, your last source by ] and tells:
{{Quotation2|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. ] (]) 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

*Do you suggest to create a separate article ]? ] (]) 20:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

::If effort is made to keep the new article balanced, I think this could indeed be a good idea. ] (]) 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 ] just for starters.] (]) 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 ] and ]. 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. ] (]) 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 ]. Even ] was apparently killed.] (]) 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 ] 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 ]) always marked with audacity and cunning. Not exactly a reliable man this Berezovsky, I'd say. ] (]) 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 ], ], ] and ]). Look at ''New Cold War'' by ] or by ], 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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.] (]) 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?] (]) 16:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::: ] seems to be a novelist. What makes him reliable in this case? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::::::: Doesn't seem reliable to me. ] (]) 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 ;) ] (]) 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?] (])

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

== Balance ==

Russavia, "the nutty conspiracy theory" is your personal POV, which has no place here. Unfortunately the theory is not nutty, it has been discussed in mainstream media and peer-reviewed scholarship (such as by your favorite Prof. Ware). It is not up to you to decide how many sources would be enough, it is the other way round. The policy is that neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources '''in proportion to the prominence of each''' and not to your personal uninformed notion of balance. ] (]) 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 ]; 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 ] (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 ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 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).] (]) 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) ] (]) 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 ].] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] on the opinions of a single Russian journalist either. We base them on multiple ''mainstream'' high-class sources. ] (]) 19:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

*] is a notable mainstream journalist and researcher. He graduated from the ] and ]. He worked for the ] and as Moscow correspondent of the ]. He then became a special correspondent on Soviet affairs for the ]. He is currently a research fellow at the ], a senior fellow at the ] and the ], and a visiting scholar at the ] ] and at the ].

*] 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.] (]) 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 . The basement was allegedly rented by someone Laipanov . ''Second'' warehouse with explosives was found 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." ] (]) 02:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:::P.S. , , , 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.. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] (]) 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 unreliable] (]) 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. ] (]) 16:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


== Perpetrators ==
== Conspiracy theories are split now. ==
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.}}


Please discuss. (] (]) 03:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)) This is contradicted only by Russian Government "investigations". But the Russian Government is not a remotely credible source. ] (]) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (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)
: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.] (]) 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 ] and follow the suit.(] (]) 14:36, 16 April 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)
:::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. ] (]) 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC) :These recent POV edits are also unhelpful. ] (]) 18:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
::::This changes nothing. If you got references for your claim about the jury, whatever jury that is, just add your claim to ] instead of this article. (] (]) 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 ]. I don't care about the fate of the POV-fork, though it will probably end up at AfD eventually. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 11:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:I oppose the split. It would be nice to discuss the things prior to such changes. ] (]) 13:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::The idea to split have been floating around for quite long now. I just did it per ]. The split was long overdue, I suggest to discuss the details of how it was done, the title, the intros, etc. (] (]) 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? ] (]) 15:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::::It has been done. What's now? We get consensus to undo it? (] (]) 17:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
:::::We add the necessary information back in proportion to its prominence in reliable published sources, as required per ], 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. ] (]) 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 ]. (] (]) 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
:::::::''] 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. ] (]) 10:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::That is all good. Now all these significant viewpoints are very prominently represented in ]. (] (]) 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? ] (]) 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, ] requires to do so. The very fact that the conspiracy theories got their own subarticle says a lot about their prominence in the representation. (] (]) 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. (] (]) 14:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
*<s>'''Oppose''' splitting for now per Colchicum.</s>] (]) 15:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:You are mistaken if you think it is a vote. (] (]) 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 policies] (]) 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. (] (]) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC))
:::Ditto] (]) 07:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


== The lead == == Requested move 21 April 2023 ==
<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.''


The result of the move request was: '''moved'''. <small>(])</small> – ]] 17:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
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 ]? Igny's lead was OK to me, but I've restored the more neutral wording from an earlier version. ] (]) 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 {{diff|Russian apartment bombings|284193032|284149170|rev. 284193032}} has the following editorial summaries. I emphasized the wording that I think was unattributed (editorial) point of view in bold.
{{quote|The blasts hit ] on September 4, ] on September 9 and 13, and ] on September 16. A suspected bomb was found by local police in the Russian city of ] 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.
{{quote|'''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.


] → {{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)
: 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 ..., ...".
*'''Support''' per nomination. The main title header, ], is indeed incomplete.&nbsp;—] <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 ==
: You described your reverts as removing "lies". I think this stems from misunderstanding the ] policy. Labeling the sourced POVs that were expressed in a neutral editorial voice sounds like diverging from good faith to me.


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)
: My last 2 cents is that your revert threw out the re-factoring of the refs.
: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)
: --] (]) 16:19, 16 April 2009 (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)
* 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. ] (]) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::Hello. What are you suggesting to do about this? ] (]) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (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. ] (]) 22:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Newer sources should be preferred.{{pb}}<br> ] (]) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
***Kommersant certainly qualifies as mainstream media. ] (]) 22:16, 16 April 2009 (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)
****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 ] comes into play here. Therefore, we shouldn't give the "attempted" bombings too much space. ] (]) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (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)
*****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. ] (]) 22:28, 16 April 2009 (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)
*****Here are your mainstream sources of all stripes: , , , , . More than enough. ] (]) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::I agree. Let me think about it. Or you can just fix it yourself. ] (]) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (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:
::::::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>.
::::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. --] (]) 01:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::] 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)
*******This appearance on Echo of Moscow seems to be quite unique. would 2 years later after the MVD head Mr. Rushailo was offered the position of the State Security Council Secretary. would be interviewed on 2 more unrelated occasions in years 2000 and 2001. In year 2002 he would in ] TV. --] (]) 01:25, 17 April 2009 (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)
:Agree with Ilgiz and Colchicum.] (]) 01:48, 17 April 2009 (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)


== Edit wars == ===A revert===
*. 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 ==
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!!
] (]) 18:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
:I do not see anything wrong with marking this topic as controversial. It ''is'' controversial.] (]) 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


@], 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)
::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 ] (]) 18:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
: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 ==
==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'''. is unacceptable. Other opinions?] (]) 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 . ] (]) 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 you "responded") be included?] (]) 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 ] 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 ]
:::'''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 ] as well ? ] (]) 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.] (]) 02:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


===Current text===
::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 ] that also includes ] as a Russian government plot, in addition to the bombings (that part of the story involves Udugov, Basayev, Voloshin, Stepashin and Berezovsky, and others).] (]) 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
{{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.}}
:::So, to my offer to be more cooperative? Thank you, your response was clear enough.] (]) 15:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Please stop creating ]s. 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. --] <sup>]</sup> 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 ]. You are welcome to mark any articles you do not like for deletion or merging. As you are telling about similar content, ] is probably the way to proceed.] (]) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I can show that they are copy-paste moves. Do I really need to demonstrate this? --] <sup>]</sup> 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''.] (]) 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
*I restored both articles to allow discussion on their talk pages. Please discuss.] (]) 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


===Sources===
==Responsibility claims==
I moved to article ] 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.] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


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


{| class="wikitable"
==Related events==
|+ FSB Involvement in the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings
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:
|-
! 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)
* 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.] (]) 21:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
:I have commented on this above. I don't think they belong here. ] (]) 22:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
::Well, unlike you, others do think so. ] (]) 22:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
::: Not many "others". Support Offliner. ] (]) 22:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Many others, but Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and this is not a vote. ] is not a valid reason for deletion. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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". ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]) 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. ] (]) 23:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::: Well, ok you mix up ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 23:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::: Words "deep" and "deeper", "favorite" and "reasoned" differ a little. ] (]) 23:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


Please let me know if you notice inaccuracies or believe that an important source is missing. ]<sub>]</sub> 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Oops, looks like we are close to consensus. User Biophys confesses that "'''now all content forks ... have been removed from main article''' by ], and the article was protected". Colchicum, do you want to take back your unreasoned words ? ] (]) 02:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
*Beatle Fab Four, I did ''not'' endorse your changes, and I agree with Colchicum.] (]) 02:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
:: Ok, then tell us as a man, what was removed from the article? "Relevant sourced content" or "All content forks"? ] (]) 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. ] <SMALL><SMALL><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#ffffff;">&nbsp;</FONT><FONT STYLE="background-color:#a12830;">&nbsp;&nbsp;</FONT></SMALL> ]</SMALL> 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.<small>Please don't tell my KGB superiors I said this</small> 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. --] (]) 10:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yes, absolutely. They should be either briefly summarized or included in all detail (see my comment below).] (]) 16:36, 1 May 2009 (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)
::: Oh, come on. These claims definitelty can be mentioned as a part of a theory in appropriate place. But as "Related events" in a neutral narration about bombings they are just OR, SYN or, to put it simply, bullshit. BTW, Biophys, the public is waiting for your honest answer to the posed question. ] (]) 22:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
::{{Done}}. ]<sub>]</sub> 19:47, 17 September 2024 (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.
::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===
== Article protected ==


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


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.
==Content fork detected==


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)
Hi. I just noticed that there are two articles featuring essentially the same content: ] and ]. The articles are a a textbook example of ] - 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 ]. 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. --] (]) 10:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:First thing the reader would know is if sources support or disprove the official version. ] (]) 12:14, 16 September 2024 (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.] (]) 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
:"The official investigation blamed the Chechens."
*: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. --] (]) 19:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
: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.
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 
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 is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconDisaster management Low‑importance
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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRussia: History / Politics and law Mid‑importance
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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance
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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
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) – MaterialWorks 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)

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: