Talk:Russian apartment bombings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Russian apartment bombings article.
Article policies
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Russia Portal
Russian apartment bombings is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
0%
  Translation In Progress ----- (ru) Взрывы жилых домов#Контраргументы относительно альтернативной версии → (en) Russian apartment bombings ---- (more info)
 

Contents

[edit] Pointing to Putin

The conspiracy theory I gathered was that prime minister Vladimir Putin had nothing to show in the coming elections. His policy was showing no good results. After the bombings and the war answer, Putin's new party successfully passed over any of the candidates. Can this theory be attributed to anyone, so that it is put in the article? --Error 01:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From all appearances, this is most likely what happened in short and in all clumsiness and insolence in the making of the Kremlin politics recently given that there is a team rather than one man to be blamed for although he must be involved in everything but as a cover.--BIR 07:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Any references on the official (Amir Khattab and Gochijaev) version? Did they suggest any other suspects later? Why Litvinenko books were not cited? Are they considered a reliable source? Biophys 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How and when all these terrorists were convicted? I was waiting for a month. There are no any references in the official part of the story. Should the unreferenced statements be deleted? Biophys 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The Russian language version of this article does have some references, perhaps a Russian speaking editor could look at them :-). According to policy things should be verifiable by sources other than Wikipedia. It looks as though the English version mirrors the Russian article and that article and hence this one is thin on references. I would try and get some references rather than delete it as the conviction's are central to the article and it wouldn't make sense without reference to them. Alex Sims 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I could only find the official answer from the general prosecutor's office to a Duma member, in Russian and its computer translation. ilgiz 10:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, probably this is it. However source says that all claims about these people are made by prosection or investigators. It seems that all or most of these people were not convicted in a court. If this is indeed the case (is it?), nobody can say that "The following people either delivered explosives, stored them, or harbored other suspects", as written in this article. Any opinions? Biophys 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
There was a 1.5 month trial in the end of 2003.[1] computer translation, [2] computer translation The press was not allowed, so the journalists had to resort to intermediary sources. The verdict was public. [3] computer translation ilgiz 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander Litvinenko

Article is missing information about Alexander Litvinenko --Lee Hunter 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC) BBC journalist Martin Sixsmith went with the Litvinenko assertion on BBC Radio Four, broadcast on 12th April 2007.Jatrius 15:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counterarguments to FSB theory

The Russian article has a section on counterarguments to the theory on FSB involvement. I think it needs to be translated - I'd do it myself but it mentions a lot of names that I don't know how to translate. Esn 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think this should be translated? Could you just briefly summarize here the conterarguments from this Russian text? If there is anything, we can write it down. But I found only one thing. They say that the original chemical test was declared inaccurate due to contamination of the analysis apparatus from a previous test. But this has been already stated in this English article. Biophys 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Here is computer translation. The article is being updated these days, and the pro and contra arguments are scattered around all sections. ilgiz 04:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The best way to organize material is to have all pro arguments in one section and all contra arguments in another section (as it is right now). I agree that the governmental version looks too weak. It is supported by only one reference, whereas the opposite verison is supported by 21 references. If someone could provide more good references about different people mentioned in the governmental version who were convicted or killed - that would be great (I could not find anything!). Also, more can be said about Gochiyaev - who he was and what he claimed. Another interesting question is about 3 FSB persons who conducted the "exercise" in Ryazan. I remember their photos. What are their names? Are they still alive or dead? That would be important to include. Biophys 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry, the official version was supported by four references. Still, could be more. Biophys 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(Fixed the computer translation link). I saw the photo-robots of the 3 suspects in a short video clip on Google that seemed to be a part of the "FSB blows up Russia" narrated documentary.ilgiz 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are the screen shots from the advocacy documentary "Assassination of Russia" by Transparence Production, parts of which were re-published in "Crimes of the Kremlin" by Journeyman Pictures. ilgiz 11:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
So, are they alive or dead? Obviously, they worked for FSB if the claim by Patrushev about the "exercise" was true (and they also worked in FSB if the alternative version is correct). Can we include some of these images in the article? Biophys 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
A staged interview with one of the imitation perpetrators was shown later, but the interviewed man was shown from the back. I added the screen shot below. I haven't investigated any news on Gochiyaev or the FSB version's participants. I marked the screen shots with the {{promophoto}} template. I believe a fair use clause might apply to these screen shots, but the drop-down list of licence types in the upload page doesn't have such option. Perhaps, the "fair use" clause wasn't considered precise enough. ilgiz 08:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made a translation of the Counterarguments section in the Russian article, but I would like to have it approved here before adding it, as this is clearly a sensitive issue:

"Officially, Trepashkin was charged with keeping official documents at home (thus breaching security) and not over accusing FSB of the bombings. His conviction had no connection to the bombings. [citation needed]

A parliamentary enquiry was made to the Prosecutor General of Russia; the response was that the events in Ryazan were indeed a training exercise. According to the Prosecutor General, initial investigations included an attempt of a controlled explosion of 3 kilograms of the substance from the sacks. The substance failed to detonate. The more detailed investigation ordered by the Prosecutor General concluded, on the basis of a pyrotechnical analysis, that:

The sacks contained sucrose — a disaccharide based on glucose and fructose. No traces of explosive substances (trotyl, hexogen, octogen, tannerite?, nytroglycerine, tetryl, and picric acid) were detected. An investigation of the clock, the batteries, the detonator, the lamp, and the wires showed that although this itemd constituted a single electronic device, it was not, however, capable of producing an electric discharge at the signal from the alarm clock and was not an explosive device.

It was also noted that:

...the operation in Ryazan was planned and executed in an inappropriate way. In particular, the matter of the limits of the operation was not looked into. There was no contingency plan of informing the local authorities and the police of the training nature of the operation. in case of its detection.[1]

Critics of the FSB involvement theory suggest that Novaya Gazeta is funded by George Soros via the Open Society (Otkrytoe obshchestvo) fund and the journalists' views are therefore biased."

My opinion is that this should be added, for although it does look somewhat weak, it is nevertheless a sourced opinion, an official opinion I might add. Without it, the article looks too POV. --AVIosad(talk) 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


The official charges are described on the "Charges" page of the trepashkin.ru web site. I have noticed that the prosecutor ("обвинение") and the inquiry, or enquiry, ("следствие") took the same side in finding that Trepashkin had disclosed state secrets. Because the conviction mentioned only an internal information disclosure, I believe that the judges have apparently demoted or disqualified the former charge. I could not understand what exactly was considered a state secret.
По версии обвинения, проходя с 1984 по 1997 год службу в органах безопасности КГБ СССР и ФСБ РФ, Трепашкин копировал служебные документы, которые в дальнейшем незаконно хранил у себя дома.
Разглашением сведений, составляющих гостайну, следствие считало передачу Трепашкиным своему бывшему коллеге - полковнику ФСБ Виктору Шебалину - материалов старых сводок прослушивания телефонных переговоров членов гольяновской объединенной преступной группировки (в них, по мнению следствия, содержались данные о методах работы ФСБ).
"According to the prosecutor, Trepashkin had been illegally copying office documentation and storing it at home when employed by KGB and FSB from 1984 to 1997.
"The inquiry considered a state secret disclosure the fact that Trepashkin had passed wiretaps of the Goliyanov gang to his former colleague, FSB colonel Victor Shebalin. The inquiry believed the wiretaps contained sensitive details about the FSB investigation techniques".
Details on the sentence are given further on the same page.
Первый процесс Трепашкина проходил в Московском окружном военном суде с декабря 2003 года по 19 мая 2004 года. Трепашкин был признан виновным в разглашении секретных сведений без признаков гостайны и незаконном хранении боеприпасов. Обвинение в злоупотреблении должностными полномочиями (по ч. 3 ст.285 УК РФ) было прекращено в связи с истечением срока давности. Подсудимый не признал своей вины по всем пунктам и заявил, что дело в отношении него было сфабриковано. Он был приговорен к 4 годам лишения свободы в колонии-поселении.
"The first Trepashkin's trial took place in the Moscow circuit military court between December 2003 and May 2004. Trepashkin was found guilty of disclosing internal information and illegal storage of arms. Another charge of office power abuse (part 3, article 285 of Criminal Code of Russian Federation) was lifted because of expiry. The convicted did not acknowledge his guilt on any charge and stated that the case was fabricated. He was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment in a penal colony".
My translation above may not be correct or accurate.ilgiz 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
According to Novaya Gazeta, Trepashkin was convicted with "illegal acquisition and storage of arms" (article 222, part 1) and "disclosure of information that is a state secret, without the signs of treason" (article 283, part 1).[4] ilgiz 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


I can translate the Russian section if desired, but there are no strong counterarguments in it. Just insistance by the FSB that the bag contained sucrose, and that Trepashkin was charged for revealing state secrets, again by the FSB. Should one expect that as a counterargument? Doing so would be based on the presumption that the FSB, if guilty of the bombings, would have charged him with their tru grievance, namely that he inteferred with an FSB cover-up operation. This beggars belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.217.3 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 23 March 2007


Old news reports from RIA Novosti on Trepashkin, re-published by the Moscow circuit military court in the section "Press about us":

It is uncomfortable to know that the court published news articles on its decisions but did not publish all the decisions themselves. I could not find any official verdicts on Trepashkin at movs.ru. ilgiz 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Found the official documents (the year 2004 verdict, the year 2005 appeal and the decision on it) at the Radio Liberty's Yekaterinburg edition's web site.[5] Computer translation ilgiz 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snapshots from the Assassination of Russia film

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list published after Ryazan incident, 1999.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list, photo-robot 1 of 3, 1999.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list, photo-robot 2 of 3.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list, photo-robot 3 of 3.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|Yuriy Tkachenko, an explosives technician who removed the wires from one of the bags.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|The mechanism removed by Yuriy Tkachenko from one of the bags, according to the documentary.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|Nadezhda Yukhnova, an telephone station operator who intercepted the suspicious conversation with a Moscow number starting with 224, the Lubyanka (FSB) exchange.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|Aleksey Kartofel'nikov, the alert resident who noticed people carrying bags from a car into the basement.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|Interior minister Vladimir Rushailo reports on a diverted apartment bombing attack in Ryazan. 24 September 1999. Putin would give the same explanation some time later.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|FSB director Nikolay Patrushev reports on an emergency readiness exercise in Ryazan. 24 September 1999, 30 minutes after Rushailo's report.]]

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|left|300px|FSB's proof of the Ryazan training exercise. The man shown from the back in an interview was presented as one of the mock perpetrators.]]
  • The images not included into the article will be automatically deleted on 21st.ilgiz 01:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some references (Russian)

Biophys 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting source: Who is Mr. Putin? (Russian) by Pribylovsky and FelshtinskyBiophys 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It says (Russian):"Теракт в Буйнакске 4 сентября был подготовлен и осуществлен Главным разведывательным управлением Генштаба РФ во главе с генерал-полковником Корабельнико-вым. Операцией руководил начальник 14-го управления Главного разведывательного управления генерал-лейтенант Костечко. Осуществлением теракта занималась группа офицеров ГРУ из двенадцати человек, посланная для этого в командировку в Дагестан."Biophys 05:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

1. On 20 May 2004, an article in the Los Angeles Times described the conviction on an unrelated state secret charge of Mikhail Trepashkin, ... I couldn't find the LA Times article, but this Guardian article essentially says enough to cover the first two citation demands of that paragraph.

2. In fact, Seleznyov was referring to an unrelated explosion which indeed happened in Volgodonsk three days earlier - This is a very strong statement, as it presents a statement by one of the interested parties, Genprokuratura, without proper attribution. Besides, the provided source states that the explosive device in question was hand-grenade based... --Illythr 23:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page references

  1. ^ (Russian) The reply of the Prosecutor General to the parliamentary enquiry

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilgiz (talk • contribs) 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] False flag theories for 9/11 and these events

Why are theories, stating that USA authorities are resposible for 9/11 teracts, all marked "conspiracy" and placed in tiny paragraph in the second half of 9/11 article, while in this article, the similar theory is placed in front of article as competent point of view? Dims 01:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There is little "similarity" between 9/11 attacks and the earlier Russian apartment bombings.
The suspicion of FSB involvement is mentioned in the beginning probably because the mainstream media and researchers do consider the theory credible. And the murders of the main opponents to the government's explanations, banning the book and ignoring the public commission did not help dispel the suspicion.
As for 9/11 attacks, one might see a complete article devoted to the 9/11 conspiracy theories (see the link to the main article in the "tiny paragraph").
The word "conspiracy" by itself is marginalizing some of the theories, including Chomsky's opinions was that the 9/11 attacks were a response, first in its kind, to the civilized world's wars waged against other countries and that the attacks will be used as a justification by other countries such as Russia in their escalation of wars, such as the war in Chechnya.ilgiz 12:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
And maybe also because no FBI agents were arrested by the police during any "vigilance exercises" during or imeediatelly after the events of 9/11 (I mean the Ryazan incident, where the FSB agents were caught planting a bomb their superiors later said declared "fake" against the police statement, and after a manhunt captured by a pure chance by the regular Russian cops with the great help of civilians).
The 9/11 theories were also widely discredited, from the completely false rumour about the Jews failing to come to the work (implicating "the Jews did the WTC", of course), to the silly pseudo-experiments done by a bunch of complete amatours. I've seen a bit of this "Loose Change" movie (the one with the "B52 in 1945" claim), and I couldn't stand the nerd voice of the seemingly teenage narrator. --HanzoHattori 13:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology of events- Are you kidding me!?

So , I added a NPOV tag to the section here is my reasoning behind it:

Looking through the section I saw that, it lists the dates for the bombings, which is good ,I have no problems with that. But it also lists dates for various developments in Putin's career. Now, is would be the purpose to include those? I think it is obviously to infer motive for the bombings. Basically it is saying shows that the bombings happened after Putin came to power, and also he got some "perks" from the bombings (ie getting reelected and the second war in Chechnya). This is done to imply that Putin is connected to the bombings, and is an obvious POV push. I mean come on, same excuse is used by Sep 11 conspiracy theories. They claim that after 9/11 Bush could invade Iraq, pass Patriot Act,take away civil liberties... SO therefore he must have cause the attacks (or at least knowingly failed to prevent them). This is obviously just a theory, and NOT a fact.

So should we also put in a chronology of events into the [September 11, 2001 attacks] article showing how "convenient" the timing of the attacks was in Bush's political career. Obviously not,maybe they would belong in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, but not in the main article. Same thing for this article that table should only list dates relevant to the ACTUAL event not a THEORY about the event. Actually half of this article is dedicated to a conpiracy theory instead of describing the actual event, but I will get to that later.

Anyway,my rant is over. I propose to remove all the dates that have nothing to do with the bombings (ie everything about Putin). What do you guys think? PolkovnikKGB (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There doesn't seem to be anything to tie Putin to this bombing, so I don't see why he should be mentioned in this article. Amaliq (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Elected, not reelected. Also your "PolkovnikKGB" name explains much. --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure that sources implicate Putin personally in organization of the bombings (this needs to be checked). But the sources implicate FSB and Patrushev in that. So, the timeline describing the alleged coming of FSB people to power is relevant.Biophys (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry , I didn't mean to say that it was him personally, but regardless, the time line should be about the relevant to the actual events, and not an alternate/conspiracy theory.
I don't have the time to check the sources now, I will maybe tomorrow. But I think, if the source DOES use the chronology of events in his FSB theory, then I can see an argument for keeping it. But it should not be a separate section, instead it should be in the FSB theory section (because that is the only thing that it's relevant to). Also it should be noted that the source uses the dates in his theory, that is why they are there. Now,if he does NOT use the dates then they definitely should be removed. Because you are making an inference. Basically it's like this: I see that this guy has a theory that FSB did the bombings, and I agree with him. So I am going to put together this table of dates to better prove his point, even though he ( the source) does NOT rely on dates himself.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good sources

Good video sources about these bombings (Russian):

[edit] Is it a conspiracy theory?

There are repated attempts to describe this as a "conspiracy theory". Conspiracy theory or not should be decided by sources. FSB involvement in the bombing is a majority view - based on sources. The involvement of FSB has been described in several books published by David Satter, Alexander Litvinenko, Yuri Felshtinsky, Alex Goldfarb, Vladimir Pribylovsky and numerous TV interviews and articles (many references are already included in this article; I can bring more). Hence there are multiple reliable primary and secondary sources claiming the involvemnt of FSB to be true. But I would like to see an equally impressive list of reliable English language sources (so a reader can check) that claim the opposite. There are no such in my knowledge. I found only a couple of Russian sources where the governmental position has been described in sufficient detail.Biophys (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No country government has accused Russia of orchestrating the apartment bombings. There are also many books and TV interviews and articles asserting that the moon landings were fake and September 11 was orchestrated by the US government.--Miyokan (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
You said: "No country government has accused Russia of orchestrating the apartment bombings". Of course they did not, because they never do! Why should they bother about citizens of other countries? They have been elected by citizens of their own countries to protect interests of their own citizens. UK would extradite Berezovsky and Zakayev in 5 minutes, unless UK court decided otherwise. You know that UK and US governments extradited almost a million of Russians to Stalin after WWII and most of them were sent to Gulag.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Everything must be supported by sources. Please provide your sources claiming this to be a conspiracy theory.Biophys (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I have provided 8 references that have referred to it as a conspiracy theory.--Miyokan (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

A bunch of non-notable journalists claim this to be a "conspiracy theory" simply because this seems improbable for them.

This qualifies the case as a "controversy", not as a "conspiracy theory". So, let's not define this a "conspiracy theory" in Introduction, but include this as a separate section. We do not make any judgements in introductions on controversial subjects. We only should explain in Introduction what the controversy is.Biophys (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's really no point about adding how observers describe it as a "conspiracy theory". So what? - PietervHuis (talk) 02:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
So, let's summarize "Pro" and "Contra" views".

[edit] Pro

Several notable proffessionals claiming the involvenet of FSB to be the case: 1 - FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, 2 - Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter, 3 - member of Russian Duma Sergei Yushenkov, 4 notable historian Felshtinsky, 5 - political scientist Pribylovsky. 6 In addition, we have U.S. Senator and presidential candidate John McCain telling that " There remain credible allegations that Russia's FSB had a hand in carrying out these attacks" [6]. Some of these people have written books on the sibject and they are notable experts.

[edit] Contra

A bunch of non-notable journalists claim this to be a "conspiracy theory" simply because this seems improbable for them.

This qualifies the case as a "controversy", not as a "conspiracy theory". So, let's not define this a "conspiracy theory" in Introduction, but include this as a separate section. We do not make any judgements in introductions on controversial subjects. We only should explain in Introduction what the controversy is.Biophys (talk) 18:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact

Whether or not it is a conspiracy is not the issue, however the DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact, supported by many sources, much much more credible than Alexander Litvinenko and co., including

  • The Washinton Times,
  • The New York Times,
  • The Times,
  • Princeton University, etc.

have referred to it as a "conspiracy theory".--Miyokan (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I d like to add to "Contra" the fact, that all of these notable Russian experts even written a book were sponsored by Berezowski so they are anything but independent.
Sources providing this information were already given in the SecChWar article Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly.--Miyokan (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the expression "conspiracy theory" has two meanings, and it might be better to stick to more precise (and fortunately or not, less striking) terms. The straightforward meaning is a theory that describes a plot. The ironic meaning is a fringe theory, the one that is built on shallow allegations.
In my understanding, had the government been honestly interested in resolving the controversy, any new evidence would be either refuted by a solid evidence or accepted as a solid evidence, even when the latter points fingers at a federal agency.
Below is my quick review of the references attached to the claim that the theory of FSB involvement was widely described as a "conspiracy theory".
  • The article in The Times is not an editorial. It is a professional writer's opinion (a) that average Britons would not believe the allegations of corruption and inhumanity in FSB much exceeding that of KGB and (b) that Litvinenko and other immigrants should assimilate and forget the "horrifying" past of their home countries. The articles from The Washington Post and The New York Times did not refute the allegations either. The New Statesman article gave its highest suspicion rate (70%) to the allegations of FSB involvement.
  • The excerpt from the book by MacKinnon[7] uses the term in a straightforward way. No refutation is asserted by the author.
  • The article by the Agence France-Presse journalist Olga Nedbayeva does not offer counter-arguments other than quoting an FSB spokesman who said that Litvinenko's evidence "cannot be taken seriously".
  • The article by Ira Straus starts with a premise that Muslims and the West conspired against Serbia. The author attributes to "Russians and Serbs" a belief that Bosnian Muslims staged massacres by killing their own people. (The article does not point to any evidence of that). Then the author supposes that "some Russians" decided to use the same trick by bombing apartment buildings to draw world's sympathy in their conflict with Chechen rebels. The author's point remains unclear to me. Its headline does not seem to correspond to its ending. Any comments would be welcome.
  • The summary of a conference at Princeton 3-4 March 2000 does not refute the "conspiracy theory". It said there was no evidence (at the time) supporting either the official or the opposing theory.
  • I read an excerpt from Inside Putin's Russia by Andrew Jack (pp.103-141) in Google Book Search and found his analysis well-researched. The author considers the strong and weak points of the conspiracy theory of FSB involvement and the official theory of Chechen rebel involvement. He points out that "confirming any fact in Russia is difficult", but mentions the opinion of an expert on Dagestan Robert Bruce Ware. Jack points that Ware's opinion on Wahhabis as the most likely culprits coincides with the results of the official investigation which focused on young radicals from Karachaevo-Cherkessia recruited by Achemez Gochiyaev. Jack writes that the findings were embarrassing for the Kremlin as they did not provide justification for a second war.
Labeling the anti-government theory as a "conspiracy theory" in the main article seems to assume the ironic meaning of the term while the references supplied to support the statement operate the term in its straightforward meaning. Therefore, the shallow generalization of the provided secondary sources seems unjustified to me.ilgiz (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What are you disputing? The article is not asserting as fact that it is a conspiracy theory, however the DESCRIBING of it as a conspiracy theory is indisputable fact, which every single one of those sources does:
  • Mackinnon's book: But if the conspiracy theory–that all the bombings were the work of government agents–was right, Russia was backsliding quickly toward autocracy.
  • The Times: His biggest revelation centred on the conspiracy theory that the FSB was involved in a string of bombing attacks that levelled apartment buildings across Russia in the autumn of 1999.
  • New Statesman: Conspiracy theories: a guide
  • Terror99: Conspiracy theories on Russia's 1999 bombings gain ground
  • Russia Journal: Conspiracy theories run into cold facts Let us examine the alleged conspiracies and conspiracy theories.
  • Princeton University: yet neither is there any evidence to support the "conspiracy theory" that ties responsibility to the Russian FSB
  • The Washington Times: most dismiss the involvement of the Russian government in the apartment bombings as an unsupported conspiracy theory though it has received widespread attention--Miyokan (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________________

Why even bother writing about how "observers describe it as a conspiracy theory". That's the same as describing the theory of relativity as a "science theory", or the theory of God's existance as a "unfounded theory". There's absolutely no reason to write about this in the article. Let people who read this article draw their own conclusions. - PietervHuis (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship? Why don't we just remove the accusations by Litvinenko and co. then and leave the evidence? Being repeatedly called a "conspiracy theory" establishes that this is often considered a WP:FRINGE theory, and that the claims by Litvinenko and co. are not widely held. The Washington Times summarises it best - "most dismiss the theory as an unsupported conspiracy theory though it has received widespread attention".--Miyokan (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all there's absolutely no evidence released to the public so stop saying there is. Also the fact that a journalist of the new york times describes it as a conspiracy theory doesn't make it universal. Anyway what does it matter. If it was the work of Russia it was indeed a conspiracy.

This article needs cleanup, the introduction should be shorter and allegations / investigations should be seperated. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth, I never said that evidence was released, I was referring to the "evidence" that the "conspiracy theorists" rely on. If you want to remove "observers describe it as a conspiracy theory" then you would have to remove Former KGB/FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter,[3], Russian lawmaker Sergei Yushenkov, historian Felshtinsky, and political scientist Pribylovsky asserted that the bombings were in fact a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB (successor to the KGB) in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and brin - because that is their opinion, you would just have to leave the evidence that they base it on.--Miyokan (talk) 12:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would really like to know, why almost everybody here ignores the involvement of Berezowski? It is a fact he sponsored the investigation, so it is obvious, that the investigation was neither independent, nor impartial. The goal was not to uncover the truth, but to accuse the government. The other fact, that 4.ex many western newspapers prefer to ignore Berezowski' background and his invocations for even a revolution in Russia he is ready to pay for, and to present him as a dissident does not make their statements more credibleCaesar Augustvs (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes Caesar, I encourage you to add this information to balance the article.--Miyokan (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure if my english is good enough for such mission :) As there is much to change in the "theory of the FSB involvement" than...really much.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

O'K, I have included one phrase about this this in Introduction - as a compromise. But this should be described in a separate section (I made one and included some materials there).Biophys (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy

  • 1. the act of conspiring.
  • 2.an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
  • 3.a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.
  • 4.Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.
  • 5.any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

The answer, by dictionary definition, is yes.

Wikipedia says::"A conspiracy theory usually attributes the ultimate cause of an event or chain of events (usually political, social or historical events), or the concealment of such causes from public knowledge, to a secret, and often deceptive plot by a group of powerful or influential people or organizations. "

The answer, by what wikipedia considers a "conspiracy theory", is yes. Now that, on top of the fact that it's widely regarded by most notable publications as a conspiracy theory, and I think the answer is pretty much crystal clear. it IS a conspiracy theory. I renamed the section for accuracy, and arguments that it isn't are completely unfounded and unsupported. Krawndawg (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

      • Come on, calling them "Claims" is just as accurate. "Conspiracy theory" automatically suggests the statements are outlandish, which they are not. It is not the most neutral word we could use, so lets say "claim" - which itself suggests that what is said has not been proven. This would be the most accurate and fair way to describe it. Malick78 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
BUT IT IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY! Just like how the 9/11 attacks have their own CONSPIRACY THEORY section. It implies exactly what it is, a conspiracy theory. Krawndawg (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • BUT "CLAIM" IS JUST AS ACCURATE! So, erm, what's wrong with using that? The fact is that the 9/11 perpetrators have been identified and convicted (where they are alive) so any other theories are obviously outlandish and so the generally-pejoratively-used term "conspiracy theory" is fair. These bombings have not been solved to an extent that satisfies international standards of justice, so alternate theories are not as absurd, since no proper guilty party has so far been found. Alternate versions of events therefore have a validity that 9/11 alternative versions do not have. You still have not said why "claim" would not be the best compromise though. Please do:) Malick78 (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
This is your personal opinion. Most sources written by notable people tell the bombings were organized by the FSB. If FBI officers were caught while planting the bombs in New York (like FSB officers were caught in Ryzan), the 911 story would be very different.Biophys (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually it's not my personal opinion. It's a fact that cannot be argued, just like the fact that the sky is blue and fire is hot. All significant media considers the allegations to be a conspiracy theory, just like someone pointed out earlier in the discussion. You're simply lying by saying that. Krawndawg (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikidictionary says:

conspiracy theory (plural conspiracy theories) 1. A belief in or allegation of a group conspiring, or having conspired, to commit an illegal or wrongful act, or to cover up such an act; especially, such a belief that is rejected by mainstream sources. 2. (dismissive) Hence, any belief that is considered far-fetched by the mainstream; a crackpot theory.

Note number 2. This is not a neutral word and we should aim for neutrality - we all know that. The most neutral word is "claim". Let's not have to take this to adjudication, let's be sensible about it:))))) Malick78 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of FSB involvement theory

Now this is not about "conspiracy theory". This is about proper placing of material. Russian version of this artivle included "Criticism of FSB involvement theory" section (see discussion in the beginning of this talk page), and rightly so. So, all materials of that kind should be placed there. We can not describe all "pro" and "contra" in the introduction.Biophys (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked two of several sources provided by Myokan. One of them does not tell anything about these bombings but only discuss Litvinenko case and descibe his murder as a "conspiracy". Another tells that the "theory" may be true. I provided some direct citation to exclude any claims that I misinterpret something.Biophys (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Please describe correctly what the sources tell. That is why we need a separate section.Biophys (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


http://www.izvestia.ru/investigation/article3102993/ here you have about Felshtinsky, Goldfarb and Litvinenko, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/news/newsid_2957000/2957473.stm this one is about Juschenkow- as you see, he was killed just a short time after they decided to count out mr. Berezowsky (curious fact, isn’t it?) Here a link about Kovalev http://niiss.ru/d_kovalev.shtml his behaviour during the conflict same as the decoration as "Knight of Honour" from Dudaev directly makes him not really credible regarding questions about Chechnya. Further Trepashkin was as we all know the other former FSB agent taking part in this notable press conference with Beresowski and Litivnenko.

Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
O'K, all links that you provided are probably valid sources. That is how Russian state-controlled media describe "enemies of the people". However, there is nothing there about these apartment bombings. Caesar, do you really believe that Russian apartment bombings were not committed by FSB and GRU spetsnaz? That was highly proffesional job and clearly something extremely damaging for the Chechen cause (small Chechnya can not win a war with Russia - everyone understands that). The more you and Miyokan are trying to prove this to be a conspiracy theory, the more it is clear that the involvement of FSB was real. There is a lot of things to be described here - the Gochyaev ordeal (it is shame - we do not have an article about him), the closed trails of Chechen suspects who were not involved in the bombings whatsoever; the murder of Romanovich at Ciprus, the words of Trepashkin when he came back from prison, etc. So, if you want this to be described, let's go ahead.Biophys (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Biophys admission that he strongly believes bombings were work of Russian government

You have just admitted that you strongly believe that the bombings were orchestrated by Russia, declaring your bias for all to see, so please cease your deletions/manipulations/hiding away of the counterargument as you are violating WP:NPOV.

Please do not misinterpret my words. I only asked Caesar Augustvs what he really thinks about it and suggested that WP articles on this subject should be improved. Please also stop reverting a lot of other people work without any justification or discussion. It seems there is a lot of things to be done here, just as I said.Biophys (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You can try to deny it all you like but the proof is there for all to see - Caesar, do you really believe that Russian apartment bombings were not committed by FSB and GRU spetsnaz? That was highly proffesional job and clearly something extremely damaging for the Chechen cause (small Chechnya can not win a war with Russia - everyone understands that). The more you and Miyokan are trying to prove this to be a conspiracy theory, the more it is clear that the involvement of FSB was real.--Miyokan (talk) 04:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


Well if you ask me: this job was not more professional than the 9/11 there is nothing about professionalism in there...give me some bags with explosives, and you will see I can blow any apartment you like in Germany (figurative meaning of course). The damage of the Chechen cause is not worse, than the hostage taking of Beslan or the Nord-Ost - not even really worse than the same in Budenovsk. As you remember, many Chechen leaders (especially Bassajew) often proclaimed "to take the war to the Russian home country". So, why all these qualms about their possible involvement?

Yes indeed, in my sources you do not see concrete details about the bombing itself as I was asked to show sources about the connections between the "independent investigation of notable experts" and Beresowski. If you ask me, there is a much easier explanation for the closed trials and so on. For the FSB it was very hard to explain, why they were not able to prevent these events, as you cannot simply say "hey guys we can't post guards to every cellar of every building in the country", same as it was hard to explain, why nobody was able to prevent the terrorists to get all these explosives (as it is equal to the confession -"actually we do not have any control about the market of these things") Now about Trepashkin and co. of course they say such things, as they have to earn money for living and Berezowski is not social welfareCaesar Augustvs (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Biophys can believe all he wants to believe. Miyokan are you trying to say that you're not working from a pov? You are the least pov persion I see working here, and your previous claims that you are a "payed member of a kgb troll squad" backs that up.
His idea that Russians blew up those buildings is as believable as your idea that Chechens blew up those buildings.
You're trying to to convert this article (and many other articles) into a pro-putin article, there's no need to keep callings critics "conspiracy theorists" all the time. I'll work on it later and devide the article with critics and counter-criticism seperated. The introduction for example is way too long - PietervHuis (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am trying to make a balanced article, presenting both sides and unlike Biophys, I am neither convinced that the Chechens are to blame nor the Russian government. In case you haven't noticed, Biophys is the one removing and manipulating counterarguments, and removing counterarguments from the lead, while I haven't touched the information that asserts Russian gov. involvement. You are the least pov persion I see working here, and your previous claims that you are a "payed member of a kgb troll squad" backs that up. LOL. Yes Pietervhuis, that tongue-in-cheek infobox that I inserted proves that I am a "paid member of a kgb troll squad" *sarcasm*. Biophys has been the one deleting counterarguments, trying to remove the well sourced statement that it has been "described as a conspiracy theory" violating WP:NPOV, I am not the one deleting information.--Miyokan (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the fact that people call it a conspiracy theory change anything about the reliability of such statements? It's a Theory indeed. A theory about what? A conspiracy. Of course it's factually a conspiracy theory. So what? If I'm correct you also removed arguments with the title "if you want to place them back feel fro to do it". I'm not trying to say that you're not welcome to participate in wikipedia articles, but you are in no position to discredit Biophys. And no I don't believe you are "payed", but the fact that you subscribed to such a stroll squad and that you don't seem to be AT ALL critical of anything concerning Russia tells me that you are nowhere less biased than Biophys. - PietervHuis (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Miyokan, the fact that Biophys is biased is neither here nor there, it's his edits that count. We all have opinions on Wikipedia and I'm sure you are no different. If you have a problem with his edits, find a good rationale for your complaint, not something as petty as what you have brought up here. Malick78 (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have explained the rationale numerous times in my edit summaries - "sentence remains unsupported after I have continually readded that fact tag to it and being deleted by Biophys" "however" is on wikipedia's list of words to avoid - Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#However.2C_although.2C_whereas.2C_despite, "fact tags should never be removed"; "the sources refer to Russian involvement in apartment bombings as a "conspiracy theory", not Litvinenko's, etc assertions"; "unjustified deletion of Washington Times quote";"the apartment bombings were not the only reason for the invasion of Chechnya, it was this plus the Chechen invasion of Dagestan"; "why did you remove the fact that Death of a Dissident was published by Litvinenko's wife" - but Biophys has ignored these comments and persisted in his deletion/manipulation/removal-from-the-lead of the counterarguments. What is one supposed to think about such actions when Biophys admits he believes that the Russian government orchestrated the bombings?--Miyokan (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Miyokan the washington post article you found states that "While most dismiss the story as an unsupported conspiracy theory, it has received widespread attention". "Most of what? Russian politicians? Russian journalists? Journalists worldwide? It does not provide any original research on what "most" think. When you're using it in this article it creates an atmosphere as if the criticsims are only made by a minority of people and we don't know that.
There's also no reason to add about the invasion of Dagestan or put emphasis on it. It's already handled on the Second Chechen War page. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

What confusion? Since they did not say a specific group (ie they did not say "most Russian journalists" or "most journalists worldwide", etc) it is quite clear that "most" refers to the majority of people worldwide who comment on the issue. There is no "emphasis" put on the invasion of Dagestan, it is a fact that the Chechen invasion of Dagestan was one of the factors leading to the invasion of Chechnya, the apartment bombings weren't the sole reason for the invasion of Chechnya. It is simply wrong to state that the apartment bombings were the sole reason for the invasion of Chechnya.--Miyokan (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

How the hell did a journalist from the washington times draw a conclusion that "most" dismiss the story? He didn't provide any original research along with it, therefore we cant present it as a fact on an encyclopedia.
Also it's fine to mention the invasion as an issue, but not as detailed as now. Just a link to the Invasion of Dagestan page is fine. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I made a compromise version where all sourced content by Myokan, except this Dagestan war, has been included. However it is properly arranged by sections.Biophys (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced paragraph

The "official investigation" paragraph includes the following:

The explosives were prepared at a fertilizer factory in Urus-Martan, Chechnya, by mixing hexogen, TNT, aluminium powder and nitre with sugar. From there they were sent to a food storage facility in Kislovodsk, which was managed by an uncle of one of the terrorists, Yusuf Krymshakhalov. Another conspirator, Ruslan Magayayev, had leased a KamAZ truck in which the sacks were stored for two months. After everything was planned, the participants were organized into several groups which then transported the explosives to different cities. Most of the people participating were not ethnic Chechens.

Where it came from? Text in official statement by a prosecutor includes only the following (Russian):

В ходе допросов Искендеров показал, что 13 сентября 1999 года на стоянке грузового автотранспорта Волгодонска он познакомился с тремя лицами, выходцами из народностей Северного Кавказа, прибывшими в город на автомобиле "КАМАЗ", якобы для продажи картофеля. Они купили у него автомобиль, объяснив, что он необходим для доставки на рынки города более 10 тонн картофеля. В этот же день они передали Искендерову в качестве оплаты 300 долларов США и 2200 рублей. Оформление сделки купли-продажи должно было состояться 16 сентября.

Как установлено следствием, в этот же день, на территории автоколонны #2070 г.Волгодонска в будку автомашины было перегружено взрывчатое вешест-во и установлено взрывное устройство, все это было сверху замаскировано россыпью картофеля.

15 сентября 1999 года Искендеров по просьбе покупателей отогнал автомобиль на обычное место к своему дому, чтобы утром следующего дня отвести картофель на рынок,

This is about bombing in Volgodonsk and tells completely different things. I checked another source (the book by Goldfarb) and it also tells something different. I will correct this ASAP.Biophys (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC) O'K, I found it: [8] Biophys (talk) 18:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw. another curious fact, in the web you seem only be able to find two versions of how this happened: the one of the FSB, and the other sponsored by Berezowski...Mostly other sources only refer to one of these, so I really do not see any reason why the version of Berezowski should be more credible.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] structure of the new paragraphs

I think not very good sectioning in there...

First- in the main part- the theory of the FSB involvement you should exclude any support or critics of the theory itself, otherwise you only repeat the same information in other words in the part "support". Further, I’ve read the text of the McCain speech... Actually I do not see any reason to give him a more important role as a source than a usual newspaper. In the context it rather seems he only refer to some information he got from the same "notable Russian experts"- probably the same as we have. (Cause in his speech he never says something about facts, but mentions things like "State Duma deputy Yuri Shendoshokhtin, who had been looking into the role of the FSB in the Moscow bombings as well as a scandal surrounding the involvement of FSB officers in illegal trade, was also killed in mysterious circumstances" just few lines before his statement about "credible allegations". Btw. as he put the UDSSR in the same box with Tzaristic Russia- calling them both "continuation of 400 years of autocratic state control, and repression" I actually tend to think he is a russophobe (do not know if this word is the same in english) and for this reason not very credible in questions about Russia at allCaesar Augustvs (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "theory of FSB involvement" and "support" should not have any content overlap. I thought they did not. The opinion of John McCain is notable because he is a US presidential candidate and a well known politician.Biophys (talk) 04:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You prefer to ignore the doubtful statement of McCain about "400 years of terror" in Russia? Don't you think such radical position makes his credibility doubtful as well? Would you believe a German chancellor, saying "the USA is an example of continuation of 400 years of separatism"Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean to say this is a lie ;) ? - PietervHuis (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I added this plus his statement that Russia should be kicked out of the G8.--Miyokan (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup?

May I try to mediate the recent edit war by putting some arguments into respective sections? This will take me an hour or so. Feel free to revert my changes.ilgiz (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm done. Thanks.ilgiz (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Great job, thanks.--Miyokan (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Miyokan please stop adding information about chechen terrorist attacks. It has nothing to do with this article and only tries to put emphasis on "chechens are terrorists, therefore they must have done it!". It would be same as for me to list all the atrocities and near-genocide commited by Russia. - PietervHuis (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop committing vandalism and censoring information, it is much more relevant than entries like "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President.", etc - which has nothing to do with the chronology of the apartment bombings.--Miyokan (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So if you think irrelevant information is listed your idea is to add even more irrelevant information? That's quite a unique way of editing wikipedia. Also your allegations that I vandalize pages is unfounded. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to removed the irrelevant information but I was reverted, so I added other relevant information and I will reinsert this information just as the "Vladimir Putin wins Presidential election", etc, entries were reinserted. Also, please remain civil [9]--Miyokan (talk) 02:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't reverted by me so to accuse me of vandalism is rubbish. If you want to discuss if Putin's path to presidency should or should not be listed do it here instead of engaging in an edit war. I am more civil than you - PietervHuis (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you reverted 2 of my entries just then. You can say that you are more civil but I am not the one that said "[my] allegations are pretty much bullshit".--Miyokan (talk) 02:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A revert isn't proof of vandalism. I am more civil than you because I don't accuse people of vandalism right away. I edited out "bullshit" which is of course a horrible offensive phrase along with some spelling errors, but I am sorry if I offended you. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As Ilgiz said, interpreting of the chronology is left to the reader. If you see that the chronology omits certain key events, please add these events.--Miyokan (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And how are hostage takings "key events" related to Russian apartment bombings? - PietervHuis (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

They show that Chechens have attacked civilian targets before and after. Now tell me how entries like "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President." are relevant.--Miyokan (talk) 03:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so because a few chechens attacked civilians, every chechen is suspect? should we remember how many russians attacked civillians and therefore all russians are suspect?

I think those entries are relevant because the events were described in this article. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say every Chechen is a suspect, those terrorist attack by Chechen separatists are facts, stop censoring information. Those events are not described in the article and you still haven't explained why they are relevant. I can make silly arguments too -"Because Vladimir Putin was an FSB chief and became president of Russia the FSB was responsible for the bombings?" --Miyokan (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh yes, that doesn't make it relevant. Attacks by Russians on civillians are also facts, no need to add those either. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacks by Russian on civilians have nothing to do with the bombings, no one is accusing Russian soldiers on the battleground in Chechnya of being implicated in the bombings, they are accusing the FSB.--Miyokan (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No one is accusing Russians of implicated in the bombings? That's pretty new to me. It's not just soldiers that murder civillians. Let's not forget the bombing of grozny of the first war which left as many dead as the atomic bomb dropped on nagasaki. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Read again, I said no one is accusing Russian soldiers on the battleground in Chechnya of being implicated in the bombings, they are accusing the FSB. Furthermore, in this case Russians were targeted, not Chechens, you would have to show where FSB has attacked Russian civilians before, not Chechens.--Miyokan (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on civillians by a few chechen chechen soldiers have absolutely nothing to do with this article. Both Chechen soldiers and Russian soldiers have carried out attacks on civillians, that's a fact. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those "few Chechen soldiers" numbered in the hundreds and were Chechen separatists, those who the official FSB investigation blamed the bombings on. In this case Russian civilians were targeted, not Chechen civilians, show me where Russian civilians have been killed by the FSB before.--Miyokan (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Russian government have attacked civillians before, see the first chechen war. I'm not even going to bother showing you, just check the casualty counts. It's not just the FSB that's being blamed but also the government. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

These bombings targeted Russian civilians, not Chechen civilians, show me specific incidents where the FSB has deliberately (not accidently) killed Russian civilians before. You have still not established why the "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President." entries are relevant.--Miyokan (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The bombings of Grozny also targeted Russian civilians. A huge amount actually. Also I really don't care about that list. All I care is that you don't add anything to this article that depicts all chechens or chechen seperatists as terrorists. - PietervHuis (talk) 04:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The bombings of Grozny were part of the Chechen war and targeted Chechen rebel strongholds, not Russian civilians. You have still not shown me a specific incident of the FSB deliberately killed Russian civilians and you have still not established why the "July 1998: Vladimir Putin was appointed Director of the FSB." "September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia." "May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "August 9, 1999: Vladimir Putin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia" "March 26, 2000: Vladimir Putin is elected President." entries are relevant. By deleting the information of the Chechen separatist targeting civilians, as in this case they were accused of, you are censoring information.--Miyokan (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha, Chechen rebel strongholds? Just like how the US bombed Nagasaki because it was full of Japanese soldiers? You're kidding me. I don't need to prove that the FSB kills russians civillians, as I already told you it's NOT JUST the fbs that are suspect but also the russian government, and the russian government doesn't care more about the lives of civillians than chechen seperatists. Therefore both the russian government and chechen seperatist have a reputation of being able to carry out these bombings and it's unfair to only list atrocities done by chechen seperatists. Also I'm not going to answer your question about how the other events are relevant because I already answered you, and because I don't care about the list and it might as well be deleted. - PietervHuis (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have again failed to cite specific incidents of FSB killing Russian civilians and failed to justify the inclusion of the other chronology information, so please stop censoring information. Also, the bombing of Grozny was not carried out by the FSB.--Miyokan (talk) 04:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to cite FSB atrocities or justify other peoples edits. I'll remove any irrelevant information youre trying to add. - PietervHuis (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yuri Tkachenko

На пресс-конференции О.М. Дуканов дал комментарий к публикациям в "Новой газете" и заявлению Бориса Березовского о причастности ФСБ к взрывам в Москве и Волгодонске и учениях Рязанского ФСБ. Начальник Рязанского управления ФСБ доказательно опроверг эти публикации в "Новой газете". Разъяснения по ситуации и фактам дал и эксперт Ю.В. Ткаченко, бывший начальник инженерно-технического отделения ОМОБ г.Рязани (сейчас сотрудник ОБОП). Он выезжал на место происшествия и проводил экспресс-анализ. Вот лишь два заключения эксперта. Во-первых, газовый анализатор не использовался. Во-вторых, якобы "взрыватель" (штатный) не что иное, как охотничий патрон, и он не может подорвать ни один из известных видов взрывчатого вещества.

[10]. SashaT (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually that was claimed by Ryzan FSB boss (see the title), not by Tkachenko who said something exactly opposite according to all other sources.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I think the Introduction is much worse than it was before, as a result of edit warring. The bombing led to Second Chechen war. Why? This should be explained. Why the bombings are notable? Not only because they led to Second Chechen war, but because they allegedly have been committed by the FSB to bring Putin to power. The allegations were based on numerous evidence (unlike 911 events in the US where evidence show the opposite) and made by numerous notable experts and politicians (unlike 911 in US). Furthermore, people who tried to investigate were arrested by FSB or killed (unlike in the case of 911 events). Russian Duma refused to investigate (Unlike US Congress that investigated 911). That should be explained - as it was in the previous version. Otherwise, it is not clear what is that all about.Biophys (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I also strongly suggest to describe the events in chronological order. Otherwise, this is difficult to understand. Also, we only describe the events and key claims, without making any judgements.Biophys (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The intro was removed for a reason, to prevent edit warring as occurred before, please don't restart an edit war, you, an editor who has admitted he believes the FSB involvement theory, have inserted a biased intro with no counterarguments, ALL of this information is already in the article. It is much better to separate the sections so that we don't edit war over what is included in the combined section.--Miyokan (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an intro, of course it contains information that's present on the rest of the article. The intro doesn't state arguments, it only states facts. Please discuss your issues here and don't delete information without question. That's considered vandalism and you (and I) can get blocked again - PietervHuis (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well the article is blocked now, and this dispute is one of the reasons.
The intro as it stands now is too short. People need to have a brief introduction and decide themselves if they want to elaborate on it. Deleting the entire introduction is no fashion. You said that you find the introduction Biophys made was too POV, what exactly was wrong with it? - PietervHuis (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Frankly speaking, the deletion of Abstract is completely unacceptable. Every article, and especially very long one (like that) must have an abstrct.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL It is "an *abstract* according to Biophys" with no counterarguments or criticism of the FSB theory. It is fine to just define the bombings, as it does now, many articles introductions simply define the topic. The Russian wikipedia article on this topic, which is also contentious, has done exactly the same. Once again, ALL of the information in Biophys introduction is already in the article, it is simply a double of the "Theory of FSB involvement" section.--Miyokan (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Example of introduction according to Biophys:

Former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, Johns Hopkins University and Hoover Institute scholar David Satter,[2], Russian lawmaker Sergei Yushenkov, historian Felshtinsky, and political scientist Pribylovsky asserted that the bombings were in fact a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB (successor to the KGB) in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin and the FSB to power -where is the criticism of this theory?

The Russian Duma rejected two motions for parliamentary investigation of the Ryazan incident. An independent public commission to investigate the bombings chaired by Duma deputy Sergei Kovalev was rendered ineffective because of government refusal to respond to its inquiries. Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin, both Duma members, have since died in apparent assassinations in April 2003 and July 2003 respectively. The Commission's lawyer Mikhail Trepashkin has been arrested in October 2003 to become one of the better-known political prisoners in Russia. -where is the criticism of these people?

If you insist on adding an introduction, by all means, I will insert this and other criticism to balance the article.

The involvement of the Russian government in the apartment bombings has been described as a "conspiracy theory" with its share of grounds and doubts.[64][65] In a May 2000 issue of The Washington Post Paul J. Saunders wrote that Putin's willing to shut down Novaya Gazeta could be understood because "most dismiss the involvement of the Russian government in the apartment bombings as an unsupported conspiracy theory though it has received widespread attention".[66]

Almost all the of the critics of the FSB theory, and the "independent investigation” have been directly linked with Boris Berezovsky, an outspoken critic of the administration of Vladimir Putin and allied in London with former Chechen rebel, Ahmed Zakayev.[69] Berezovsky said he was on a mission to oust Putin's government "by force", which prompted shark rebukes from the British government.[70][71] Russia has issued multiple warrants for Berezovsky's arrest and has repeatedly demanded that the U.K. extradite him, calls which have been ignored.[72] Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin, both Duma members, have been widely linked with Berezovsky [73] The public inquiry commission asked Mikhail Trepashkin,another former FSB-agent linked with Berezovsky[74] Yuri Felshtinsky- another confidant of Berezovsky[75] Sergei Kovalev, a well known opposer of the Chechen wars was decorated with the "order of Honor" from Dzhokhar Dudayev, the first President of the Chechen breakaway republic of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.[76]. Alexander Litvinenko worked for Boris Berezovsky and the latter bought a house for him. [77] The Commission's lawyer Mikhail Trepashkin is mostly known for his participation in the interview beside Berezovsky and Litvinenko when Litvinenko claimed he was advised to assassinate Berezovsky. --Miyokan (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We can not discuss any "pro" and "contra" in the Abstract. We can only briefly mention a few most important facts and claims. We can simply mention that claims by Litvinenko and others are unproven and were disputed (see the body of the text). Based on your reply, I have to focus exclusively on terrorism and other crimes committed by the Putin's regime.Biophys (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "the most important facts and claims" according to Biophys, an admitted pro-FSB theory supporter. You simply cannot insert the information that you did without the key criticism of the accusations.--Miyokan (talk) 04:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea I think it is a little too short. But a lot better than what it used to be at one point.The intro needs to be NPOV, especially for a controversial topic like this. Maybe have a summary of the ACTUAL events that happened (note no theories here just what actually happened) then later on introduce the conflicting theories (ie FSB involvement vs terrorist attack). These should be a few sentences tops, as opposed to making 3/4 of the intro about the alleged FSB involvement. Thats just my 2 cents on the issuePolkovnikKGB (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

To resolve the disagreement, we could simply tell: "Litvinenko, Satter and others proposed a conspiracy theory that....". Would you agree on that? However there are different opinions by notable people on the subject (some think the theory is real). Thus, it qualifies only as a "controversy". It would be proper to tell: "Litvinenko, Satter and others proposed a controversial theory that...", or "Litvinenko, Satter and others proposed a theory that.... However this theory remains unproven."Biophys (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Polkovnik, have a summary of the ACTUAL events that happened with no theories here then later on introduce the conflicting theories. I suppose it would be ok to say this as long as it stays only this (ie these 2 sentences) - "Litvinenko, Satter and others proposed a controversial theory that the bombings were orchestrated by the FSB. However this theory remains unproven". If you start to blow this out then it would be unacceptable.--Miyokan (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If we all agree that Abstrct should include key factual events and claims (in chronological order), we can build consensus. As about your suggestion, it is not enough to tell that someone suggested "a theory". We should tell what the claim was about. Therefore, we must explain: "asserted that the bombings were in fact a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin to power". That may be wrong, but that is what they claimed.Biophys (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I am going to reorder the paragraphs in the intro , the official investigation should always go first no a conspiracy theory (or controversial theory,whatever floats your boat). So now matches the order of the sections of the article. Official Investigation->Attempts for independent investigation->FSB involvement theory. The intro still needs some work, but this should be a good start. PolkovnikKGB (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
No, we are going to describe all events in chronological order to make the text more clear. First, the bombings took place. Second, the Ryazan episode happened. Third, the claimes about FSB were made. Fourth Russian Duma rejected the motions. Finally (only in 2002), the official investigation was completed and announced its results. Biophys (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you are saying there, but I also think that the order of intro should follow the rest of the article. And also you can order by subject matter (ie official investigation then independent then other theories) I skimmed through some other articles 9/11 and London bombings and they follow this pattern. Right now FSB theory paragraph has no dates in it. In order to maybe make it less misleading chronology wise maybe add something like "Soon after the bombings XYZ proposed a controversial theory that..." to that paragraph? P.S. I didn't mean anything with the "Introduction according to Biophys" that was just the title of the section.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
O'K, I made it shorter and rearranged material. The results of official investigation are now placed in the end, which makes them more convincing. It now reads as follows: yes, there were certain allegations, but the official investigation came to such and such conclutions in the end.Biophys (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology section

I also don't know why you delete any information relating to Putin's rise to presidency from the chronology section. The events are discussed inside this article, and he is a suspect among the theorists. It also happened around the same time as the bombings. It's a good overview for people who want to see the events summed up in a simple way - PietervHuis (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Putin's rise to presidency has nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings and is OR. And it was not only Putin that was in the chronology but other irrelevant OR entries like September 1998: Yevgeny Primakov, a KGB veteran, becomes Prime Minister of Russia., * May 12, 1999: Sergei Stepashin, a former FSB Director, becomes Prime Minister of Russia. By that logic we should also include the chronology of the Chechen separatist attacks against Russian civilians because the Chechen separatists are also "suspects".--Miyokan (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't only delete the "other irrelevant" entries but you also deleted any information about Putin. It is relevant to the bombings because according to the critics the apartment bombings played a large role in his rise to power.
Attacks by Chechen separatists that occured around the time of the bombings are already listed, (the IIPB invasion). You can't list any other attacks by chechen seperatists because they happened years before and after the apartment bombings. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly you said Putin is relevant because he is a "suspect", now you say its relevant because "the bombings played a large role in his rise to power", make up your mind. They have nothing to do with the chronology of the bombings and are OR (Original Research). I could argue that attacks by chechen separatists are much more relevant because it shows that they have targeted Russian civilians before.--Miyokan (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I discussed this in a section above called "Chronology of events:Are you kidding Me?" , so you can see my aruments there. But in summary , if it is a general chronology of events, then there should be nothing about Putin in there.It should only have the chronology of actual events that took placePolkovnikKGB (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, this has already been discussed before, see "Chronology of events:Are you kidding Me?", and users (besides Biophys) agreed that it was irrelevant to the chronology of the bombings and an obvious POV push to infer motive for the bombings.--Miyokan (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

If all that has to go, then the IPB's invasion would also have to go, and then we're left with nothing but the mention of the bombings. - PietervHuis (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it would be just a chronology of the bombings, and that is exactly what a "Chronology of Events" Section should look like.

I removed the two Putin references. I understand that they are a vital part of the conspiracy/controversial theory, but they do not belong in a chronology section, since this article is about the bombing not a theory. If you want you can place something in the section "Theory of FSB involvement" because that is the section that talks about the theory that these dates are part of.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion with Caesar

Biophys, the problem in this and other articles is, that the one side (you, Pieter and so on) try to accuse the other side (Miyokan, Alaexis and me) of propaganda in favour of Putin, but at the same time you are not impartial as well, you simply prefer a different side. If you would try to look at the situation not only from the preferred side, I think we would have not so many problems. Simply example: You think the Chechens were not to blame for the bombings and suggest the FSB could be blamed instead. The other side might think -the Chechens are to blame for the bombings and the FSB certainly not.

I think now- what do these two POV's have in common? The answer -both, you and the others do not really know what happened. Nobody actually does, and those who even maybe know something, will never make it public. So THIS is the point to stress- and not the pro or contras, as you see you will never be able to prove the one or the other version for many years... If you wish to mention both versions, the style should be absolutely impartial w/o any support from the author of the article (this includes 4.ex phrasing as well) for one of them. I think after such a big discussion we saw enough facts arguing for the one and other for the other version. All the irresistible arguments from the “notable Russian experts” became much less credible after recognizing- Berezovski paid them for “investigating”. Same the nice explanation of the FSB is suspicious because of facts like catching the two agents planting something maybe explosives.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide any evidence that I accused you or Miyokan of "propaganda in favor of Putin". I did not. Accusing someone of such things without evidence is violation of WP:CIV. It is irrelevant "who thinks what" as long as everyone is working in a good faith to improve an article. No one should try to "prove" anything here.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Accusing is not always accusing directly- saying "I accuse you of...".
The other thing- why do you ignore the main part of my "contribution" :)?
The part about "you do not know, we do not know" so let's stop to insist "our truth is the real truth, or at least a bit more real than yours"
Exactly this is now taking place in the article.
The two chapters "the involvement of the FSB" and the "Criticism of the involvement of the FSB" are actually overlapping as the first chapter already contains half of the arguments supporting the theory, and the second one, which should rather be the counterpart to the previous begins with statements supporting it through denying Chechen involvement and describing FSB agents caught in Ryazan.
This is what I mean with “phrasing”- you are going to describe the theory of the involvement with all the details, but “forget” to mention same details describing the criticism of this theory.
I will show you what exactly this means by adding according information to the main chapter- take a look to the “attempt at independent investigation”Caesar Augustvs (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edit[11] does not cite its sources. The press-conference with Litvinenko and Trepashkin was not a "confessing", but rather disclosing criminal practice in the new FSB department. Trepashkin participated in the press-conference as an alleged potential victim of the department.[12]ilgiz (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


Caesar, when you insert statemets that person X was funded by Berezovsky, please provide reference that tells just that. Otherwise this is OR.Biophys (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
What exactly do you name "poisoning"? maybe the same your side does in the chapter "criticism"?
regarding the sources- there are all sources to find in the discussion here...Biophys named them all "valid sources" don't knew I have to add this well known information twice.
But it was funny to see how quickly your reaction was when you became confronted with your own methodsCaesar Augustvs (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
That is your diff: [13]. Let's consider this segment, for example:
"Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin, both Duma members, and widely linked with Berezovsky [14] have since died in apparent assassinations in April 2003 and July 2003 respectively" (your insertion indicated by bold).
There are two problems here. First, your reference does not tell that Yushenkov and Shekochikhin are servants of Berezovsky. If it does, please provide here the corresponding segment of Russian text. Second, please read about a propaganda technique called Poisoning the well. Actually, this is WP:SYN problem. You imply that these people are not trustworthy by including negative information about them which is completely irrelated to this article. This is also a "POV fork", which is explicitly discouraged by WP policies. We have already articles about Yushenkov and Shchekochikhin. If you want to write about them, please go to their articles. Your other insertions are similar. Also see the note by Ilgiz above.Biophys (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Biophys, this is vandalism! I gave all the sources for my claims, if you think the fact, that all the persons mentioned as the heads of the conspiracy theory are WIDELY linked with Berezovsky is not related in your eyes you are nothing but ignorant! Just for your information - В знак признательности за спасение своей жизни Березовский материально помогал Александру Литвиненко в Лондоне.

"Я платил ему около пяти тысяч фунтов стерлингов в месяц. Я купил ему дом, и хотя он был зарегистрирован на меня, там жил Александр вместе со своей семьей, и это был как будто его собственный дом", - сказал Березовский в интервью программе Newsnight. http://www.newsru.com/world/06feb2007/litv.htmlCaesar Augustvs (talk) 09:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar that someone received a medal from dudayev is a small detail that should be present on the pages of the persons themselves. There's nothing wrong with having received a medal from dudayev, even putin was and still is friends with people who fought together with Dudayev. Also your sources are often Russian newspapers, they aren't always considered reliable sources. Try to find other sources. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pieter, you are obviously wrong: look- what means "independent investigation"?- it means, that the investigators are absolutely impartial. If they are only independent from Kremlin- this is nothing. Mr.Kovalev received his medal not because of his big, blue eyes, but because of his engagement for the independence of Chechnya. Just read his biography. To say such a person is independent is same as if I would say, a historian, received a medal of honour from Bin Laden himself is independent in questions about Guantanamo or the war on terrorism. Finally- Dudaev was not a legal authority to accept honours issued by his government. If someone accepted them although- he is all but independentCaesar Augustvs (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I clicked Kovalev's biography and all I get to read about Chechnya is that he opposed Russia's military operation of the First Chechen War and worked as a journalist. There's nothing wrong with that, leader worldwide opposed the war. The bombings of Grozny are even considerd war crimes. As a politician and journalist he is allowed to have his opinion on the first war, and still be able to start an independent investigation on a terrorist attack. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Just have a look at this site http://niiss.ru/d_kovalev.shtml someone who is known for: С момента начала войны в Чечне С.А.Ковалев занял резко критическую позицию по отношению к официальному курсу в этом вопросе. На третий день боевых действий прибыл в Грозный, заявив, что не покинет город до тех пор, пока не начнутся мирные переговоры. Б.Н.Ельцин охарактеризовал деятельность С.А.Ковалева как “всхлипывания”.

Придерживался мнения, что ультиматум о разоружении, предъявленный правительством России Дудаеву, является бессмысленным, так как никакой приказ Дудаева не привел бы к разоружению до того, как будут достигнуты двухсторонние соглашения и получены гарантии того, что на переговорах будут поставлены многие другие вопросы. Нацеленность на безоговорочную капитуляцию чеченских бандформирований С.А.Ковалев считал неверной и высказывался за скорейшее прекращение боевых действий и вывод федеральных войск из Чечни.

В дальнейшем точка зрения С.А.Ковалева не изменилась.

is never impartial!Caesar Augustvs (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Btw. I m really glad, that there is definitely said "В дальнейшем точка зрения С.А.Ковалева не изменилась" otherwise you would again start to claim, that all these details are only about the first war and have nothing to do with questions after this war :/Caesar Augustvs (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

PietervHuis can't read Russian, (note to Pietervhuis: google translator is no substitute). The information is directly relevant because it directly questions their impartiality, readers have to decide for themselves with all the information presented, not censored.--Miyokan (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, but I don't speak Russian. Anyway, those details are already covered on the criticism page. There's no need to mention them every time those persons are mentioned. Informatio such as that should be present on the pages about those people, and is already present at the criticism section of this page. As Biophys already said: "this a propaganda technique called Poisoning the well. Actually, this is WP:SYN problem. You imply that these people are not trustworthy by including negative information about them which is completely irrelated to this article. This is also a "POV fork", which is explicitly discouraged by WP policies." - PietervHuis (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, "Poisoning the well" is not a wikipedia policy. Secondly, readers can decide for themselves whether to believe these people with all information presented to them without censorship.--Miyokan (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Well ok, this is nothing about poisoning the well, as "being linked with Berezovski" is nothing inherently negative, the reader is able to decide for himself if it is negative or positive or neutral :) agree? But however, I agree the structure should be improved to avoid doubled informationCaesar Augustvs (talk) 15:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, even if "poisoning the well" was wikipedia policy, which it isn't, there is nothing negative, readers can decide for themselves with the information presented to them. Yes we should avoid doubled information like the intro Biophys reinserted void of counterarguments which is just a double of the "Theory of FSB involvement" section.--Miyokan (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I simply made an Abstract of the article.Biophys (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

Since it seems that there is edit warring between multiple parties, I have fully protected the page. Please build consensus and discuss changes here first instead of engaging in an edit war. --slakr\ talk / 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

One possible solution would be for two most active "warriers" who were blocked (Myokan and Peter) stop editing this article for a while. We do not want any escalation here. Do we? The escalation would lead to creation of new articles like Allegations of terrorism by Russian state, etc. As you know, many notable terrorism cases (including Litvinenko murder) have been allegedly committed by the Russian state. Although creation of such articles would improve WP content, I am not sure we all want to go there.Biophys (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Yes LOL - "Russia killed Litvinenko", one of the most laughable accusations I ever heard. I mean everybody who knows even a little about the situation would ask himself, why Russia should have killed Litvinenko with a dose of poison which costs about!!!30 million Euros!!! for the dose that was used to kill [15] and leaves a track through half Europe, but on the other hand is said to have killed Shchekochikhin much easier and without leaving any hints or tracks :) Further everybody should actually ask- why the FSB should kill Litvinenko, who was not more than a pawn in hands of Berezovski, but at the same time does no harm to Berezovski himself, though Lugovoi visited him with Litvinenko after already poisoned him (Berezovski claimed that his team found marks of radioactivity on the chair Lugovoi has taken) However, all these questions, same as the statement of Berezovski about an "Atomic suitcase" which was offered to him from a "unnamed source", and the fact, that Berezovski got much more profit from the death of Litvinenko than FSB could ever dream of, are significantly not so well published in the western mass mediaCaesar Augustvs (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's be constuctive here. Either we are trying to disengage in this and Litvinenko articles, or let's go ahead and develop this subject. There are numerous reliable references that FSB was behind a lot of terrorism acts: these bombings, Dagestan invasion, Moscow hostage crisis, many smaller bombings, murders of Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, Shchekochikhin and Yushenkov, poisoning of Gaidar, visit of Zawahiri, and so on. But everything depends on the focus. This could be a narrowly defined Alleged terrorism by Putin's government or a more general subject that begins from support of international terrorists by the KGB. Any suggestions are welcome.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. Thank you for reminding about "nuclear suitcases"! That was also a notable controversy sourced by Lunev and others.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


Well, I d like to stay here :) but than we should keep in mind and in the article these details about Litvinenko and co. You can not expect from the usual reader to go deeper in the information to keep all the information about Litvinenkos and co. relation to Berezovski, or the relation of Kovalenko to the Chechen rebellion itself in the detail-article. I do not insist on the term "conspiration theory" 4.ex - but I insist to show the origin and at least a bit of the background of statements and claims same as you give them saying- "official investigation of the FSB". Thats why I do not agree with the term "independent investigation" as the only one this investigation was independent from was the Russian government. Further I insist the proportion of the information shoud be at least equal- means, you can't widely describe the accusations and statements of somebody, and than shortly mention at the end of the chapter "oh, btw. he was a little bit linked with Berezowski" as if it doesn't really matterCaesar Augustvs (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Miyokan ignored the suggestion how to stop RR warring above.Biophys (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Same as you ignore my proposialsCaesar Augustvs (talk) 07:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] People "linked to Berezovsky"

Caesar Augustvs, could you please provide any sources here that Schekochikin, Yushekov and others were "people of Berezovsky" as your insertions suggest? Biophys (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line is this. If you want to criticize these people, we have a special "Criticism" part for that. Please insert your information there.Biophys (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


Biophys, this is really annoying now: I gave you the sourses, you say "well they all seems to be valid sources", than you simply delete the parts I ve included and ask for sources again! There are ALL the sources given, just have a look to the version where I wrote this. About Yushenkov- just remember, he was one of the Chairmen of the Berezovski sponsored "Liberal Russia" and significatly killed soon after his conflict with Berezovski (where he said the party refuses the money from Berezovski from now on and is going to decide about his position as another chairmen of the party... [1]Caesar Augustvs (talk) 12:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First, all such materials belong to "Criticism" section. Second, please provide sources claiming that Schekochikhin was "connected" to Berezovsky. Third, all these "connection" speculations are OR and WP:SYN. Yes, his party was allegedly partly funded by Berezovsky. Hence (you conclude) his views about Russian apartment bombings are unreliable. This is WP:SYN.Biophys (talk) 17:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


So...First -dear Biophys, finally you do not deny all the others except Schekochikin were linked with Berezovski? Second- what is about "unreliable? Does a connection with Berezovski make someone’s POV more or less reliable? Actually not at all- maybe it's your POV but others appreciate such connections with a very notable businessman! ;) So you see- this information is important and not bad or good, it is simply information. Criticism is a single chapter, pretty far to the end of the article. You can not expect a hasty reader to go so far. On the other hand, without mentioning this criticism in the introducing makes the theory of the involvement of the FSB looking much more serious than it is comparing to the criticism

Caesar Augustvs (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever these critics receive money from is a detail. It can be added to the article, but not in the introduction. I made a compromise version - PietervHuis (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not just detail! Or should we mention all the participants of the official investigation also with their names and titels only and hereby forget to mention they all work for the governent??? Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They work for the government, Berezovski doesn't work for anyone. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course he does! He works for himself, and people receiving money from him work for him. If someone is linked with Berezovksi via other connections, like co.chairmanship of a party, business contacts and so on, he maybe is not necessarily working for Berezovski, but is however linked with him. These are facts, you like it or not.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 06:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhm yes and how does it matter? It's the same as mentioning he has blue eyes or something. - - PietervHuis (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, just a simple comparison, if you remember the time of WW2 you could find a lot of important people with important sounding titles supporting Hitler everywhere they could - just think about what would change in the PoV ot the world, if you forget to mention they all were parts of the Nazi ideology? Similar situation is here- Berezovski is not a simple, small businessman not caring about anything but making money- he is a politician with high ambitions, he is ready to support even a revolution in Russia, means he is up to use nearly ANY methods to achieve his aims. Dont you remember him confessing of necessity of a sacral sacrifice? [2] After all this, you can not insist, people working for him, having other relations with him (as here - "fighting alonside with him" against the government") have actually nothing to do with his aims :)Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

None of reliable sources claims that Schekochikhin or even Yushenkov "worked for Berezovsky". For example, someone (e.g. Soros) can donate money to US Democratic Party, but no one tells that "Clinton works for Soros". The apartment fee of Litvineko in London was funded through a grant from a fund ("Civil liberties") established by Berezovsky. If my scientific work if funded through a grant established by Mr. Wallgreen, it does not mean that I "work for Mr. Wallgreen".Biophys (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Bio you re really funny now :) Berezovksi himself said he paid Litvinenko an amount of 5000 pounds a month for rescuing his life, and bought him a house, and you now say such funny things :) I already told you- just try to read the sources I gave you, not just the headlines. I hadn't have said all of them WORKED for Berezovki, I said most of them were LINKED with Berezovski, and this is a cool fact. If you will continue to ignore facts like the support for a revolution in Russia, necessity of a sacral sacrifice mentioned by Berezovksi ...and so on and so on and prefer not to see any connections between his behavior and such of the people he sponsored or supported, or prefer to say this connections are not that important... I will be sure- you do not want to describe the true situation here, you just want to push your own PoV- this would be nothing but ignoranceCaesar Augustvs (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Look- my main intention is to underline- the INDEPENDENT investigation was neither impartial nor really independent, the people participating in this investigation were not mainly seeking the truth but working for someones interests, same as you suggest the FSB did during its own investigation Btw here you have a link about Novaya Gazeta and accordingliy Schekochikhin http://www.smi.ru/text/02/02/20/3708.html Caesar Augustvs (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"the people participating in this investigation were not mainly seeking the truth but working for someones interest" That's just your own speculation. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like that- it is a logical conclusion, as you should actually know about the political ambitions and the history of the Soros-foundation on the territory of the former Sowjet Union, same as the statements of McCain or Berezovski. Finally - do you say: "these people were not mostly linked to Berezovski?" if yes- just ignorant, if not- than what is our discussion about? It is a fact and is important enough to be mentioned.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That is your logical conclusion and therefore should be deleted as WP:SYN and OR.Biophys (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all as I have not included this conclusion in the article- I only gave the information about the backround of the "Independent investigators"- this is something you can not deny- so you have no reason to delete it!Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry Caesar, but your argument doesn't hold water. Firstly, you keep adding a bad link (no one is called Berezovski) - and you don't even add his first name - Boris. You have to consider the audience - will they know him? If not, then there is not enough room to describe him in the intro.
  • Secondly, when did these people work/have links to Berezovsky? At the time (the date isn't given in the intro), later, earlier... when? You also give no refs. The work is not up to scratch, gives no context, and is too detailed for the intro. Please add it later in an appropriate place. Malick78 (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Dear Malick- if you would have read the discussion here, or the previous version of the article, you would have seen - I gave all the sources - they are also still given in the following chapters. However I agree to current Biophys proposalCaesar Augustvs (talk) 09:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The refs should be in the article at the time - I shouldn't have to look for them in a previous version. They should also be given as early as possible - this includes the intro. The article is such a mess I couldn't have easily found them later on in it, I think. Malick78 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Malick, thank you for criticism of Introduction. Could you also look through the entire article and correct whatever you think should be corrected? Some parts of this article are definitely a mess because of the poor English and other problems.Biophys (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I will try to do more when I find time:) Malick78 (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving forward

Current version includes a very long list of pure speculations by a single person. Should it be resized or deleted?

The text:

In his book Inside Putin's Russia Andrew Jack mentions several aspects in favour and against the conspiracy theory.[74] The counter-arguments included the following.

  • Kremlin hardliners would take "considerable risks" of a wide-range Muslim insurgency had they planned Basayev's incursion to Dagestan.
  • The Ryazan incident might have been an attempt by FSB to claim success in discovering another bomb. This would boost FSB's budget, reputation and power grip.
  • An information leak on the alleged conspiracy would be used by a competing clan. Quoting Yegor Gaidar, "if there was a plot, the information would have leaked out and been used by Yeltsin's enemies".
  • High loss of life in three month fighting following the bombings could damage chances of the pro-government party in December elections and those of Putin in subsequent presidential elections. Jack quotes an anonymous "very senior official" as saying, "if the FSB did blow up apartments, it was not to make Putin president. War was an enormous threat to the elections".
  • Jack notes little credibility in Russian media reports on "conspiracies" at the time. Confirming any fact in Russia and, especially, in Chechnya was difficult, in his opinion.
  • An expert on Dagestan Robert Bruce Ware believed the Wahhabis were the most likely culprits.
  • Jack personally met Berezovsky in exile when the latter said, according to the author, that he had no information on the alleged FSB plot. The author concluded that Berezovsky "failed to produce any significant proof" of the plot in his further investigation."Biophys (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, unless you have some direct information (ie you yourself overheard some FSB officers planning the bombing) then anything and everything is a speculation , right? It is true some speculations are better than others. Content wise it fits pretty well with the rest of the article. Meaning that the two sections (FSB theory and counter-FSB theory) both contain just single quote speculations from some people. McCain offers no reasons for his speculations in his little blurb. So I don't see a problem there. If the bulleted list format and the length bothers you ( I agree it does jump out as compared to the rest of the section) then I might suggest keeping some of the more relevant points and changing it to a sentence format.PolkovnikKGB (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think these points are all important and not more speculative than the theory of BerezovskyCaesar Augustvs (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is "undue weight" (please see WP:NPOV). We have a very brief statement of John McCain who is a Senator and US presidential candidate versus a ten times loger statement of a person who does not even have a WP article. Therefore, this is against WP:NPOV policy.Biophys (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
O'K, I left his arguments but made them more concise and clear, so a reader can understand. Dagestan war is irrelevant here. Which "competing clan"? Primakov? That was so puzzling - I could not even understand the argument.Biophys (talk) 18:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] interesting fact about the public commission

I ve found an interesting statement about the theory of the FSB involvement from the number 3 of this commission- Levinson Its in russian, but I will translate http://mn.ru/issue.php?2003-35-30 "- А версия "ФСБ взрывает Россию" рассматривалась вами?

- Здесь еще больше сомнений, чем в "чеченском следе". Не хочется давать оценки, но многие выводы Фельштинского - Литвиненко основаны на предположениях. Подчас - весьма вольных.

- Вы говорите, что вашей комиссии не дают материалы об учениях в Рязани. Может быть, не имеют права?

- Как раз эти материалы не должны быть секретными. Но, с другой стороны, эти документы были предоставлены представителям прессы. Главный редактор одной из газет написал на основе этих документов большую статью, из которой следовало, что это все же были учения, хоть и плохо организованные. Ему эти бумаги дали, а депутату Государственной думы - нет."

"-Have you also analyzed the version "the FSB blows up Russia"?

-it is even more doubtful than the "Chechen sign". I do not want to give a rating, but many conclusions of Felshtinsky- Litvinenko are only build on speculations, sometimes very questionable (actually the word "free" is used, but in Russian a free speculations means a questionable/doubtful speculation)

- you say your commission could not get access to the documents about the "exercise in Ryazan"? Maybe they are not allowed to give such access?

-Actually even THESE documents have not to be declared as "secret information". On the other hand, these documents were given to the representatives of the media. A chief editor of a newspaper wrote a big contribution on the basis of these documents. Following to this contribution it was an exercise indeed, even though badly organized. Well, these papers were given to him, but to a member of Duma."Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above about the "undue weight". We can not collect here hundreds of outdated opinions by non-notable journalists and others. I think all opinions of non-notable people (who have no WP articles about them) and who were not directly involved in the bombings or their investigation should be removed. They do not belong to Encyclopedia.Biophys (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can see it here, this one was on the third place of the comission - Shekoshihin was on the 20th http://terror99.grani.ru/commission.htm I think this makes him important enoughCaesar Augustvs (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he was actually a secretary of this Commission (someone who did paper work). All other members but him are notable (Zolotukhin, Vaksberg, etc.). However only Yushenkov and Shekochikhin investigated anything at all. Others were just sitting and waiting for something.Biophys (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you really that naive? If a secretary (chief or executive -and this is how his title is described in the official statment of the commission) is someone who does nothing but paper work I wonder why mrs Rice travels so much around the world!Caesar Augustvs (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Wrong translation and citation out of context

Secterary of the UN (for example) and a secretatry in an office are two different positions. Fine, we can include his opinion but only in appropriate section. Most important, he told a completely different thing. Please post here the segment of Russian text where he tells that FSB was not involved. In the cited source, he tells about failure of his Commission, due to the refusal of Russian government to cooperate.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean the segment "Здесь еще больше сомнений, чем в "чеченском следе" from this passage:

А версия "ФСБ взрывает Россию" рассматривалась вами?

- Здесь еще больше сомнений, чем в "чеченском следе". Не хочется давать оценки, но многие выводы Фельштинского - Литвиненко основаны на предположениях. Подчас - весьма вольных.

Translation: "The version by Litvinenko casts even more doubts than version about the "Chechen trace". But this is citation out of context. He tels about failure of his Commission, due to the refusal of Russian government to cooperate in this interview.Biophys (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And what's wrong with this citation? It is clearly said - the version of Litvinenko is even more doubtful - this is said. Even if he said the government hampered them during the investigation further- this changes nothing in his statement about the Litvinenko theory.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, this is wrong translation and citation out of context, hence against WP policies. Please stop RR warring. Biophys (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if you write this in even larger letters- I asked you a question, had mr.Levinson said this words? Had he said this in the meaning I translated? If not- please give a better understanding of his words. Until you do- stop deleting facts.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, he did not. You included the following text: "Lev Levinson also admitted after one year of the investigation- the "FSB involvement theory" is even more doubtful. But in fact he said the following: "The version by Litvinenko casts even more doubts than version about the "Chechen trace". What does it mean? What version by Litvinenko? Version of what? What "Chechen trace"? Why he thinks that the official vesion ("Chechen trace") is wrong?. One have to write an article to explain. Such indiscriminate citation makes articles non-readable.Biophys (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Biophys, once more I see you seems to prefer not to read the parts of the source you do not like to exist- The question in the interview was made clearly about the "FSB blows up Russia" - this is the name of Litvinenkos book - and the answer was as clear as the question was -so far.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 11:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how to call this. I provided original of the Russian text and its literal translation to English. But you continue inserting incorrect translation out of context. So far, I met only one user who did such things, and that was User:Vlad fedorov.Biophys (talk) 14:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

And who is this Vlad Fedorov? However, if you think the meaning will change through change the wording- no problem- changed it to your translation :) satisfied now?Caesar Augustvs (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Kovalev commission did not produce any final conclusion. This man simply tells that he knows nothing. Introduction is not an appropriate place to include such empty-worded statements. We included official conclusion by official commission.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will ask for arbitration if you continue this way - you delete important information in the intro. just because you do not like it, but if I delete equal information based on your own argumentation- you restore it. As the Kovalev commission never made an official conclusion- the words of Levinson are of the same importance as mentioning "the government hampered the investigation". So you should really decide either you insert both statements, or delete them both leaving the detailed information in the according chapters.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I get the feeling that there is a general consensus against the info's inclusion. Sorry. I also feel that any arbitration will deem your edit to be unhelpful - only a commission's final conclusions can be notable. That is obvious. Malick78 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Malick78. You are very welcome to ask for any WP:Conflict resolution steps including arbitration because the community input is always helpful. We always include most important facts in introductions of articles and exclude empty-worded statements (like "I do not know anything about it") by non-notable persons like this technical ("executive") secretary.Biophys (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I ll try to explain till I ask for arbitration:

Let's see what we have: mentioning of the accusations of Litvinenko- in details, mentioning of an "independent commission" -in partly details. This gives the impression the government version is wrong, as it hampered the investigation (or at least the commission is tending to thing so) but says nothing about the commissions opinion regarding the version of Litvinenko. Thats why I think we have to include either both statements or exclude both- to stay impartial. Your thinking Levinson is not notable just because he has the word "secretary" in his title is pretty strange. I really hope it is not your true opinion. Just because he was not killed, or never supported Berezovsky's theories does not make him unimportant.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 21:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple. We have already included official final conclusion by official commission in Introduction. You insist that we must also include a final conclusion made by inofficial (Kovalev) commission. But Kovalev commission was unable to produce any findings according to all sources including your source. What exactly were findings by Kovalev commision? That "the version by Litvinenko casts even more doubts than version about the "Chechen trace". That is not a finding and not a conclusion. One can not even understand what it means. If you find any source where Kovalev (the head of this comission) tells: "we worked and we made such and such findings" (for example that "FSB was involved" or that "FSB was not involved"), that could be included in Introduction.Biophys (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Look, this all might be true- for someone who really knows about the material - but what he needs the Wikipedia article than for? If you write "the investigation of an INDEPENDENT was hampered by the government" (according to their own statements) and wrote the Litvinenko accusations just a line before but says nothing about the very comparable commission statements about his theory further- there IS AN IMPRESSION given as if the commission either regarded the official investigation only, or found the Litvinenko theory not to be critiqued or more credible. A simplified example-

  • If I write about a murder following:
  • Person A investigated the murder and said the guilty is person XY
  • Person B said in truth it was Person A who committed the murder
  • Independent investigation of Person C was hampered by Person A.

The conclusion is as simple as it is wrong - person A was afraid of person C would find out person A is guilty indeed.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are talking about. If you provide any source with official and final conclusions of Kovalev commission, we can describe them.Biophys (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how you can be unsure. Just have a look at the simplified example once more and imagine the situation. There IS nothing said about an "official final conclusion of the independent person C" and this is the clue, as the describing of hampering of person A plays the role of this final conclusion though all statements about the governments hampering the investigation were also made DURING the investigation and had no official nature...in the meaning you used the term "official" of course. In simple words:

  • how do we now the government hampered their investigation?
  • from their own statements.
  • were these statements parts of an "official, final conclusion"?
  • no they were not.
  • do we have any other statements of the commission about the Litvinenko theory except the words of Levinson?
  • no we have not.

So what are we discussing about? His words have/have not the same legitimation like the statements about the governments behaviour towards the commissionCaesar Augustvs (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Your language is a little unclear so I will guess at what you mean - correct me if I am wrong: you say that if there was no final conclusion then we cannot say the investigation was hampered. That is absurd. The hampering stopped a final, definitive conclusion being made. Therefore, we can mention it was hampered, but it would be foolish to quote in the intro the comment made during the investigation that there was no FSB involvement, when this view could have changed later on. Your logic is highly flawed. Malick78 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if my language is a bit unclear- my examples are not! So NO you are wrong, my statement means sth completely different. I really wonder how you came to this conclusion! I ask you once more to read the two examples- if you still do not understand what I would like to change- it is really not my fault. The examples are as simple as only possible.

Once more: I say it is necessary to include the statement of Levinson in the introduction of the article, as it is not less important than those statements the mention about the "hampering" is based on. If we leave all as it is now the reader will get an impression as if the government committed the bombings, and Litvinenko's theory is true.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Caesar Augustvs provided a link to a Russian language source (an interview with the secretary). This is probably a valid source. The secretary tells the following: (a) the work of this commission was hampered by the government stonewalling (exactly as written in the Introduction); and (b) that they could not come up with any conclusion or obtain any evidence because of the stonewalling, and because two key members of their commissions were killed. This supports our existing text in Introduction. So, we can simply make a reference in Introduction to this source but discuss it in more detail in appropriate section, as in the present version.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention "c" - the journalist asked if they are only investigating the "Chechen Trace"- and the Secretary told that no, they also investigate the Litvinenko Theory of "FSB blows up Russia", and that this theory casts even more doubts than the "Chechen Trace".Caesar Augustvs (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "a" and "b" were true and didn't change. While "c" was true at that point, it may have changed. We don't know and can only know if we see the final conclusion. That is why this source is bad for this aspect of the case. Malick78 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And who gave you the authorization to decide what is bad and what is good? As there was NO final statement where the members of the Kovalev commission said: we will stop our investigation as the government is hampering it, any statement was preliminary as well. I think Berezovsky/Litvinenko were not hampering the investigation of their theory... Finally- I found the source saying it was true. Until you find another source, claiming something different you have no right to delete this statement.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

  • This person views have been already described in the Summary of this article and in the body of this article per WP:NPOV. The citation you are trying to insert is taken out of context and do not belong to Introduction. It has been cited in the body of the article. Please stop edit warring about this nonsense.Biophys (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

And what now? Kovalevs views have been already described in the according chapter as well, why do you insist to leave information based on his statements in the intro? There is no context in the source I gave this citation could be taken out of. It is a simply question/answer there. This is up to you to stop warring as you began itCaesar Augustvs (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

______

Theres not much about politkovskiya to find anymore, even though she also believed the bombings were the work of fsb and pro-moscow chechens. I don't know if she wrote about it but she said so in an interview, I can retreive it if anyone wants. - - PietervHuis (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, could you please retrieve the source? I have not seen anything she said about these bombings.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Was Politkovskaya a member of this commission? :)Caesar Augustvs (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Why should she have to be Caesar? She was a respected and authoritative journalist. Her opinion would be notable. Malick78 (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Cause we are talking about an impartial presentation of the commissions opinion. The way this opinion is described now is all but impartial. Please decide finally - either you delete the mentioning of statements about governments hampering, or stop deleting my informationCaesar Augustvs (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Politkovskaya's opinion would be something concise and exact. The fact that the commission was hampered is true and that wouldn't be subject to change. The fact that after a year they didn't have info to back up the FSB theory was subject to change - the next week they could have found something that proved it. Hence your edit that they found nothing is worthless as regards it being a 'fact'. The other two things, however, are much less likely/impossible to have then been superseded by different info. This is not difficult to understand.
Furthermore, the fact is that two or three independent (of each other) editors dislike your edits due to their unreliable factual basis. Maybe in the future this will change but at the moment the info you want to add is not wanted. That is the nature of consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malick78 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed she was, but not a member of the "independent commission" - so what are we talking about? Surely not about opinions of single journalists- only if they represent an organisation or sth. similar. And no- they said not "we haven't info to back up the FSB theory" in spite you would like to misinterpret it- he said, the version of the FSB theory casts more doubts compared to the official theory - this is a clear statement. If it was a subject to change or not- it has not changed. This is a fact- or have you found any different information?

Yes indeed- there are exactly three writers disliking my edits -you, Biophys and Pieter - and there are two who like my edits (Miyokan and Alaexis) - what now? If you three start to insist the Earth is the middle of the universe and the sun turns around it- will it become truth? :D Let us see what we have on your arguments against my information:

  • first you tried to persuade the reader- Lev Levinson was someone nobody ever heard of - so his opinion is not important.
  • than, after I presented to you the info about mr.Levinson- you started to argue his opinion is not important because he is a "SECRETARY" - really lol
  • after I presented to you the info he was not A SECRETARY, but the Executive SECRETARY you stopped to insist on it, but now say - the info might have changed...

well - but it has not! All you presented as counter-arguments are not facts- not even real arguments, but only hampering of the work here! As there was no final conclusion, any preliminary info is equal and valid until you have some different info published later than the first one. BUT YOU prefer to include it only partly - those parts you like, giving the impression the commission acutally would accuse the government in the bombings if they only got access to the necessary documents! I will not allow such manipulationCaesar Augustvs (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Caesar Augustvs, please follow WP:consensus and WP:dispute resolution rules.Biophys (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "he said, the version of the FSB theory casts more doubts compared to the official theory - this is a clear statement. If it was a subject to change or not- it has not changed." But you need a reference for "it has not changed." That's my whole problem - how do we know? We have to take your word for it. As for Politkovskaya, her view would be notable because of who she was. We don't have to just mention the commission's views - any notable ones are worthy of note. Malick78 (talk) 09:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • FYO Caesar, Miyokan and Alaexis have made no comments in this section on this detail. Why are you claiming their non-spoken opinions as being part of a consensus in favour of your actions? This section contains opinions of four people, 3 against the edit, 1 (you) for it. That suggests consensus against this particular edit. Malick78 (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Following the rules I just started the request for arbitration. You two have obviously forgotten about the following http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

  • I have a source and information
  • you are deleting this information though the info you used for your statement is based on nearly the same source.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Kovalevs statement about Litvinenkos theory

Btw. thanks to another wikipedia user here you have some information from the chairman of the commission: I hope this will be enough for you to stop your "counter-arguments" http://beta.echo.msk.ru/programs/beseda/19169/

Я не стану уж говорить о том, что в самой книге, по тем эпизодам, которые мне как участнику хорошо известны, невероятное количество фантазии. Например, Буденновск. Это чистый вымысел, и ни одной ссылки, заметьте. Так не пишутся серьезные книги, претендующие на достоверность.

Well finally in the book itself, regarding the situations well known to me as I was a participant is an incredible large amount of fancy. Budenovsk 4.ex. This is a pure fiction, and not even one source as you might have noticed. Seriouse books, claiming to be true are not written this way.

this translation is not literal, but gives an exact understanding of his intention.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

  • And serious translations do not use "4.ex." for "for example". It took me a while to work out what that was. However, I looked at your source and noticed:

"Фельштинский, Литвиненко утверждают: "ФСБ взрывает Россию". Мне не хочется в это верить, но я стараюсь быть непредвзятым человеком и я эту версию тоже не исключаю. Я никакую не исключаю, ни чеченского следа, ни следа ФСБ, ни каких бы то ни было промежуточных вариантов, а они тоже могут быть. Опыт показывает, что это часто бывает. Я, вообще, не большой сторонник теории заговоров. А ведь версия Литвиненко и Фельштинского чистый заговор."

"Fel'shtinskij, Litvinenko claim: "The FSB is blowing up Russia". I find that difficult to believe, but I try to be a non-prejudiced person and do not rule out this version. I rule out nothing, not Chechen involvement, not FSB involvement, nor any possible variants, and they are also possible. Experience shows, that anything is possible. I, basically, am not a great supporter of the conspiracy theory. And Fel'shtinskij and Litvinenko's version is pure conspiracy theory. (my bolding)

Hence, he may not like Fel'shtinskij and Litvinenko's version (in 2002) but he doesn't exclude the FSB plot theory in general. Malick78 (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course not, thats why I do not insist to write: "the independent commission declared the Litvinenkos theory a lie"- but we have now two statements of the commission declaring them having many doubts about the theory of FSB involvement - btw. if you have read the source carefully - he writes about what HE thinks happened there. How many sources you have providing the information the commission have changed its opinion about the theory of Litvinenko? Hmm I think none.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what Kovalev said in 2002. But another member of this Commission, Yushenkov, said something entirely different. According to Kovalev, "Я думаю, что результатом работы комиссии, оправдывающим ее существование, будет скучный, подробный и чрезвычайно аргументированный доклад о разных обстоятельствах дела". So, he promised to issue a final report by their Commission. Where is this report? Without such final report, any preliminary claims are of very little significance. Rihgt now Kovalev would tell something different. Biophys (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Two things Caesar: first, he has doubts about "Fel'shtinskij and Litvinenko's version" of events - not all theories of FSB involvement. He says those are not discounted. Maybe however, F&S's version is more fanciful than other people's version of events and thus he doesn't like it. But don't extrapolate that to mean he discounts all FSB theories - he specifically says he doesn't.
Second, we don't have to provide a single source to say the commission changed its view since this opinion was voiced. You have to provide a reliable source to say that this was their most definitive opinion. I think you are yet to manage that. Malick78 (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Basically, Kovalev and his secretary simply said they have no idea who comitted the bombings if one reads the entire texts of the interviews. They had no idea in 2002. But maybe they had a better idea after investigation by Trepashkin in 2003, or after murder of Litvinenko in 2006? Who knows. Without any final conclusion, all of that is hardly notable.Biophys (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So, I re-edited the "Independent investigation" part to remove all duplicate and irrelevant statements. All sources are included, and the text is consistent with sources. Main problem however is "FSB involvement theory" chapter. It should describe the sequenve of the events according to David Satter- Litvinenko- Felshtinsky - Pribylovsky version (all these people except Litvinenko are notable scholars - so that is a majority academic version). Even title "FSB involvement" is wrong (this should be "Government involvement" or "FSB and GRU involvement"). I will try to improve this using a new reliable secondary source - book "Age of assassins" - a couple of weeks later, since I am busy in "real life" right now.Biophys (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


A bit strange proposal of you, Malik

  • How should I provide you information about somebody haven't published another information??? Maybe I should also provide you information about no aliens in the universe existing?

It is a same strange suggestion as if I would ask you to provide me information about Bush haven't ever said he likes to eat a living rat sometimes! I'm really curious if you find any information in the web proving this words to be a lie.

  • I have presented to you two sources backing up my statements, you wasn't able to present even one saying something different!

The theory of the FSB involvement is mostly based on the Book of Litvinenko and Felshtinsky - many other supporters of the theory (like McCain 4.ex) refers to it in their statements.

  • At least- just answer, where do you have the information about the government hampered their investigation? Maybe some final conclusion published by the commission?

Further- you seems to have overseen Kovalevs OWN theory of what happened in Ryazan 4.ex.

Мне представляется вполне правдоподобной следующая версия. Взрыв дома не планировался, но и учений не планировалось. Планировалась акция следующего рода, пропагандистская акция, скажем так. Во-первых, показать обывателям, что террористам неймется, что они не отказались от своих убийственных планов, а одновременно убить второго зайца, показать, что доблестные органы отлично справляются со своими задачами и спасают жителей, обнаруживая злодейский замысел. Чем не версия? Этот план, быть может, был и провалился. As you all seems to understand Russian I will not translate for now. An FSB plot like described here is sth. different to a plot described by Litvinenko but you two prefer to ignore thisCaesar Augustvs (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Translation: The Ryazan incident might have been an attempt by the FSB to stage a bombing in order to boost FSB's budget, reputation and power grip. But that is already included in this article (in the end of "Cricism" section).Biophys (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] View by Politkovskaya

Hey biophys, you asked for a source of Anna's statement about the bombings. You can see it in this documentary[16] at about 29:10. The rest is also very interesting give it a chance. The docu is dutch with subtitles but I figured you can understand the interviews in it. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems she said this in an interview. She was very careful not to write or tell anything about these bombings because she knew that would be a death sentence, exactly as Litvinenko said in the same video.Biophys (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The list of suspects/convicts in this article does not look good (the hidden list should be avoided per WP recommendations). I think about making List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings. The list would also include Putin, Patrushev and others - per reliable secondary sources.Biophys (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation arguments continue

Bio, please stop with your wrong translations: If someone says on the one hand the government refuses to give him access to some documents and he does not understand why and on the other hands say the theory in Litvinenko's book is in parts nothing but fancy, (4.ex in such important parts like Budenovsk) and that serious books claiming to describe the truth are not written this way" this does not mean "he has no evidence to support any theory". Same is when Levinson says that compared to the "Chechen trace" the Litvinenko theory casts even more doubts - this does not mean he has no information to support any of the theories- this means, that if the "Chechen trace" is doubtful, than the "FSB blows up Russia" is even more doubtful. There was really no context that could relativise these statements. If you two would like to point to his statement "he can not rule out the FSB theory completely" - of course not, but the context and the meaning of this statement is the same as when a n astronomer says, he can not rule out existence of aliens somewhere in the universe.

  • Further, regarding the "double information" - the introduction is a short summary of the article- is it obvious that ANY information in there will be repeated laterCaesar Augustvs (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop your unilateral (against consensus) insertion of this non-notable and outdated (2002) quote out of context. The claim made in this source has been already described in Summary and in the body of text.Biophys (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Please finally answer where do you have the information about government hampered their investigation actually from?
  • the statement "I have no evidence to back up any of these theories" and the statement "I have no evidence to back up any of these theories, but theory A casts even more doubts than theory B" are different things with different meaning, but for some reason you insist to include this statement in the first, biased form only
  • Outdated? Have they published sth else later? As the answer is no - there is nothing about "outdated"Caesar Augustvs (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Current text of this article tells: "was hampered by government refusal to respond to its inquiries [6]". So please see ref [6].
  • Please read the entire text. He said that they have no evidence and no idea who committed the bombings. Citation out of context (as you do) is inacceptable, since this is distortion of someone's view.
  • A lot of articles and books were published since 2002 on this subject. So, your source is outdated. But what difference does it make if we included it any way? Biophys (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


  • I ve read the entire text- in other words- yes he says that he has no evidence to SUPPORT any of these theories, but if you ask him which is even more fancy than he would say - the theory of Litvinenko, don't you see the difference between this and the statement you prefer?
  • Well, if you do not understand: all these books and articles published after 2002/2003 (as one source is from 2003) are based on the statements of the commission given in those years, so they are same "outdated" if we follow your suggestion.
  • You ask what difference it is? Well, I ve already described the difference in my "simplified example" a bit earlier in the discussion. I think it is very simple to understandCaesar Augustvs (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
You said: "all these books and articles published after 2002/2003 are based on the statements of the commission". No, they do not. If fact, most recent secondary source (book "The age of assassins") does not mention this commission at all, because this commission did not produce any results.Biophys (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


Are you kidding me??? How can a book describe hampering of the commission w/o mentioning it??? And if it is not describing the hampering, what does this mean regarding our discussion? I was talking about "where do you have the information about government hampered Kovalevs investigation"...I hope you will understand and answer at least now :)Caesar Augustvs (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can repeat this again. Current text of this article tells: "was hampered by government refusal to respond to its inquiries [6]". So please see ref [6]. It is all there. This is already ref. [7]. Biophys (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I really wonder what do you want me to see in my own source, I gave a time before? According to you, it is the "outdated information"Caesar Augustvs (talk) 07:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Caesar, it's simple: once something is hampered, it has always been hampered. Nothing can change that. The info cannot be out-of-date. HOWEVER, info that there "is no evidence..." can change if evidence is found. Therefore that comment is subject to change - and so we should use the most up-to-date info. YOUR SOURCE is good for the first point, but not for the second. Please, we are going round in circles - we cannot convince you, you cannot convince us. Let someone else arbitrate if you really want to continue this - but I say again - CONSENSUS is AGAINST your edit in this single case. Malick78 (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mlick, the point is- I m sure you understand the logic of my statement as well as Bio does- you simply do not want to acknowledge this here.

I try to describe it as simple as possible: If I investigate a murder and say- well no evidences found, than- a year later 4.ex I decide to stop my investigation w/o publishing any other statement...you cant say after 5 years- hey, his statment about "no evidence" is not valid information and outdated as I might have found AND PUBLISHED sth later we just have never ever seen. Same I could tell you- "sure for the first time the government has hampered their investigation, but maybe a day after this commission published the info about them being hampered, and this information was adopted by all the News Agencies and other secondary sources -the government gave them all they needed, they just have never published it for some reason...or they have- and we simply do not find it...see now? :) Wikipedia has to use facts, and you seems tp prefer to use suggestions in this case...for some reasons.Caesar Augustvs (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion

I think we should re-write the "FSB involvement theory". Current text simply does not explain what the theory is. It also duplicate some other parts of this article. I can try to correct this later.Biophys (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.Biophys (talk) 04:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This article is extremely POV

Why does the opening paragraph read like an Anna Politkovskaya book? Almost the entire paragraph talks about the "alleged" and "suspicious" actions, most of it speculation. It seems to be coarcing the reader into believing the conspiracies instead of taking a neutral approach to the event. What's the deal? This article is terribly biased. Raiseranch (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

What Politkovskaya book you are talking about? Could you please provide a precise reference? She wrote very little about these bombings. As about neutral approach, I would rather work with a "Criticism and support" section, which helps to describe everything in a more neutral fashion, as usual.Biophys (talk) 16:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean it reads like one of her books. I just mean it seems one sided. Like a book written by somebody who thinks the government did the bombings and is trying to convince everyone else of it. For example, why is all of that "suspicion" stuff in the opening paragraph, but nothing to counter it until later on deep in the article? Either show both sides or take all of the speculation out completely. Lots of people just read the opening paragraph to get briefed on a subject and don't bother to read the whole thing, this one is obviously in favor of the conspiracies. Also, why isn't it mentioned that government involvement is regarded as a conspiracy by most media (like someone pointed out in a discussion earlier). Raiseranch (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Two first paragraphs of Introduction provide factual information about circumstances of the bombings. Third paragraph describes notable claims with regard to these events. Last, concluding paragraph tells that an official investigation have been conducted and concluded that the allegations are unfounded. How this can be biased? Biophys (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It does not tell that government involvement is regarded as a "fringe theory" by most media for two reasons. First, we prefer using reliable secondary sources (books published by experts) rather than media reports per WP:verifiability, and a majoity of such sources tell that FSB did staged the bombings. Second, even a majority of news reports do not cosider this to be a "fringe theory" (to show that one needs to improve "criticism and support section" as I suggested above). If you disagree, please provide here good scholarly sources that claim it to be a "fringe theory". They should be included in the article.Biophys (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No one writes books about things they don't think happened. That's not a very good argument. There are far more books about how aliens abduct people than how aliens don't abduct people. That doesn't mean it's a majority view.
And why exactly do you prefer secondary sources to media? The media at least has an obligation to try and get the facts straight, while books can say whatever they want and no one gets held responsible for any false information in them. Just because important well known author says he thinks X happened doesn't mean X happened. On the other hand, when the BBC says X happened, it becomes accepted by most everyone that X happened. There is no reason why you shouldn't mention the fact that most media considers it a conspiracy theory. Don't you think an article that only cites books that are for the conspiracies and doesn't even acknowledge official media might be a little biased? It sure as heck shows. Raiseranch (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
These are not fiction books. These are non-fiction books written by political scientists, historians, FSB experts, etc. ("The age of assassins", "Darkness at Dawn", "Blowing up Russia: Terror from within" and others). Authors of the books are notable experts; all of them are described in WP BLP articles about them. These books tell about things that had happened, but they provide interpretations in addition to bare facts, as almost any books. Please read WP:Source. It explains why secondary sources are much better than primary sources. If you think that article is biased, please provide your reliable scholarly sources that tell something different.Biophys (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
You want me to find a reliable scholarly source that tells you that this article is biased? Or do you want me to find one that says the bombings weren't done by the government? I thought I already explained that people don't usually write books about things that didn't happen. No one writes books about how no one ever gets abducted by aliens, just like no one writes books about why the bombings weren't done by the government. Understand?
Well I can already tell from your replies in this discussion and earlier ones that you're a biased editor, and admittedly so, which explains why this article is such a laughable mess. I'm not going to bother arguing anymore, I was just pointing out my observations about this article and you have not convinced me to change my mind, and likely will not. Raiseranch (talk) 18:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean any book that describes this bombing story in sufficient detail rather than briefly mentioning it.Biophys (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Raiseranch, please keep cool:) I just reread the intro and one paragraph (or rather, two thirds of the third para) on alternative theories seems fair, especially when talking about a country like Russia that isn't governed by the rule of law. Malick78 (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
"especially when talking about a country like Russia that isn't governed by the rule of law."
Oh wow. This explains everything. Raiseranch (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Murray's view

From here I found the following view of Craig Murray, Britain's ex-Ambassador to Uzbekistan. I think it shows that it's not just 'conspiracy theorists' that believe the FSB was involved:

"It was not only Politkovskaya and Litvinenko who believed that the Russian security services carried out the bombings of apartment blocks in 2000 which justified that attack. I can tell you for certain that many professionals in the FCO believe it too, and I personally read reporting from our Embassy in Moscow which took it very seriously indeed. As highly respected Russia expert David Satter, who at the time of the bombings was Moscow Correspondent of the Financial Times, wrote in his book Darkness at Dawn: Both the logic of the political situation and the weight of the evidence lead overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the Russian leadership itself was responsible for the bombings of the apartment buildings."

This perhaps can be cited in "support" section. Unfotunately, he does not provide any new factual information. If you could clean this article up and check English, that would be great. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes

One of users repeatedly removed professions/credentials of people (like "journalist", etc.). That is important to mention, so a reader can judge immediately who is telling what. Also, a new section "confession under torure" was created about an episod that had been already described in article Aleksey Galkin. This hardly deserves a separate section.Biophys (talk) 18:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we have a problem here. Previous credentials of creators of "FSB murderers" theory IMHO have little to do with event we discuss. They were and/or are historians, politicos and such but within confines of main event discussed in article they are anti-Putin activists. No less, but no more. Their regalia had been earned in other areas. They did not become prominent on the back of discussed theory. On the flip side, alleged torture of Galkin is extremely relevant to the article, as his confessions are presented in it front and centre nor less than 3 times. And you wish to bury it in personal article on Galkin, who was not prominent person before or after discussed event. Moreover, being a researcher, you are aware that description of methodology used to gather data is an integral part of research. If research includes data obtained from KGB archives, it should be stated. If research includes data obtained under torture, it should be stated. Why did your scientific background fail so profoundly here? RJ CG (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
O'K, let's describe the episode with Galkin in a separate section as a factual event. As about profession - this is really important. A reader should know who is making a claim: a professional historian, a politician, a journalist, or a person from the street. This is WP:Verifiability matter. Biophys (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Relevance of the professional credentials had been discussed to the death in different sections of Wikipedia, my favourite example being Robert Conquest. There's always problem what part of credentials editor chooses to use in order to boost/discount opinion of a person. I am sure you understand difference between "according to famous researcher Conquest" and "according to professional anti-Soviet agitator Conquest". And you know the funniest part of this excercise? Both statements are 100% verifiable truth. I see only one way out of this controversy and this is avoiding credentials of anyone worthy of WP page. Are you interested in background of person making statement? Click the linky and enlighten yourself. This is the beauty of hyperlinks. RJ CG (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Now let's continue our discussion of the placement of Galkin's saga. Let's use scientific approach again. What do we have here? Event (bombing) and two versions (let's call them "Chechen" and "FSB") of whodunit. Are Galkin's confession and circumstances surrounding it important for the main event? IMHO not particularly. Buildings blew up before he made and revoked his statement. Is Galkin's saga important for "Chechen" version? Absolutely not. It is not used by either proponents or opponents of it. Is it important for "FSB" version? Yes it is. As far as I can tell from the article, proponents of "FSB" theory repeat Galkin's confession word by word. So, where should it be? Right, under "FSB" theory, exactly where I placed it. Now let's talk about section's name. Is it important for the article that it was Galkin and not Vasya Pupkin who said that he was tortured/ Nope, what is important for the theory that it allegedly used data obtained under torture. That's why I named section as I did instead of warm snot of "Statement of Galkin". And last but not least, I do not like your preaching of "looking for consensus" combined with summarily reversal without previous discussion. RJ CG (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
What are you doing? I agreed with some of your changes but you reverted a compromise version without any discussion. Please stop RR warringBiophys (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I thought I explained my edits before, but if I accidentally deleted something unexplained, please accept my apologies. RJ CG (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree to keep Galkin's story as a separate section (as you suggested), but this then should be described as a factual story/controversy: he was taken by rebels, he gave an interview, he then escaped and told he was tortured. Then we would mention in "FSB theory" that the involvement of GRU in Byinaksk was partly based on Galkin's words). Is it a reasonable compromise?Biophys (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for not being abundantly clear, but I proposed to have Galkin's story as subsection under "FSB theory" section, as it does not add anything (or deducts from anything) in other parts of the article. And, despite your severe disappointment that theory you clearly favour is probably partially based on information obtained under torture (this is talk page so I guess I'm free to express my deepest conviction that "alleged" is really ambiguous here, guy suffered 4 broken ribs and his jaw was broken trice), I would really prefer to mention torture in subsection header. RJ CG (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, this is not good. Right now it tells: "This is partly based on a testimony of a GRU officer Aleksey Galkin (we should add: "see below" - this is bad). We should either combine both parts together in "FSB theory" ("This is partly based on a testimony of a GRU officer Aleksey Galkin and then tell his story, but he was tortured, etc., which requires a whole paragraph at least), or we can make an independent section about him, considering that his story was important. Second way is a better structuring of material, so it is preferred.Biophys (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
O'K, I made version (a) as a compromise. But I still insist that we must define people who make important claims as "political scientist", "journalist", writer, etc. PietervHuis, what do you think about it?Biophys (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think that allegation of torture (from guy with numerous broken bones in his body) deserves more prominent coverage than three short sentences in the end of one subsection? And why should we define people as "political scientist" instead of "torturer's accomplice", as both seem to be easily applicable to the same person? RJ CG (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
If you want a more prominent coverage, we can make this a separate section after description of all other events, as I did previously but you reverted (version (b)). "Political scientist" or journalist is simply a profession, this is not charged and perfectly NPOV. Who is "torturer's accomplice"? Robert Young Pelton?Biophys (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You still did not tell why Galkin's story (relevant only to one section of the article) should not be subsection of this section, but must be placed as far apart from section it relevant to as to maximize chances of the casual reader not linking them in a single event they were. Speaking about "professions", it is slippery path as I said. Very moniker "scientist" assumes analytical approach and impartiality, which is very heavily questioned in this particular case by great many people. That is why I proposed complete elimination of credentials, as each and every person mentioned here has WP page devoted to him. RJ CG (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of "torturer's accomplice" moniker (although "torturer's own scribe" seems more correct to me), you may want to familiarize yourself with Walter Duranty and how his critics described him for his reporting (for taking "confessions" of Stalin's victims at face value). Why shouldn't we apply same approach to Pelton? RJ CG (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking that Robert Young Pelton is a "torturer's accomplice"? Yes or no, please. What is your argument to remove people's profession/background? So far I do not see any. Certainly, we are not going to discuss here Holodomor denial and other controversial articles. If you want to refer to something, please refer to WP guidelines.Biophys (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
No answer here?Biophys (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you stop to drink brandy in the morning? Yes or no, please. Same type of question. Besides, my personal opinion of Pelton is my POV and absolutely irrelevant here. I deliberately sharpened the point to demonstrate potential pitfalls of using credentials. I see even more potential problems when credentials are used to boost controversial theories but not really related to this theory. It is as to say that New Chronology theory comes from great scientist Fomenko and omit a detail that he actually great mathematician, not historian. Devil is in details, humankind came to this conclusion for a reason. RJ CG (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It is always helpful to tell who makes a claim. If a crazy academician like Trofim Lysenko promotes a pseudoscience, we can tell "this academician said Genetics is wrong". Please do not make edit summaries like "No one of those ppl got their credentials for their work on the theory, so it is not appropriate to use credentials to boost the theory." to justify your deletions of people's backgrounds (this has been already discussed above). People gain their credentials (like PhD degree) and training during all their life, not during writing a specific article on the subject. Main point is that Litvinenko, Felshtinsky, Trepashkin, Satter and others made an extensive research and prepared a number of publications on this subject (which could be emphasized).Biophys (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galkin story

RJ CG just moved the paragraph telling in edit comment that "Galkin's story is chapter of "FSB involvement" theory, as discussed on talk page." No, it is not. Please read WP:NPOV#a simple formulation. It askes to separate opinions and facts, and emphasize facts. The ordeal of Galkin is fact and should be described together with other facts ("The bombings", "Ryazan incident" and so on). Theory of Russian government involvement is mostly an interpretation. Hence it can refer to facts (described in the article before). Only such solution is consistent with WP:NPOV and makes everything in logical order.Biophys (talk) 17:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, as soon as clear link between Galkin's story and Buynaksk is established. RJ CG (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Casus Belli

Quick question here. I myself haven't read much about the Casus belli of the 2nd war. Did the Kremlin even bother to blame Ichkeria's government? All I've seen is Putin say that he felt like "killing terrorists while they were taking a dump" or something, and then he attacked Chechnya. The investigation doesn't even mention Maskhadov or government officials though. Is there a report in Russian by the government about the exact reasons why Russia launched the war?

(A fun fact is that Maskhadov was one of the first to mention the possibility that the FSB was behind the bombings [17]).

Same goes for the Dagestan War. Did they even bother arguing that Maskhadov and Khattab/Basayev were co-operating? - PietervHuis (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember bombings were pushed back by the Basayev's Dagestan trip. It was something like "They invaded our Homeland (oh, and bombed civilians in Moscow and other places too)" Makhadov's position was pictured as irrelevant by the Russian media, who portrayed him as nothing more than talking head of warring clans, devoid of any real influence over the course of events. RJ CG (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
As written in this article, "Russian military analyst Pavel Fengelhauer noted "The FSB accused Khattab and Gochiyaev, but oddly they did not point the finger at Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov's regime, which is what the war was launched against" [ref].". Yes, the investigation (which was completed only in 2002!) does not mention Maskhadov. And Khattab did not ever obey any orders from Maskhadov, being "an independent terrorist". This is like United States luanching a war against the State of Michigan, because a dangerous terrorist (like Khattab) operates from Michigan territory, and not notifying the governor of Michigan. That is if Chechnya was a part of Russia, which I think it was. I can look at sources, but only later.Biophys (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya it was still a part of Russia, but was 'de facto' independent, yet Maskhadov was recognized as its president. The khasavyurt accord said they would discuss the future status of chechnya 5 years from the signing. I read how one of Yeltsins parliament members predicted how negotiations would be extremely hard, but said that they would eventually have to recognize its independence. I can't find the source quickly. Thanks for the answers. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course Maskhadov was very much relevant as de facto and de juro (according to Hassvurt accord) president-elect of Chechnya. He was the person in charge, someone to negotiate with, and a very moderate separatist. His control over big gangs in Chechnya was limited, in part because these gangs, like Barayev and others, have been supported from Moscow (there are many sources). As about Basayev who befriended Khattab, he received a couple of millions from Russian government through Berezovsky (who admitted this), and could feel very independent of Maskhadov. The control of Russian secret services over Chechens was significant, and they proved it by easily killing Khattab, Arbi Barayev, Maskhadov, and Saidullaev when they were not needed any more in their political games. Basayev was still needed as an examplory terrorist and "enemy of the state", and he died in an accident.Biophys (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A quote

[18]: Vladimir Zhirinovsky in Russian Duma : "Remember Gennadiy Nikolaevich how you told us that a house has been blown up in Volgodonsk, three days prior to the blast? How should we interpret this? State Duma knows that the house was destroyed on Monday, and it has indeed been blown up on Thursday [same week]. ... How come, ... the state authorities of Rostov region were not warned in advance [about the future bombing], although it was reported to us? Everyone is sleeping, the house was destroyed three days later, and now we must take urgent measures..." [Seleznev turns his microphone off].

ЖИРИНОВСКИЙ В. В., руководитель фракции Либерально-демократической партии России. Я думаю, отсутствие инициатора вопроса лучше всего говорит о том, что вопрос лишний, ненужный. Оставьте в покое сегодня наших министров. Видите, что происходит в стране?! Вспомните, Геннадий Николаевич, вы нам в понедельник сказали, что дом в Волгодонске взорван, за три дня до взрыва.

Это же можно как провокацию расценивать: если Государственная дума знает, что дом уже взорван якобы в понедельник, а его взрывают в четверг. И в это время мы с вами занимаемся совсем другими делами. Давайте этим займемся лучше. Как это произошло: вам докладывают, что в 11 утра в понедельник взорван дом, а администрация Ростовской области не знала о том, что вам об этом доложили? Все спят, через три дня взрывают, тогда начинают принимать меры. Biophys (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaned up

People, don't forget comas when editing. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "The largest terrorist attack in Russia's history"?

Really? How as this measured? Certainly not by deaths (it's Beslan) - by all casualties? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's hard to measure. Whatever writer calls it that simply speaks his opinion. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
So let's remove the claim. Especially since it's not necessarily a 'terrorist' attack. Malick78 (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The was undeniably a terrorist attack; the only controversy is who those terrorists were. The cited book (a reliable secondary source) claims this to be biggest terrorist attack in Russia's history. This is not OR. This sounds right to me. Only Beslan claimed a similarly large number of victims in Russia. That was also a most significant series of multiple well coordinated attacks. It had huge political consequences, probably bigger than any other terrorist attack in Russia history. But most important, that is something claimed by a secondary source. Unless someone provides other sources claiming the opposite, this must stay. What you are telling here is only your personal opinion.Biophys (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rushed clean-up

I remember at the time of the attacks in a paper it was mentioned that the authorities cleared the bombing sites very quickly - quicker than is usual according to international standards. I can't remember where I read this but has anyone else heard about this? If it were confirmed it would suggest the authorities had little interest in conducting a proper investigation. Malick78 (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That is right, and many sources claim exactly that. Probably this should be included.Biophys (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in few days. Also I remember the FBI offered to help and this was rejected. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Biophys would you mind if I placed the list of suspects back in the article? The second page kinda repeats everything that's said in this article. It used to look bad here because it had a lot of dead links, but it's quite an important list and this article isn't too long. I'll place it back unless you jest. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to put back whole list or only a part of it? I have no objections except readibility of this article. You can try to do it, and then we can look and think.Biophys (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ya, I only mean the names of the suspects they are pretty important and people can check out their background and stuff (there's more information on them that we can collect, some were on the run for prosecution and stuff). I'm not sure if the extra page is necessary, you can decide on that. - PietervHuis (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Galkin again

The text by RG_CG and Krawdang includes the following assertion:

Galkin stated that he was forced to read before cameras "rubbish I had never written" and that he invented tall tales to avoid more torture.

I did not find this in Russian source (article in Novaya gazeta). Please cite where it was. Furthermore, main point here is that he did not tell anything at all about the GRU operation. Hence Felshtinsky wrote that he "did not deny it". If he denied the operation, please cite the source.Biophys (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

First, no one agreed to removing all third party references confirming that he was tortured, and there is no reason to do so. It is important to know that doctors confirmed that he was tortured. Second, you reverted someones edits without explanation and without coming to the talk page to let them explain the edits. Please use the talk page first. You can ask RJ CG about his edits, rather than rudely reverting them in a manner that gives one the impression that you think you own the article. No one is going to die because one sentence was left in an article for a few hours. It's better you ask these questions first and revert later if need be, as to avoid an edit war. Krawndawg (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not remove any references. The text about medical expertise is there. There was no reverts from my side yet, but you reverted me twice. So far no one provided the required citation.Biophys (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] call for investigation by relatives

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121209647875130625.html - PietervHuis (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)