Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings/Archive 3

What about the CIA

I have ONE source mentioning the CIA. I'm trying to find a second. I bet the 9/11 conspiracy oddballs would back that one.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Dagestanis did it? - perhaps it was a legit terrorist attck after all

I have a very good source for this one - with analysis, and quotes from various key individuals. I don't have time to put it in now, but it will be appearing shortly. I don't really understand why, other than blatant bias, so little has appeared about the Dagestani angle before.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Sakwa (Chechnya: From Past To Future, p.93), on the 9th September, Shamil Basaev said, in an interview, "The latest blast in Moscow is not our work, but the work of the Dagestanis" and Basaev then goes on to equate Russian civilian deaths with "'Russians dropping bombs from their aircraft over Karamakhi and killing 10-20 children. Where's the difference'" On 15 th September, in an interview with Greg Myre, an Associated Press reporter, Khattab makes similar comments about targeting Russian civilians and cities. Sakwa also notes that in a later interview with Interfax, Khattab says that he will not be targetting civilians.
After dismissing the RDX arguments of Satter and Menon (who is Menon? - _Mariya), Sakwa goes onto conclude (p.95) that the most likely candidates are Wahhabis from Dagestan. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Murphy, in his book The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror, Pub. Brassey's, 2004 ISBN 1574888307, 9781574888300 [1] says on page 106 "The evidence that Khattab was responsible for the apartment bombings in Moscow is clear". He also makes the point on the same page that the Berezovsky story is that the FSB did it for Putin, BUT WITHOUT PUTIN'S KNOWLEDGE!!! (the capitalisation is mine). Murphy implies this is Berezovsky's story is a fantasy, and mentions what he calls a "second fantasy", that Basayev was really a GRU agent, and he did it for them using explosives from the GRU stockpile in Moscow.

Murphy also describes (p.104) the 9th September interview with Basayev, which Murphy says was with Czech newspaper Lidove Noviny, and that the words were "the work of Dagestanis - not our work".
Murphy also says (p. 105) that the Moscow bombings were "claimed" on 15th September by the "Islamic Liberation Army of Dagestan".
Murphy also gives the date of the Borisovskiye Prudy Ulitsa bomb that he says was found and difused by the Police, as September 14th, not the 13th as given in the article.
On Page 118, Murphy says that in June 2000, "the Russian police in Stavropol caught five of Khattab's graduates red-handed with explosives, detonators and equipment they were readying for more apartment bombings in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. The police found additional explosives already in Moscow". So it looks like the bombing campaign didn't stop after Ryazan - there were a few street and subways bombs after the Ryazan incident, anyway.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Lorenzo Vidino [2] also blames the bombings on Khattab

With these intentions, Khattab announced the mujahideen’s new strategy after the Dagestani debacle. He was soon successful. In the three weeks following the defeat in Dagestan, a series of bombings ravaged apartment complexes and shopping centers inside Russia, killing more than 300 people. Russian investigators arrested the perpetrators who were mostly Chechens and Dagestanis and had received training in explosives in Khattab’s camps. Some of them confessed to personally receiving several hundred thousand dollars from Khattab to carry out the attacks.

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliabability of sources. Propose a List of Sources here, and chance to debate them.

Since (according to the article) Goldfarb and Litvinyenko are(was for Mr L) paid by Borozovsky, and Satter uses mainly Borosovsky sponsored research, the independence of some of the corroborating sources seems to be questionable.
So really, they sould all be replaced by "according to Berezovsky", as a single source, rather than listing his proxies individually. It is clear to anyone who looks that Berezovsky's fingerprints are all over the "Putin did it" case (I seem to remember it was Berezovsky that first claimed Putin was the perpetrator).
Easy to work out why Mr B pushes that argument, too.
But that in itself does not make Putin either guilty or innocent.
But it is just as possible that several other "independent" sources are co-related to Mr B or to another individual, group of individuals, political party, etc. etc.
So how about we list, and debate, our sources here, on the talk page. We can argue away, politely, one would hope, in an attempt to distinguish how many INDEPENDENT sources there are, and what evidence they seem to be using.

No, Satter did not use any "Borosovsky sponsored research" (as you said). His book "Darkness at Dawn" does not make a single reference to any claims by Berezovsky with regard to the bombings. The book "The Age of Assassins" was written by Vladimir Pribylovsky and Yuri Felshtinsky.So, this is not "according to Berezovsky". Please read the sources if you are going to dispute them.Biophys (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting from the main article attached to this talk page. If you disagree with the info, perhaps you should take it up with the person who put it there, and/or edit it and/or it. I didn't mention the other two. Not sure why you brought them up.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

On a wider note, Lenin's remark about 90% of the media being owned by capitalists seems particularly apt.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The books have been published by independent and reputable journalist(s), historians and experts. These authors have nothing to do with "capitalism", "communism" amd other "isms".Biophys (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

How touchingly naive (at best) - anyway that's not what Lenin meant, as I'm sure you know, don't you

I think we have already established that anything by Goldfarb/Litvinyenko is anything other than independent. It has been alledged in the article that Satter uses too many non-independent sources. Also the first page of his submission to the House reads like political polemic, rather than acedemic exposition. This would also lead one to suggest that his work does not attempt to be balanced, instead is published to advance an agenda. Personally, I dilslike the world "expert" because it is used too often. Sakwa might be described as an "expert" (if you must use it) He seems to be the only one clearly without hidden funding (from whatever source). How many of the others, I don't know. Also on the subject of independence, you know that Felshtinsky knew Litvinyenko, of course. Does that mean there is a link form Mr B's money? How does Felshtinsky fund his life? Who funds the "Panorama" group he belongs to?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Since your source ("Evangelista") is not available online, could you please cite his statement directly here? Who is this Evangelista? We do not even have an article about him.Biophys (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you had actually looked at those links you were so very quick to keep deleting, you would have found that one included an ISBN - try looking it upMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the Asia times link? Don't you trust them? Or was it just an oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Just for you, Biophys, in case you didn't mean to be so rude by ignoring my sourced quotes - a little transcript. (the author is writing in relation to the "State did it" idea - he explores the "terrorists did it" elsewhere.

At least two candidate theories have been proposed.

The first is linked to Yeltsin's purported campaign to undermine his political rival,
 Moscow mayor Luzhkov. What better way
 to discredit the popular Lukhkov than to demonstrate that he 
could not keep his own residents safe from terrorist attacks?
 The second theory suggests a deliberate effort 
to provoke a "rally 'round the flag" effect 
on the Russian populance to solidfy 
the rule of Yeltsin and his designated successor

I hope that I have transcribed it right. The original has a spelling mistake in one case of Luzhkov, so I have even reproduced that.
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• Is that a direct citation from 'p.81, The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union?, Matthew Evangelista, pub. Brookings Institution Press, 2002 ? I will check if this is right as time allows.Biophys (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. here it is.Biophys (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How reliable is Princeton. At a conference there they propose three explanations, terroist, FSB, and,A third option was also raised: defective gas pipes could have been the cause for the explosions. In any case, the Russian leadership has exploited the tragedy of the bombings for political purposes. Perhaps more should be made of this angle as well.


The Economist, which, as I am sure you all know is a reputable source, published a review of the book "The Age of Assassins" expressing some doubts about it. Link[3]. Perhaps something from that should also be included, as they seem to be the main "non-berezovsky" source pushing the quoted by the "Putin did it" lobby.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine, this book by Evangelista is apparently a valid source. Author writes about the FSB involvement theory, among other things. I do not have any problems with citing this source.Biophys (talk) 14:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As about economist commentary, it could be appropriate in article The Age of Assassins, and you are very welcome to create it.Biophys (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether the author (Evangelista) writes about FSB involvement or not is irrelevant. He is writing about the Moscow bombings, and it is a suitable and VERIFIABLE source. So, why did you not show Good Faith when I said Yeltsin has been linked to the bombings, instead just keeping deleting my edits, eve though I provided FOUR sources linking Yeltsin? And presumably you will be editing the main article page to correct your mistake in doubting me.
Maria - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the present version of the article. This ridiculous statement about Yeltin is already there to find a compromise with you. I would suggest however to move it to the body of the article from the Introduction.Biophys (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I'm going to have to be bold and do a very large edit on the article. It seems that there is a bit of WP:OWN on this page.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found an interesting library source - The Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center - this is what it says about itself:

The Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center, founded in 1946, is the premier library in the Department of Defense (DOD). It houses well-balanced collections especially strong in the fields of war fighting, aeronautics, Air Force and DOD operations, military sciences, international relations, education, leadership, and management. The library holds more than 2.6 million items: 530,000 military documents; over 429,000 monographs and bound periodical volumes; 615,000 maps and charts; 150,000 current regulations/manuals; and over 909,000 microforms.

THey have a page listing publications about Russia here[4]. I have looked down the list, and I find work by Prof Sakwa and Asoc. Prof Ware on it, but nothing by David Satter, Yuri Felshtinsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky, and Alexander Litvinenko.
I can think of only two explanations
- 1) the list is very long and I have missed their names, or
- 2) the work of Satter, Felshtinsky, Pribylovsky, and Litvinenko are not considered to be serious academic works.
Can someone check the list for me to see if I have missed them? Thanks. Maria - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I can provide another one. Obviously, they don't write on military science. Colchicum (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet the library lists Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia, which does not seem to be about military science at all.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And Jack, Andrew, Inside Putin's Russia.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

This is wikipedia, not US Department of Defense. We have WP:Verifiability.Biophys (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And Ware, Robert Bruce. Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts. Journal of Slavic Military Studies 18:599-606 December 2005

Funny how they seem to have lots and lots of varied stuff, but nothing by Satter, Felshtinsky, Pribylovsky, and Litvinenko (although there is some negative commentary[5] on Litvinyenko in the works listed by Gordon Bennett

Murphy. The Wolves of Islam is also listed by the Library, but in a different section[6]Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

So I think the the argument that the library only stocks military science books seems groundless. Perhaps you should look at the list [7], rather than just criticising it. If your authors are "reputable" (a requirement for Wikipedia), how comw they are not listed in a "very reputable" library, while sources criticisng the 4 conspiracy theorists are listed. Do you think it is an American plot, perhaps?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Journal of Slavic Military Studies, as you have just rightly pointed out. At least Felshtinksy is a reputable historian (working in the field of early Soviet history, which is as far from the topic of this article as military studies). Colchicum (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It is peer-reviewed material, which is plus points for Wikipedia inclusion.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I mean that it doesn't seem strange that Ware is indexed in a military database. Colchicum (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Source - Paul J Murphy - The Wolves of Islam

I have quoted from this source above (Dagestanis did it?), and would like at least some of the material included in the article. as I have criticised a number of sources, I suggest we discuss any pros and cons about Mr Murphy here. He is described here[8] as, a former US counterterrorism official, who has studied in the former Soviet Union and has taught at universities and appeared on radio and television in the United States, Australia, and Russia. He has also served as a congressional advisor on counterterrorism cooperation between the United States and Russia.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC) That's fairly reputableMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 12:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Paul Murphy named Aslan Maskhadov an "Islam terrorist", so I wouldn't consider conservative people like him reliable analysts. Grey Fox (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the PERSONAL opinion. Do you have any sourced objections to him? Or do I assume that he is reputable, but some people don't like his opinions?Mariya Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

according to google scholar, Murphy's book has been cited in 7 other publications.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Source - Robert Bruce Ware - various

He has a pretty solid academic record, his CV is here[9]. He has had quite a lot of peer-reviewed articles about Dagestan and Chechnya published, has presented many papers to academic conferences, and has also written a number of newspaper articles, which have been published in The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, The San Francisco Chronicle, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Pravda, The Moscow Times, The Russia Journal, The Hindu, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Russia and Eurasia Review, and the Central Asia Caucasus Analyst. He holds an AB in political science from the University of California at Berkeley with Highest Honors and Great Distinction (i.e. the top grade), an MA in philosophy from the University of California at San Diego, then studied for two years at Princeton (a top American university) before completing his D.Phil. at Oxford University (which, as I am sure you are aware, is one of the top universities in England). He has taught at University of California, San Diego, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, University of Texas, El Paso, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, and Oxford University, becoming first Assistant Professor, and then Associate Professor, at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. He has also conducted field research in the North Caucasus since 1996, including a trip in March and April of the year 2000 to Dagestan, interviewing local people.[10]
That's about as reputable as one can get
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ware also reveals some of his methodology here[11], with the following extract being the most illuminating

In particular, none of my analysis of the invasion of Dagestan is based upon anything from any official Russian source or from any Russian news agency. My analysis of the invasion of Dagestan is based entirely upon my conversations with Dagestanis, some of them well-placed, who were on the ground in Dagestan during the invasions of August and September 1999

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The methodology you are talking about was used in other papers. I think you would agree that it is impossible to write anything about the Moscow bombing campaign based on a firsthand experience in North Caucasus rather than anything from Russian officials or mass media. Moreover, note that Ware didn't dismiss the "conspiracy" theory and paid some attention to it, though favored the Islamist story over it. Colchicum (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quoting prof Ware, rather than using my own POV. If you have any reputable published criticism of Prof Ware, then it would make a very useful contribution —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

He said it on an unrelated matter five years before. Colchicum (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

, as they say.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia says this (I have marked the most-relevant passages in bold.)

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; usually followed by university-level textbooks; then by magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; then by mainstream newspapers. Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

So can you please clarify on what basis you think Prof Ware's work is not suitable?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean that everyone accepts Prof Ware's to be of a very high "Wikipedia" quality?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. He was criticized for scientific fraud/misconduct, and I would like to see any third-party source telling that he a good specialist on this specific subject. We do not even have a WP article about him.Biophys (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That's more like it. Unlike some editors to WP, I would actually like the article to be both verifiable, and somewhat correct and reasonable. Can you provide more details of this alledged incident, and its resolution. Anyone who looks at the facts should realise that Mr Berezovsky is financing propaganda about this whole issue, and therefore, nothing can be automatically accepted either as true or untrue. Other parties are no doubt also using the bombings incidents for their own political purposes, and also trying to misrepresent the situation. As I am sure you will agree, your brief details do not currently match up to Prof Ware's verifiable publications list, and he did publish an article specifically about the bombings in a peer-reviewed journal - to reject that one is also casting aspersions on the verification and control processes of the journal. A measure of the quality of the work published would normally be assumed if the journal was also reputable. That's one of the ways in which journals work.

On the subject of WP acticles about notable people, my former Photography professor is very well known in his field, co-published several important papers in the field of Scientific Photography, and co-edited (and revised) the standard UK University textbook in that field (The Manual of Photography - his co-editor and co-reviser is also not listed on WP - perhaps that's a couple of articles I need to write!). He has also been the Chair of the Science Committee, The Royal Photographic Society, 1993-1996, Chair of Greater London Region Association of Scientific Advisors, between 1970's and 1990's, and Director, Post-graduate courses in Imaging Science for (1985-1999):Kodak Limited. He is currently (amongst other things) a Fellow of the Royal Photographic Society, and a member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. That too is a pretty impressive list, and surely both notable and reputable, and yet no WP article. WP articles are written by people who want to, rather than being comprehensive.
something to think about. Mariya - x -
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

More directly,
1) Ware is described (and quoted from) as a Dagestan expert on page 113 of Russia's Islamic Threat: nationalism, Islam, and islamism Conclusions and security implications

By Gordon M. Hahn, Published by Yale University Press, 2007, ISBN 030012077X, 9780300120776
2) United Press International describes him as a noted expert on the North Caucasus and Chechnya in the preface to an interview published on 14th March 2005.
3) He co-authored an article in the Spring of 2000 with Ira Strauss, the US coordinator of the NATO committee for Eastern Europe and Russia (fairly reputable government job, one would think).
4) He has written for the Central Asia-Caucusus Institute of the John Hopkins University. If that is not reputable, then it is strange that it is the same John Hopkins that Satter is a visiting scolar at.
There are, of course, quite a few journals and co-authored papers that he has also contributed to. To suggest that he is not reputable is also to suggest that all these other publications, organisations, and individuals, are at best, very uncritical in their choice of material. Because of the implications of that suggestion, the onus is really on Prof Ware's detractors to justify it.
Furthermore, I have a reputable wuote from a reputable journalist (who is listed on WP), when talking about Lityenko's allegations about Putin that Litvinyenko was a fantasist, and was widely held to be so. Do you think that Litvenyenko's work, should also be discarded?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Google scholar lists some of Prof Ware's stuff and the number of times it has been cited (on page 2, there is a link to one piece by Ware and Kisriev that has been cited quite a bit). Hope this helps. Mariya- x -Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Ware's piece Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts from The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 2005, was specifically cited by Professor Brian D Taylor, an assistant professor of political science at Syracuse University. (according to google scholar) Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Prof Ware's work on Dagestan (in general) has been cited by quite a number of different authors/academics (according to google scholar). Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Additionally, Hain's book mentioned above is published by Yale University Press, which is the same publisher as Satter's Darkness at Dawn. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Satter vs Ware - notability

It would appear from google scholar that Prof Ware's citations are similar in number to David Satter's. On that basis, it would appear that they are either both in the article, or both out.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Sakwa

Well, Sakwa seems to be winning the reputation war so far. He has in the region of 10 times as many citations on google scholar as either Ware or Satter. Perhaps this academic pre-eminence should be reflected in the relative weight given to his views/work.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Sakwa also has approx 10 times the citations of Yuri Felshtinsky on google scholar. I am uncertain about this result because I don't know if it include publications in Russian.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Google searches is not a method to establish reliability of a source.Biophys (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the guidelines on notability for academics. I used Google Scholar, rather than google search.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 11:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This is not a guideline about reliability of sources.Biophys (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

so you didn't bother to read it then. I suggest you doMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Reliable sources

The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in Google Scholar or other citation indexes

Now that's only one of the grounds listed for reliable sources. That's why I was using Google ScholarMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Litvenyenko

Litvenyenko and Felshtinsky have just a single citation for their book Blowing Up Russia. Not exactly mainstream academic reading, perhaps?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

First, this is the only book dedicated almost exclusively to subject of this article. Second, person who wrote it had a unique knowledge of the subject, being an officer of organization that allegedly committed the bombings. Third and most important, Alexander Litvinenko is certainly most notable source - you should see how WP articles about him and his poisoning are much bigger than WP article about Sakwa. We also have two articles about his books. At least one book is written specifically about Litvinenko. Therefore, Litvinenko view qualifies as "mainstream view".Biophys (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

1) Felshtinsky certainly does not seem to qualify as notable, despite having a WP page. Perhaps a reference should be placed on the Litvenyenko page or the bombings page refering to him as a "minor Russian historian", and his WP page should be deleted.
2) You seem to be confusing notability and reputability. Litvenyenko is notable - certainly most people are not defectors who die of radiation poisoning in London, leading to diplomatic arguments about the alleged incidents that occurred. Perhaps Markov was the most recent other case to fit that description. If notability and reputability were the same, then Soros' allegation about Berezovsky would be the dominant theory, with all others being subsidiary. Soros is extremely notable after all - he is widely alleged to have broken British Govornment economic policy in the early 1980's and made a fortune (lost by the British Government) in the process. Not many people have caused the British Government to reverse one of the mainstays of their economic policy, with the subsequent resignation of the Chancellor (Finance Minister, for those of you living elsewhere - the Brits like funny names for jobs!). Soros is also very familiar with the subject of Berezovsky. Less people have broken British government policy than have been defectors!
3) Mr Litvenyenko has had at least two books published about him. You only seem aware of the Berezovsky funded one. Another, by respected journalist Martin Sixsmith, (apparently published first - see alos point 8, below) suggests that Litvenyenko was killed primarily because he was a defector, and says that

hunting down and killing dissidents is a storied tradition of the Russian secret services, whatever their name at the time, Cheka, MKVD, KGB or FSB. He related, "it was the automatic duty of any serving agent who encountered a defector from the security services, whether in Russia or abroad, to kill him."

Sixsmith also says that two Russian laws Federal Law N 153-F3 and Federal Law N 148-F3 apparently allow the elimination of extremists including anyone "libelously critical of the Russian authorities", which puts the activity on an apparently legal footing in Russia (whether the law would stand up to international scrutiny is another matter entirely). Now, whatever the truth or otherwise of Litvenyenko's allegations about the FSB involvement in the bombings, that gives two good reasons (unconnected with his allegations about the apartment bombings) for his death. He was certainly a defector, and he certainly spread libel about the Russian authorities (remember the Putin is a paedophile allegation).
4) That, however, does not indicate anything about Mr Litvenyenko truthfulness, or reputability, or degree of research. I would remind you that the books of Erich von Däniken are the foremost works in their field, and there is even a Center for Ancient Astronaut Research. The mainstream academic view is that Mr von Däniken is at best either deluded or a shyster. His books did have quite a mainstream following in the '70's, they were sold in fairly large numbers, and some elements of his work have entered popular mythology today.
5) So, just because someone is the principal writer about a field, it means very little.
6) When someone sells a lot of books, it means very little, also. Popularity and reputability are not the same.
7) Mr Litvenyenko's WP page is actually quite reasonable, and uses words like accusations and claims to describe his work. This is correct. Whether or not these accusations and claims are facts is another matter, however. Ceratinly, the mainstream reputable published community quotes his work on very few occasions (one, according to google scholar)
8) Mr Litvenyenko also has his detractors. Indeed, Martin Sixsmith, who wrote The Litvinenko File: The True Story of a Death Foretold, pub. Macmillan, 2007, said

The view of Litvinenko as a fantasist, or at least an overly obsessive zealot in the anti-Putin cause, was widespread.

The Washington Times, June 24th 2007, talking about Litvenyenko, also states

Among his shakier accusations were that the FSB trained the September 11 hijackers, that the Kremlin had a role in the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground trains and that Mr. Putin had "regular sex withunderage boys, the evidence seemingly being that he had been filmed playfully kissing a toddler during his election campaign."

They're not exactly the sort of allegations that a serious academic makes, are they? At best, all 3 of those theories of Litvenyenko are very minor alternative views. Yet the first involves the FSB that you seem to think he seems to know so much about. The second would also seem to need FSB involvement.
9) Therefore one is left with the impression that you feel that Litvenyenko must be treated as 100% reliable about some of his allegations about the FSB, but that other (apparently ridiculous) allegations he makes about the FSB should be ignored. If a man only tells the truth some of the time, it is perhaps best to disbelieve him most of the time.
10) Judging someone notability and reputability by the size of their WP article has to be the most interesting idea I have heard for a long time! Perhaps you should read the WP sections on Notability and Reputability before commenting further.
Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I waould further contend that Litvenyenko's books are not peer-reviewed material, and should be treated with the appropriate caution, rather than blindly accepted as fact.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Litvenyenko's books are not published by a university/mainstream publisher, are not peer-reviewed, and appear to be cited by others very little indeed. (the lack of citations seems especially strange given that it is available as a free PDF download, funded, of course, by Boris Berezovsky).How exactly do they fit the desciption of a WP:Reliable source?
Furthermore, Litvenyenko appears to be a primary source, and the WP:Reliable source guidelines state

Primary sources — writings on or about a topic by key figures of the topic — may be allowable, but should be restricted to purely descriptive explanations of the subject or its core concepts. They should not be used for interpretation or evaluation

. How exactly does the weight given to his books fit in with that? Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I have received a some input to my talk page. Do I assume that it is agreed that Mr Litvenyenko's work should be treated as a source that is:
1) not reliable
2) essentially primary in nature, and his interpretations of events should be mostly discarded (as per WP guidelines, if I have understood them correctly).Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss Litvinenko and other sources forever, but what exactly do you suggest to change in the article? No, you did not disprove any of my arguments (see above) that Litvinenko books is an exceptionally good source. No, this is not a "primary" source with regard to the bombings, because Litvinenko was not personally involved in planning and executing the bombings.Biophys (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vladimir Pribylovsky

Google Scholar also implies that the Pribylovsky article would have trouble with respect to the WP notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 14:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Simon Saradzhyan and Nabi Abdullaev

New source for discussion. Here[12] is their contribution. Decide for yourselves.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Evangelista - The Chechen Wars: Will Russia Go the Way of the Soviet Union?

Evangelista's book gets 43 citations (on Google Scholar). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Berezovsky did it?

report from 17th April 2000

George Soros cast doubt on the official Russian explanation of the bombings, saying he believed the Kremlin was involved. He pointed the finger at an erstwhile business colleague, Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky

[13]
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So I can guess that everyone can see the point behind the lies and half-truths of Berezovsky and his proxies (Goldfarb/Litvenyenko + perhaps others). Everyone is looking at Putin, rather than looking at the facts. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This might be disputed on WP:BLP grounds. It is not entirely clear if Soros actually claimed this (based on the single source) and if Soros changed his mind later. If you find additional sources, this could be included in the body of the article.Biophys (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC) The personal animosity between Berezovsky and Soros is well known. Basically, one of them believes that another ripped him off, if I remember correctly.Biophys (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Putin double-crossed of Berezovsky (who, along with Yeltsin, and a few others, brought him to power). So how is that different. Berezovsky has been trying to get revenge ever since (it is in the literature!!! rather than being a personal opinion). Berezovsky uses his proxies, which some simple-minded folk believe. Berezovsky is about propoganda, not truth. Reading the available evidence (not just a selective bit of it) makes that clear. I do not know what happened during the bombings, but I do knopw that Berezovsky is very unlikely to properly tell his part in it, and is also unlikely to reveal EVERYTHING he knows about it.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 06:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, Soros, as a well known business figure must have a certain degree of reputability attached to his statement. Whether Berezovsky was involved is an opinion, whether Soros says he was is a factMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

this book Godfather of the Kremlin: Boris Berezovsky and the Looting of Russia. New York, Harcourt, 2000. was published by the journalist Paul Klebnikov. the book was very critical of Berezovsky, and covered things like his fraudulent business dealings when he ran Aeroflot and Lada. Berezovsky was not always the oppressed dissident he likes to portray himself as.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Lee S. Wolosky(International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign

Relations and Deputy Director of the Council's Economic Task Force on Russia), writes in 2000[14]

Unlike Yeltsin, Putin can count on the support of the public and of the Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament. He has also built bridges with rival political leaders. For a limited time at least, he can use this support to press ahead with difficult reforms.

To do so, however, he must first rein in a dangerous posse of plutocrats riding roughshod over the country. This is something his predecessor could not, or would not, achieve. On the contrary, these oligarchs -- Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Fridman, and others -- largely co-opted Yeltsin's governments, silencing most opposition to their conduct. As a consequence, they now threaten Russia's transition to democracy and free markets.

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Wolosky also writes

The oligarchs dominate Russian public life through massive fraud and misappropriation...Meanwhile, affiliates of Berezovsky and Abramovich acquired control of Sibneft for only $100.3 million. In recent years, Sibneft has produced oil worth $3 billion annually, and its proven reserves rival Texaco's....Despite the fact that these practices are illegal under Russian law, virtually all of Russia's oil oligarchs engage in them...The massive dilution of capital has been another method of pillage. In September 1997, Sibneft (controlled by Berezovsky and Abramovich) engineered the issuance of more than 44 million new shares of its principal production company, Noyabrskneftegaz, at a below-market price. Those shares were sold to affiliates of Sibneft, who then transferred them to the parent company itself. The transaction diluted the equity of existing Noyabrsk stockholders by 75 percent. Because the stock was sold below market price, the transaction also resulted in the transfer of over $400 million in value. And Berezovsky and Abramovich later used their new supermajority voting power to merge Noyabrsk out of existence...The oligarchs' malfeasance has deprived Russia of the private investment it needs to complete its economic transition...The recent unwillingness or inability of Russia's senior leadership to curtail the oligarchs' predation raises serious questions not only about the prospects for the development of free markets and the rule of law, but about Russian democracy itself. After the last presidential election, in 1996, the oligarchs captured Yeltsin, his successive governments, and the political process....Russia's energy oligarchs have invested wisely; they provided Yeltsin's 1996 presidential campaign with unlimited financial support, which enabled him to wrest victory from Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov. And the oligarchs were amply rewarded for their generosity. Both Potanin and Berezovsky served in high government office, Potanin as first deputy prime minister and Berezovsky as deputy secretary of the National Security Council and then as secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States....Even after Chernomyrdin's ouster, the oil oligarchs' privileged access to power continued. Berezovsky and Abramovich allegedly handled Yeltsin family finances....Berezovsky's agent, Nikolai Aksenenko, was until recently the first deputy prime minister. Another Berezovsky proxy, Alexander Voloshin, is head of the presidential administration....Voloshin, in cahoots with Berezovsky, has been accused by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev of helping orchestrate Yeltsin's removal....Oligarch money has infused all of Russia's major political movements, even the relatively incorruptible, pro-Western, reformist Yabloko bloc. In addition to funding Russia's major political parties, the oil oligarchs offered their own hand-selected candidates during the recent parliamentary elections. Some even stood for election themselves. Yukos' Generalov secured a Duma seat. Berezovsky, who is widely credited with helping mastermind the meteoric rise of the pro-Kremlin Unity Party, won a seat representing a district in Karachay-Cherkessia, and Abramovitch was elected for the remote Chukotski Peninsula....Significantly, Russia also lacks a free press -- not because of government censorship but because of oligarch control of the most meaningful media outlets. Berezovsky controls the ort television station; TV-6; the newspapers Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Novaya Izvestiya, and Kommersant; and Ogonek magazine....Russia's oil oligarchs should be treated like pariahs....

Something to think about.
Demonstrates just how powerful Berezovsky was in Yeltsin's Russia
Most notable perhaps is this
Voloshin, in cahoots with Berezovsky, has been accused by former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev of helping orchestrate Yeltsin's removal

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Washington Times says Litvinyenko was a fantasist - serious allegation from a serious newspaper

Many factors complicated the case. Mr. Berezovsky competed with numerous other exiles of shady reputations for business deals. The dissidents quarreled among themselves. And, as Mr. Sixsmith acknowledges, "The view of Litvinenko as a fantasist, or at least an overly obsessive zealot in the anti-Putin cause, was widespread."

Among his shakier accusations were that the FSB trained the September 11 hijackers, that the Kremlin had a role in the July 2005 bombings in the London Underground trains and that Mr. Putin had "regular sex withunderage boys, the evidence seemingly being that he had been filmed playfully kissing a toddler during his election campaign."

Link[15] Washington Times, June 24, 2007
Looks the Berezovsky narrative is looking more and more unreliable>Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This article is not about Berezovsky or Litvinenko. Only materials about the bombings belong here. If you wanted to cite what Berezovsky or Litvinenko tell about the bombings, that would be relevant.Biophys (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is - Sixsmith is questioning the reliability of Litvinyenko. He is doing it in respect of his statements about the bombings. The analysis is his, not mine, and sourced.

It is going in.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of page - suggestions wanted - how about 14 days or so for comments.

I think the page needs restructuring.
1) Withdrawn.
2)a) I feel authors names, and those of their books are far too high up the page. They should not be in the introduction.
2)b) I think the introduction should concentrate more on the actual undisputed facts, rather than interpretations and theories that have evolved from them. - Status - proposal listed below under "How about this?" - initial compromise agreed, but still open to comments
3)I think the three main theories I know of should be listed together, and then explored afterwards. - Status - discussion started, but needs a LOT more work. Currently debating relative worth of various sources, and balance between various theories. No conclusions reached.
3)a) The first theory is that of terrorist action
3)b) the second theory is that of Russian state involvement
3)c) the third theory is that of a gas explosion, which was exploited by the Russian government.
3)d) any other theories, such as a source suggesting the CIA were involved should be mentioned, but in a minor capacity.
4) In line with WP:UNDUE, as much space, prominence, analysis, etc. should be given to the two theories of terrorism/state involvement, without favouring one over the other. - Status - open for discussion
4)a) the gas explosion theory should be given lesser, but some weight.
4)b) the CIA theory should be mentioned in passing.
4)c) if significant new amounts of material become available, the relative weights of arguments could of course be changed.
5) Where published criticism of sources exists, particularly when the criticism is about aspects of one of the theories above (i.e. terror/state/gas/other)(e.g. Sakwa on Satter), this should be discussed in the analysis sections (such as that on explosives, where e.g. Satter's claims that it must have been the FSB (because only they could get enough RDX in Moscow) have been disputed by several authors who have pointed out that the both Chechen mafia in Moscow and the Dagestani militants have ready access to far more RDX than that used for the bombings). - Status - open for discussion

That's enough points for now
If it is reasonable to do so, it might be an idea to try to keep comments numbered as above, with any new areas given appropriate extra numbers
Well, waiting to hear from you all (hope I get a few different editors involved)
Mariya - x -
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can not discuss a lot of different issues at the same time. Let's take them one by one. Your first suggestion was to rename this article:

LOOKS LIKE IT@S GOING TO TAKE A LOT MORE THAN 14 DAYS!!

New title of this article

Your first suggestion: This article "needs to be retitled - Apartment bombings according to satter and co.".

Oppose. The proposed title Apartment bombings according to satter and co is not encyclopedic, and frankly speaking, ridiculous.Biophys (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm being ironic (look it up) ;)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not be ironic. Be constructive. What exactly new title do you suggest?Biophys (talk) 16:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Note

This is not a formal RFC - it is a discussion. We will see where it leads. If any issues are not commented, that doesn't mean I will change them to my heart's desire.

1) Can, I ask, purely on a personal note, are you an American - you do not have to answer, of course. I am not proposing a change of title. That's how irony works ;)--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP policies. No, you can not change everything without consensus "to your heart's desire".Biophys (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I know you are under stress from your edit war with another user. So lets just forget the irony thing. You just don't get it. The reason I asked if you were American was that in Britain there is a widely held belief that Americans don't understand irony (no offense intended - it is just a cultural difference)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that's out the way, any more comments on the other points?--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Then please mark your first suggestion as "withdrawn". Let's continue.

Your second suggestion

"1)a) I feel their names, and those of their books are far too high up the page. They should not be in the introduction.".

What exactly do you suggest?Biophys (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose my numbering system is starting to look a bit rubbish. 1)a) and 2) really go together.

That does make it my second suggestion. Hopefully the others will hang together in groups.

Really, as stated further on, I'm proposing a simple summary of the facts as the introduction. So presumably that would be what happened in order. Suggestions as to who did it should be at the end of the intro (only outline info) mentioning the 2 principal theories and referring to the 3rd 4th - something along the lines of A number of theory have been proposed to explain the events, including ..., then perhaps list the main two, and then, say, put, amongst others.
the stuff about whose theories they are would then go into the body, in something like a theories explanation 1. 2. 3. etc.
--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Then please place your version of Introduction here. I agree that last paragraph can be moved to the body of the article. The remainder seems to be informative and NPOV. First, we tell bare facts. Then, we tell about notable allegations. Finally, we cite official investigation that officially disproved the allegations.Biophys (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Why have you not used articles in the comment above - just asking, no offence meant. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

The current introduction is simply too long and doesn't comply with WP:MOS. How about this (with references wherever necessary):

The Russian apartment bombings were a series of explosions that hit four apartment blocks in the Russian cities of Buynaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk in September 1999, killing nearly 300 people and spreading a wave of fear across the country. They were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen separatists and together with the Islamist invasion of Daghestan that took place in August 1999 were used as a pretext for the military invasion of the breakaway Chechen Republic, which started on October 1 and came to be known as the Second Chechen War. The Chechen militants and secessionist authorities, however, have denied their involvement in the bombing campaign.

This is more or less uncontroversial, as far as I know. At least this is how it was reported by the mainstream Western media. Colchicum (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You suggested a modified version of the first paragraph from current version and removed the rest:

The Russian apartment bombings were the largest series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Russia's history.[1] Five bombings took place in Moscow and two other Russian cities during ten days of September 1999, and several bombings were prevented. Altogether nearly 300 civilians were killed at night. The bombings,[2] as well as the Dagestan War[3], are considered the causes of the Second Chechen War. Chechen militants were blamed; however, no Chechen field commander accepted responsibility for the bombings and Chechen president Aslan Maskhadov denied any involvement of his government.

I have to disagree, since two next paragraphs are also really important. Let's wait for opinions of others.Biophys (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't suggest to remove the rest, I suggest to move the stuff down. The 5-paragraph long introduction is not appropriate per WP:MOS and doesn't add credibility to the theory. Colchicum (talk) 17:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Colchicum. Nice to have you on board. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we could add this as well.

The bombings ceased after^{check accuracy} a similar bomb was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 23. A few hours^{check accuracy} later, two Federal Security Service (FSB) agents were arrested by local police on suspicion of having planted the bomb.[5] This incident was declared to be a training exercise by the FSB director Nikolai Patrushev.

The bit about air attacks is already covered by the statement saying it is to be considered as one of the causes of the 2nd Chechen war - more information can be added in the main body of the article.
then:

These suspicious events led to allegations that the bombings were in fact a "false flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB.

then:

An independent inquiry carried out in (state when) was inconclusive. The FSB also carried out an investigation declaring separatist militants to be involved in all but the Ryazan bomb, which was a fake. Subsequent analysis of the events by various authors have resulted in a number of theories being current.

We could then VERY briefly list the theories in a form similar to that I suggested earlier.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Colchicum, a few questions. 1. Where WP:MOS tells about the limitations on the size of introduction? I though it should briefly describe the content, exactly like an abstract in a scientific article. 2. Where do you suppose to move next paragraphs? 3. (A comment) The FSB involvement theory has been described in mainstream Western media including book by Satter and several other books. So, this should be mentioned in the Introduction.Biophys (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose the DETAIL of any allegations, such as that you suggested in point 3, should go into the body of the article. the fact that I am putting a mention of the conspiracy theories in the introduction demonstrates that they are to be given some thought. Many articles just tack the conspiracy theories in a paragraph near the end of the article.--Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

The Russian apartment bombings were a series of explosions that hit four apartment blocks in the Russian cities of Buynaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk in September 1999, killing nearly 300 people and spreading a wave of fear across the country. They were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen separatists and together with the Islamist invasion of Daghestan, a republic within the Russian Federation, that took place in August 1999 were used as a pretext for the military invasion of the breakaway Chechen Republic, which started on September 30 and escalated the Second Chechen War. The Chechen militants and secessionist authorities, however, have denied their involvement in the bombing campaign.

The blasts hit Buynaksk on September 4, Moscow on September 9 and September 13 and Volgodonsk on September 16. Additionally, on August 31 there was a smaller explosion in a Moscow shopping mall. Two other bombs planted in apartment blocks were defused in Moscow on September 13 and in Ryazan on September 22. The local police caught two Federal Security Service (FSB) agents suspected of planting the bomb in Ryazan shortly afterwards. On September 24 FSB Director Nikolai Patrushev announced that the Ryazan incident had been a training exercise.

An official FSB investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and concluded that they were organized by Achemez Gochiyaev, who remains at large, and ordered by Islamist warlords Ibn Al-Khattab and Abu Omar al-Saif, who have been killed. Six other suspects have been convicted by Russian courts. However, many observers, including State Duma deputies Yuri Shchekochikhin, Sergei Kovalev and Sergei Yushenkov, cast doubts on the official version and sought an independent investigation. Some others, including David Satter, Yury Felshtinsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky and Alexander Litvinenko, as well as the secessionist Chechen authorities, claimed that the 1999 bombings were a false flag attack coordinated by the FSB in order to win public support for a new full-scale war in Chechnya, which boosted Prime Minister and former FSB Director Vladimir Putin's popularity, brought the pro-war Unity Party to the State Duma and him to the presidency within a few months.

We cannot go into detail on the Litvinenko poisoning, Brezovsky or the Morozovs here. Move them down. Biophys, you know perfectly well that personally I do believe in this theory. But the article as it is doesn't give credibility to it and reads like a propaganda leaflet (ok, two propaganda leaflets of different parties). Colchicum (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the bit I suggested about the arrest of the two FSB officers should be in.
I very much agree with you about sounding like propaganda leafletsMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

plus Satter is not a dissident (AFAIK). I would also be a lot less wordy about naming names etc. in the introduction. The names thing has a lot of contention, and various authors have named various individuals. I think that bit should be in the main body. It is also disputed as to whether the primary purpose of the policy was to bring Putin to power, or to prevent fraud allegations against Yeltsin and his daughter. Mention one, and you are rather obliged to mention the other. Also regarding the Chechen war, as there seems some doubt over its start date, if it is mentioned perhaps the word escalate would be better than started.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:WEASEL, we cannot say "some critics say". escalate - agreed, arrest of the two FSB officers should be in - agreed, to prevent fraud allegations -- how is this related? I am aware that they were doing that, and such things as the dismissal of Skuratov or Primakov are linked to the fraud allegations, but then the bombings could only help here if they boosted Putin's popularity and gave him and the Unity Party an edge over Primakov and Luzhkov, essentially the same thing. We are not discussing their ultimate goal (like protecting "the family" or bringing the FSB to power). Colchicum (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose behind the bombing is not a fact. Simple as that.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Only the result, that Yeltsin resigned, and Putin became president are facts.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose is not a fact, the critics' allegations about the purpose are facts. Colchicum (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Colchicum. I completely agree about Litvinenko poisoning, Brezovsky or the Morozovs, and have no problems with moving those things down. Your version is a good approximation, and it can be accepted after a few modifications. I am not sure that your description of Ryzan incident is better. Previous version tells:

The bombings ceased when a similar bomb was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 23. Later in the evening Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians and ordered air attacks on Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War.[4] A few hours later, two Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who had planted the bomb were caught by the local police.[5] This incident was declared to be a training exercise by the FSB director Nikolai Patrushev.

What's wrong with that?Biophys (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A modified version of second paragraph

I agree with current version by Colchicum except second paragraph that can be modified as follows:

The blasts hit Buynaksk on September 4, Moscow on September 9 and 13, and Volgodonsk on September 16. Several other bombs were defused in Moscow on September 13. A similar bomb was found and defused in the Russian city of Ryazan on September 23. Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians and ordered air attacks on Grozny.[4] A few hours later, two Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who had planted the bomb were caught by the local police.[5] This incident was declared to be a training exercise by the FSB director Nikolai Patrushev.

I think this is all (a) factual information; (b) it is arranged exactly in chronological order; (c) it explain more precisely the incident in Ryzan and its connection with beginning of the Second Chechen war.Biophys (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't agree. It is an opinion that the bombing started the Second Chechen War. That's why we compromised on the wording above. I have similar reservations about your wording about the two FSB officers. It is only assumed they are the bomb planters. No serious examination of this ever occured due to their release. It was the opinion of the local police that they were the two men, but I am not aware to the FSB officers ever confessing to anything.
I by far prefer the version suggested above by Colchicum. As it is, I could complain about the naming of the individuals making the allegations - surely the "most reputable" commentator is Sakwa - , respected very senior academic (the most senior of all the commentators), no signs of political allegience (unlike some of the others), no signs of personal emnity with any of the persons involved in it all (unlike some of the others) - so about as likely to be "neutral" as one is likely to get - and his conclusions are VERY different from that of Satter, Litvenyenko and co. Perhaps THAT should be mentioned in the introduction (Sakwa thinks Dagestani militants are most likely).
After all, I am not aware of any criticisms of Sakwa's character (unlike Litvinyenko - a fantasist - according to experienced (and resopected) British journalist Martin Sixsmith).
Anyway, I thought we had already discussed this once.
Mariya Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And to respond to the point that will be made that an official statement said that the FSB officers planted the "dummy" device - I am not aware of any evidence that says that the FSB officers that were apparently assigned to the task of planting the "dummy" were the same two officers that were picked up by local poloice. It is just an assumption that they were one and the same pair of officers. If anyone has a source which indicates otherwise, then I'm sure we would all be pleased to see it. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And they were certainly NOT caught 'red-handed' as has been suggested earlier on this talk pageMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And what with the Ware link below stating the most likely candidate was Islamist extremists from the North Caucasus , that one full professor, and one associate professor that reckon it was terrorists from the Caucasus region. Against that is balanced Satter, at a PRIVATE research instution, a lesser historian (not a professor), and a couple of journalists. Hmm. Which sources do YOU think are the most reputable? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

---

First of all, they were never convicted by a court of planting it. they were SUSPECTS. The points aboput the war i have already covered, and should be in the main body of the article not the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(1)"When" doesn't mean "because". The bombings ceased on September 16, the rest is an interpretation. The Ryazan incident and Patrushev's reaction are mentioned (2) the agents -- ok, if it is reworded slightly (5) training exercise -- already there. Colchicum (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It was an official statement by Patrushev and others that bombs in Ryzan were planted by FSB agents as a training exercise. All sources tell that the people who planted the bomb were caught. I feel that Colchichum should slightly modify his version based on our comments and insert it. That would be more productive.Biophys (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It is good. I'm still thing about it. Give me 10 mins or so.
Satter isn't a dissident, is he? I thought he was an AmericanMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC) There is also nothing on the Felshtinsky page to suggest he is a dissident eitherMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree. David Satter is not a "dissident". He is a mainstream journalist, author and researcher. Only Litvinenko was often described as a "dissident" in media.Biophys (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm done thinking. His co-writer was arrested for various political things in russia, so he might count. Plus 'the incursion'bit implies it was already ongoing and illegitimate. How about 'a large-scale incursion'. Other than that it is OK by me (I would still rather have a lot less names, but I am looking for compromise - so OK)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammar point. should be 'public support for' not 'to'. plus the point I made about the incursion.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree (in a spirit of compromise - we will never all be happy all the time, plus I have had a lot of concessions, plus I can't do better, plus we need to move on)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am still not sure about a in a new full-scale war. Colchicum (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

clear case for use of the indefinte article. Use of the definite article presupposes reader already has a war in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And he does, see the Second Chechen War. Colchicum (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been at least two wars in Chechnya (don't know how many in the 19th C or before), the reader cannot presuppose which one. The use of the definite article would only be appropriate here if the war at the scale mentioned was already ongoing AND unpopular, and therefore could only refer to one war.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was more or less ongoing and unpopular. It depends on whether you consider the Daghestan War part of it or not. Colchicum (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

But it wasn't a 'full-scale war' before, it was a small incursion. Therefore it changed Note use of the indefinite article in this sentence. Another use of 'the' would be if the line read' support to the escalation of the Chechen conflict' becaase the reader can reasonable assume that the conflict mentioned must be the one mentioned near the top of the article (as the size isn't explicitly mentioned no confusion can occur. Don't mean to cause offence, but you're not a native English speaker, are you? I had to sit through an English lesson once entitled "the thirteen uses of the apostrophe". Now 'that's' tough grammar!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend all night arguing about grammar. Just put in what you think best. I'm sure some other grammar buff will pick it up later. Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Good clarification. Agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Except - the convention in english is to use the explanation on the first usage (i.e. higher up the page)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely all sources (currently cited in this article) tell that the caught FSB officers indeed planted the found bombing devices. Even Patrushev admitted this. As about the Second Chechen war, let's fix it if you object.Biophys (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding the info about the FSB officers in ref5 (in the introduction). It is the one by Satter entitled the The Shadow of Ryazan, from 2002. It only contains the passage

A short time later, with the help of tips from the population, the police arrested two terrorists. They produced identification from the FSB and were released on orders from Moscow.

.Assuming Satter can actually write in English, and assuming the proof-reader/software was not faulty, the sentence does not link the men planting the bombs to the persons arrested. It would have to read "the police arrested 'the' two terrorists. That is what the word "the" is for - to distinguish between a terrorist (as in any terrorist), and the terrorist (i.e. specifically the one who was being hunted). As Satter is an American, and relatively well educated, I assume he can write English correctly. If there is a different passage I should be looking for in Satter's reference, can some please point it out to me. Thanks.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC) There also seems to be some doubt over the actual identity of the FSB officers involved. I quote Satter (ref 5) again

The most serious evidence that the Russian government bombed its own people, however, is presented by the Ryazan incident and, in that case, at least, the Russian authorities are perfectly equipped to refute the allegations that have been made against them. They need only to produce the persons who carried out the Ryazan training exercise, the records of the exercise and the dummy bomb itself.

If the police arrested the two individuals, and they had FSB identity card, how come the police did not feel the need to record their names? How come no-one seems to be able to name the officers?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 03:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually not. Sakwa does not mention them at all[16] as far as I can see. He only makes refernce to the training exercise (his words). He does not mention the police either. Perhaps the esteemed, and very reputable, University Professor, Richard Sakwa does not think it is an important point. For him, the incident seems the important point, rather than the methodology. You can rely on your less reputable sources if you need to keep yourself happy.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The Asia Times[17] was pointing the finger at Yeltsin on September 15th 1999, a good week before the Ryazan 'incident' even happened. So naturally, there is no mention of the two (or three, including the woman) FSB officers. CNN[18] (also well before the Ryazan 'incident' was similarly mentioning that the bombings could be linked to a political feud between Yeltsin and Luzhkov, quoting Viktor IlyukhinMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The BBC report from September 24th[19], reporting Patrushev's statement about it being a training exercise makes no mention of the FSB involvement. Perhaps the BBC did not think it was a critical detail?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction should should really mention the work of Sakwa and Ware in third para

As these two seem to be the most senior academics to have examined the incidents surrounding the bombings, and are both very reputable, I would suggest that the third paragraph could read

An official FSB investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and concluded that they were organized by Achemez Gochiyaev, who remains at large, and ordered by Islamist warlords Ibn Al-Khattab and Abu Omar al-Saif, who have been killed. Six other suspects have been convicted by Russian courts. However, many observers, including State Duma deputies Yuri Shchekochikhin, Sergei Kovalev and Sergei Yushenkov, cast doubts on the official version and sought an independent investigation. Some others, including David Satter, Yury Felshtinsky, Vladimir Pribylovsky and Alexander Litvinenko, claimed that the 1999 bombings were a false flag attack coordinated by the Federal Security Service (FSB) in order to win public support for a new full-scale war in Chechnya, which boosted Prime Minister and former FSB Director Vladimir Putin's popularity, brought the pro-war Unity Party to the State Duma and him to the presidency within a few months. However, a number of observers, including two senior academics, Richard Sakwa, and Robert Bruce Ware, have concluded that the most likely explanation for the bombings was that they were the work of militants from the North Caucasus

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. If Sakwa and Ware support the Russian government version, their views belong to the previous paragraph about the governmental version, not here. Let's separate apples and oranges.Biophys (talk) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sakwa and Ware didn't propose original interpretations or original facts. Moreover, you misrepresent Ware as if he dismissed the alternative explanation altogether. He just discussed both and mildly favored the Islamist version. And there is no need to point out that they are "senior academics". You know, this is not meant to compare them, but Anatoly Fomenko is also a senior academic in some field. Colchicum (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the apparent lack of notability of Pribylovsky, Satter, and Felshtinsky, your view seems strange. Perhaps we should prepare a for/against case between us and take it to an admin for adjudication? To mention their names in the introduction, and not to mention equally and/or more notable commentators seems to be undue weightMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Given the apparent lack of notability of Pribylovsky, Satter, and Felshtinsky". No, all of them not only notable, but the best existing experts in the world on this specific subject of Russian bombings. No surprisingly, we have articles about them. What case? So far only you disagree with everyone else.Biophys (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you read the WP: Notable guidelines, and explain just how you think they are notable? It is certainly possible that I have missed a bit when I read them. Thanks for your help. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to nominate an admin for an quick non-binding (any quick decision could hardly be fair if it was also binding) view on your most recent point?

No, we have various noticeboards for that.Biophys (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So you didn't read the guidelines or notability. Never mind. The problem with claiming that Pribylovsky, Satter, and Felshtinsky, are the best existing experts in the world is that there seems to be no external validation of that claim. You asked me to provide some validation about Ware, which I did. Can you please do me the courtesy of providing me validation for Pribylovsky, Satter, and Felshtinsky? The best place for that validation would be in the discussion of sources (which I started specifically to cover issues such as this).Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So you don't want a neutral opinion from an admin (who one might expect to be neutral). Interesting.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Balance between theories

How much weight / space to we give to each theory - my proposal is given above: terror/state equal prominence. I suggest we list the official theory first, because that seem sconventional —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 18:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

That would break a logical connection of the second and third paragraphs. Besides, placing the official version in the end gives it a higher weight (it looks like a final conclusion). Other than that, I do not have objections to reorder 3rd and 4th paragraphs.Biophys (talk) 18:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I intend to combine all the State involvement theories into one section, perhaps listed by subsection. The whole lot would get the same weight as the terrorist theory (which would include Chechen/dagestanis etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 18:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

To the contrary, we should only briefly mention a conspiracy theory as Colchicum said. Let's focus on facts.Biophys (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a difference of meaning here. Goldfarb/litvenyenko is not all facts. they cannot have known that Putin planned, they are simply not in a senior enough position to know. Berezovsky 'may' know what happened, as he 'may' have been at the discussionsMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean about taking it by sections. Ready for this one now?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait for a day. There are a couple of other editors who might have different opinions. If they do not appear, we can use version of Introduction by Colchichum. No rush.Biophys (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

sounds good to me - my head is broken ;).
I have invited everyone (to keep it neutral) who has made a comment on the talk page to join us (except anonymous users, and banned users), so hopefully, we will get a range of input - I don't want to be doing this every week!Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 09:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, I'd list the official theory first, then the state-theory afterwards. Both deserve equal weight, since the official version is (for a 'state-version' of an event) relatively unreliable and has very many holes. Malick78 (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for the invitation. As far as I can see, this is a typical issue where there is an "official version" and one or many "alternative versions". I would suggest a similar approach to this one:

• September 11, 2001 attacks and
• 9/11 conspiracy theories, or:

• 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and
• Controversies about the 2004 Madrid train bombings

An alternative approach is including the "alternative info" in the article, but in a well-defined area:

• Tunguska event (Speculative hypotheses).

In any case, I don't think the "official" or "historical" version can be mixed with the "alternative" or "conspiracy" hypothesis. That would be definitely unencyclopedic and unfair to the reader. Furthermore, let's remember that Wikipedia is not a primary source, and let's also remember that the opinions about "reliability" of the different versions is largely personal.

Please keep me informed if you'd like some help. Best regards from Spain, --MaeseLeon (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say that 9/11 and Madrid conspiracy theories are definitely 'fringe theories', whereas counter-theories about this are much more widely-held due to Russia's undemocratic nature (they gassed their own citizens in the Moscow theatre, then botched the rescue of those children in Beslan...) - and finding sources that give credence to the state-backed theory isn't that difficult. Hence, it's not at all the same as the 9/11 conspiracy theories... But, I would say that it deserves it's own page like the above events' counter-theories. It might help to unclutter this page. Malick78 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea, at least per WP:MOS. Then current chapters 7 and 9 would be moved to the new article, and only a brief summary would remain here. How do you think: should we also trim down the "list of suspects" in this page since we have them in List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings?Biophys (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Maeseleon, official (vs. unofficial) versions and mainstream (vs. fringe) versions are not necessarily the same things universally. E.g. we don't give much prominence to the official version of the Tiananmen Massacre, or the official Zimbabwean explanation of the recent problems with the country's economy. The al-Qaeda version is prominent in the article September 11, 2001 attacks because it is a mainstream explanation, not because it is an official explanation. And there is no single mainstream version of these events. Both theories are discussed in reliable academic sources (including this one), let alone the fact that Russia is not Spain or the US, the "official" version is partly classified in Russia and is not very easy to source properly. Colchicum (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course. "Mainstream" interpretation (or "majority view" in WP context) may be opposite to an "official" view produced by a corporation, an organization, or a government.Biophys (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Dear friends: problem is, obviously the proponents of alternative hypotheses always think theirs is the only reasonable point of view, no matter how logical or freak. As far as I can see, there is not a historical consensus on this apartment bombings issue, nothing.

I mean: today we know that the Katyn massacre was done by the Red Army. Today there is a historical consensus on that one. But writing that in an Encyclopedia before there was consensus enough, would have been definitely unencyclopedic (and possibly pro-Nazi propaganda). It's not about truth or lack of truth, but about the Encyclopedic method. Encyclopedies are not "frontline historical research papers" (and definitely not primary sources).

I think that the only possible Encyclopedic approach is leaving the mere known facts in the main article, then writing a "controversies about..." article if you wish, properly linked.

Furthermore, as you will easily understand, there are many different views about the validity of different democracies around the world. Many people here in Europe largely support the 9/11 conspiracy theories on the basis that the American democracy is at least as tampered as the Russian (not my opinion, just in case you're wondering). But please keep in mind that yours is not the only possible worldview. --MaeseLeon (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The "conspiracy theory" of the bombings is discussed in numerous reliable sources, there is no reason to worry about original research here or hide its existence. Colchicum (talk) 15:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget that the government of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was de facto independent and recognized by Russia. Their view on who caused the bombings is as legitimate as Russia's view, and Maskhadov stated pretty much right after the invasion that the apartment bombings could very likely be staged by the FSB, and then blamed on Chechnya. Grey Fox (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

THe FSB idea has been discussed at length higher up this talk page. What we need are verifiable quotes from reputable sources (I believe a number of editors have quoted a variety of material further up this talk page). Then we can hopefully proceed towards some sort of concensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 15:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Katyn was done by Cheka (under the name of NKVD), not the Red Army. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Right on that one, Captain Obvious.  :)

Let's see, I'd propose the following: a first part with the plain facts, as aseptic as possible. Then a second part "authory" with the different positions, with a similar length, quoting its origin as much as possible. Then a third part "effects" with its relationship to the 2nd Chechen War. How do you see it? --MaeseLeon (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ryazan - VDV training base - any link?

As the "training" bomb was in Ryazan, which has the VDV training base (and presumably as much RDX as anyone could want) is there a link?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Start date for Second Chechen War.

The article The Arab Foreign Fighters and the Sacralization of the Chechen Conflict - Lorenzo Vidino[20] gives the start of the Second Chechen war as

"The Wahhabi invasion of Dagestan triggered the start of the second Chechen War, which continues today."

Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hence "The Wahhabi invasion of Dagestan" was NOT a part of the second Chechen War, according to your source, just like these apartment bombings were NOT a part of the second Chechen War. Both events (the bombings and Dagestan invasion) "triggered" the second Chechen War.Biophys (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - don't follow your logic. Perhaps it is too early for me. Please elaborate furtherMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When did the Russians first resume attacks on Chechnya (if we must pretend that there was a separate, unconnected, Dagestan War)? anyone know?Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

August 26, 1999, see Second Chechen war.Biophys (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. So can someone explain to me how the bombings in September 1999 caused the war which started in August 1999?. How can a later event (short of time-travel) cause an earlier one. It breaks countless laws of physics and logic.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Very simple. Different sources claim different dates for beginning of the war. Some count the war from air strikes on August 26, others from air strikes in the end of September. Ground operations began only later.Biophys (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Which, oddly enough, is why the compromise term escalate was agreed by some other editors. So I guess you accept escalateMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(By the way, help me with your superior knowledge - how did you make the quotes go small? - Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Bruce Robert Ware makes the point (in this document)[21] that

On September 29, 1999, Putin expressed willingness to begin negotiations with the Chechen leadership, but only on condition that (1) Maskhadov condemn terrorism ‘clearly and firmly;’ (2) he rid Chechen territory of armed bands; and (3) he be willing to extradite ‘criminals’ to Moscow

so the definiteness of the Second Chechen War was only determined at some point after 29th september, so equally well, that could be taken as the date.
Ware also points out another trigger incident,

When Major-General Gennadii Shpigun was kidnapped in Grozny in March 1999, Russian Prime Minister Sergei Stepashin warned that further “terrorist acts” would prompt Russian military intervention aimed at the destruction of bases occupied by the “criminal formations.

In further analysis of the causes of the war, and criticising Evangelista, Ware writes

Indeed, those like Evangelista, who are currently urging Moscow to negotiate a settlement of the conflict might recall that Shpigun was not the first high-level Russian official to be kidnapped in those years. The Russian presidential envoy to Chechnya, Valentin Vlasov, was also held hostage for six months.xv When Moscow attempted to negotiate with Chechen officials its negotiators were taken as hostages. Following Shpigun’s kidnapping, Stepashin drew up plans for an invasion of Chechnya, and prior existence of these plans is one of the reasons for Evangelista’s claim that the invasions of Dagestan were a “pretext” for a Russian “invasion” of Chechnya. Evangelista dismisses my suggestion that, alongside Stepashin’s warning to Maskhadov, these should be regarded as the sort of contingency plans that most other governments would make under similar circumstances.xvi Yet Evangelista explains that Chechen President Dudaev had drawn plans for a war with Russia in 1992,xvii so it would seem that if Evangelista equates planning with the intentional execution of a war then he must consistently hold Chechnya responsible for the first war and count Russia’s 1994 “invasion” as a pretext for the realization of Dudaev’s war plans.

Of course, this can also be chosen as one of the triggers

In February 1999, President Aslan Maskhadov placed Chechnya under the rule of Sharia’ 23 law, an indication that he had effectively surrendered Chechnya to Islamist control. At that time, there were hundreds of Arab gunmen in Chechnya, especially near Urus-Martan and at a military training camp in Serzhen- Yurt.xxviii Many of these fighters had Al Qaida connections, and Al Qaida money underwrote the camp’s expenses.

Or this

The invasions of Dagestan in August and September of 1999 from Al Qaida supported bases in Chechnya resulted in numerous murders and the displacement of 32,000

Dagestanis

Or this

In September 1999, a bomb killed 64 residents of an apartment block in the Dagestani town of Buinaksk. Five local Dagestani Wahhbites were convicted of the blast in 2001. The leader had worked as a cook for Basaev and Khattab at a terrorist training camps in Chechnya, and, in 24 testimony that he later recanted, he stated that the explosives used in the blast had been supplied to him by Chechen militants.

Or this

Russia’s involvement in Chechnya was justified not only because Russia was fighting a defensive war following repeated unprovoked attacks upon its territory and citizens, but also in order to put an end to massive human rights abuses resulting from the hostage industry.

He also states

Russia had about as much justification for going to war with Chechnya in 1999 as the United States had for going to war with Japan in 1941.

Something to think about
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is a much more valid comparison than 9/11, and you probably know that some "conspiracy theories" of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor are not fringe (albeit not mainstream) and are discussed in scholarly literature. And I dislike FDR as much as I dislike Putin. Colchicum (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

OT - I believe I have expounded on the Three Great Insults narrative on my Talk page. If I haven't, I will certainly do so on my Talk page for anyone interestedMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The Dagestan invasion wasn't carried out by the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria Mariya, but by volunteers (including the renegade warlord basayev) and many ethnic Dagestanis. These actions were condemned by the seperatist government of Chechnya. This isn't the start of the Second Chechen War, that war started after Russia invaded Chechnya. The same goes for the apartment bombings. Supposed they were carried out by the people Moscow alleged responsible, none of them was an ethnic Chechen.

Oh and the source above isn't very good. I know it's good faith, but it contains the opinions of one man, and unproven al-qaeda allegations which the ChRI as well as many other analysts have always denied and debunked. Grey Fox (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Russia’s involvement in Chechnya was justified not only because Russia was fighting a defensive war following repeated unprovoked attacks upon its territory and citizens, but also in order to put an end to massive human rights abuses resulting from the hostage industry."

This makes me cringe, if Russia really cared about human rights abuse in Chechnya, and hostage taking, they wouldn't have installed a violent dictator responsible for thousands of dissapearances (Ramzan Kadyrov). Watch the documentary on video google called "Crying Sun". Grey Fox (talk) 15:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be about truth or fairness, but about verifiablity and reputability of sources and authors. That's not my idea, that's Wikipedia. If you want my personal views, you can contact me on my Talk page Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The way you phrased "Something to think about" I thought this mans opinion reflected yours as well. Anyway this guy writes editorials, and there's no practical benefit in including every man's opinion in this article. Bruce Ware or whatever his name has no fame whatsoever and just isn't notable enough. Grey Fox (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss his "reputability", then you can do so under sources above. As a Asoc. Professor at an American University, who has had numerous peer-reviewed papers published on the region (see detail under sources above), I'm not sure I follow your argument.Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

He's a random university teacher Mariya, that's really not what we're after. There's millions university teachers out there, theres probably some editing wikipedia as well. I've known professors myself. Are we supposed to include every professors opinion in this article? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This comes from both sides, we're not after non-notable people's opinion, only highly relevant opinions. If you think there's other references towards journalists/writers who aren't notable enough (that contradict the ideas put forward by this teacher) it's best to try and remove those, but not include other opinions as "counterweight". Grey Fox (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to have made several mistakes with your post

1) Can you please move this to the correct place above (discussion of sources, so it is logically filed with the rest)

2) Anyone who has been to university is likely to have known one or more professors, but your remark does not affect the validity of the source, and is your remark is therefore meaningless

3) Whether or not there are millions (as you put it) of university teachers (and I would like to know if you ahve any data to support your number, or whether it is just prejudice) does not affect the validity of the source, and is your remark is therefore meaningless

4) You seem to have either not read, misread, misunderstood, or misbelieved Prof. Ware's CV linked above. So your remarks about notability does not affect the validity of the source, and is your remark is therefore meaningless

5) I assume from your use of empty arguments that you have no reputable sources criticising Prof Ware, despite the substantial amout of published work he has

Can you please do me the politeness of debating on the actual point, not your prejudice against sources your were not aware of and/or don't like

There is an easy answer, of course, qand if you insist on making pointless propaganda comments about sources (see the Poisoning the well), then I shall have to call in an administrator to make a ruling and point out your errors
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You've insisted before on nicely discussing things in this article, are you shifting from that now? Anyway Bruce Ware has no fame whatsoever, and there are far more relevant academic opinions of known writers we can use here. Grey Fox (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I returned it to the staus quo when the discussion about revising the whole article appeared. From your comments, I can see only that Prof ware does not suit your POV, as you have produced NO evidence whatsoever to support your claims. If you continue with your rude and disruptive editing, i will be takinh this to an admin for adjudication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 16:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong Mariya? What edits are you talking about? And no I've repeatedly denied that my objection to insert dozens of editorials is part of my point of view, I categorially place it into a broad context, involving any type of editorial. Please assume good faith. Grey Fox (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion of several academics, and their relevance to the WP main article, further up this talk page. Perhaps you would like to contribute any relevant points you have thereMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)