![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I have protected the article until this dispute has been resolved. Please come to a consensus and let either me or WP:RFPP know when the page is ready to be unprotected. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the article. Nakon 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I just noticed that there are two articles featuring essentially the same content: Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and Theories of the Russian apartment bombings. The articles are a a textbook example of WP:POVFORK - one is written primarily in support of the FSB involvement claim ("Evidence"), the other - against it ("conspiracy theory"). I would suggest merging these two into one article with a neutral title, such as Russian apartment bombings controversy. This would allow us to merge the sections "Attempts at independent investigation" and "Theory of Russian government involvement" into a single "Controversy" section, that would list the findings of the Kovalev commission and the FSB involvement theory, as well as provide a short summary of the currently disputed "relevant events" section, that is currently discussed in detail in both of those articles. -- Illythr ( talk) 10:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be blocking anyone attempting to continue the edit war, regardless of the 3RR rule. If you can not come to a consensus on this page, please consider opening a request for comments. Nakon 05:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a dispute between two sets of users regarding the inclusion of a "Related Events" section. The article's history is full of edit wars over this section and the article has been protected twice in response to the edit warring. I have unfortunately began to block editors that continue to edit war over this section but it does not seem to have an effect. I would like to gain a consensus regarding the inclusion or exclusion of this section so that these editors can contribute constructively to this article's development. Nakon 21:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I notified Nakon about this. In view of the recent reverts by IP, I suggest the following: (1) revert whole article or at least the disputed section to last version by Nakon; (2) semi-protect article; (3) make only non-controversial changes that do not cause objections by others; and (4) if there are objections, discuss and vote until new consensus found. Biophys ( talk) 22:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, older is not necessary mean worse. The versions in the current edit war seem to have a lot of difference. Can some kind soul summarize the differences so it would be easier to discuss and find a compromise Alex Bakharev ( talk) 12:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Response to Alex: here are some of the problems in the Biophys version.
Dear user Radeksz,
You wonder, why I restored the version of the intro based on universally recognized facts.
Let me explain my position. Theory of FSB involvement is not recognized by serious actors -- like, governments of the leading countries. Instead, in days of this great tragedy they sent condolescences to the Russian people.
That's why it's reasonable to view first of all the well-recognized facts. Of course, after the facts are viewed, the existing conspiracy theories are also mentioned.
ellol ( talk) 05:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Biophys made the same revert to a year old version of the lead again. [3] Compare the versions: [4] [5]. Only one sentence in the lead was changed. How many times are you going to revert back to this year old version, ignoring all the improvements and discussions by many editors? Offliner ( talk) 16:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the lead can be improved, but in any case the solution is not to restore a year old version, undoing dozens of edits by several editors. Offliner ( talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(reindent) If you search for 9/11 conspiracy theories you may also come to a conclusion that majority of the publications support them. There is even a huge WP article which covers them as well as their criticisms in detail. The "standard practices" of CIA are as notorious as ones of KGB a lot of people have prejudices about both agencies. However the lead in September 11 attacks does not mention the conspiracy theories at all. There is also no mention of any "pretext" there as well, citing the official view only: "US responded to the attacks by launching...". Why can't this article follow the suit? ( Igny ( talk) 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
That's a strange point. The official version indeed suffers from some under-clarified points. Much of the information is classified, what prevents historians from operating on richer basis of the information.
But it's not a reason to equalize the weight of the conspiracy theory with that of the official version.
E.g., that's what Richard Sakwa writes in his "Putin: Russia's choice":
[skipped] Moscow sent considerable forces to defeat the invasion and to destroy the fundamentalist salafite enclaves in Dagestan. In response, according to the official version, the insurgent forces (assumed typically to be Chechens, but also involving Dagestanis) decided to take the battle to Moscow and Russia. On 31 August one person was killed and 45 injured when a bomb damaged the underground Manezh shopping complex. [skipped]A primed bomb ready to destroy yet another apartment block was found in Ryazan on the night of 22–23 September, and although the FSB claimed that this had been a test exercise with a ‘dummy’ bomb, the incident still requires full explanation. These terrible events created a climate of fear and, to a degree, retribution against Chechens, although the involvement of Chechens in these atrocities remains uncertain. The pressure was on for some sort of response, and Putin’s resolute statements and decisive actions, including the willingness to take personal responsibility, won
him considerable popularity. Failure to act at this time would have conclusively discredited the Russian government.
The fundamental course of Barsenkov and Vdovin on Russia's history of XXth century does not even mention the Apartment Bombings. Instead, authors believe that the major reason that allowed Putin to win the election was his set of views. That set of views was expressed in his December 1999 article "Russia at the turn of the millennium".
I was a kid that time, but as a personal account (if that's interesting), I remember that there were 2 major factors before the election: earlier -- war in Chechnya (Chechens and Chechnya were indeed appreciated that time with great apprehension) and later -- Putin's idea that there's no need to engage in political chat or make promises, but instead to work and let people see the results (people were tired of empty promises). ellol ( talk) 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Will you please refrain from edit warring and blind reverting people while discussion and attempts at compromise are going on talk? Doing so, particularly without explaining your edits as you did here [8], is very disruptive. radek ( talk) 15:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well let us see. There are 5 paragraphs in this version of the lead of about the same size. 1/2 of the first actually describes the primary events, 300 killed. The second half of the first paragraph connected the events to the Chechens and Chechen war. The 2nd paragraph described in details some activity of FSB which it called suspicious. The third paragraph went on the accusations of the false flag attack, including one sentence mentioning that there are criticisms of such a claim. The fourth paragraph in detail described some Duma drama seemingly connected to the events (I remind you that Russian Duma is notorious for its dramas). The fifth finally described the conclusions of the official investigation, while noting that the convicts denied involvement.
I am now asking if there is anyone who sees any problems with this version of the lead. ( Igny ( talk) 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC))
I think in order to resolve this you first need to stop referring to outside (non-Russian government official line) investigations as "conspiracy theories". I believe the Russian government version is already mentioned in the lede so I don't understand what your problem with also including independent versions of the bombing in the lede is, since you state that you are fine with the lead including both. radek ( talk) 06:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ellol, once again, will you please refer to the top of this section? Why are you removing any mention of the investigations from the lead? Surely the info belongs in there. BTW, the term might "convenient" but in this context it is also POV. radek ( talk) 18:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This edit summary this version has too many problems, as described on talk is not very helpful. Obviously the other version has too many problems. You articulated the problems you have with something like this version above, [10], I took care of one problem, explained why the other ones weren't problems (because asserting something isn't the same thing as making an argument) and further work for a compromise version was done by Biophys. You have not responded to my response. At this point this is beginning to look like completely obstinacy to insist on "your" version, rather than working with other editors in building consensus. Please respond above and here. radek ( talk) 18:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Which concerns have not been addressed? Can somebody explain this in more detail? I read the versions and the one Radek reverted to seems more neutral to me. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I corrected usages of commas, definite articles, and indefinite articles in sentences, and tried to clarify some of the more poorly written areas. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that all of the people claiming that the Russian Government was involved in the bombings, (instead of being too inept to prevent them as a result of Yeltsin's "Democratic Reforms") all have ties to Boris Berezovski, who claimed that he wants to topple Putin via a revolution.
It should also be mentioned that Berezovski has a history of trying to frame Putin for everything under the Sun, including Basaev asking Putin invade Dagestan, but stop at the Terek River, before reaching Chechnya. I have discussed why that is ridiculous here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)#Berezovki.27s_Conspiracy_Theory.2C_aka_why_we_all_should_learn_Georgraphy, and interested users can find the link. Additionally, Berezovski tried to blame Putin, (not Kadyrov) for the assasination of Anna Politkovskaya. Of course people like Berezovski don't need proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)#Berezovki.27s_Conspiracy_Theory.2C_aka_why_we_all_should_learn_Georgraphy. And of course who can forget the Berezovski clique blaming Russia for daring to defend herself. Those statements were so dead wrong, that even Rupert Murdoch withdrew his statements.
Why the frame up? Well here's an article: http://www.siberianlight.net/berezovsky-says-he-wants-to-overthrow-putin-by-force/. Berezovsky says he wants to overthrow Putin – by force. It'd be funny if it wasn't true. Of course the rabble rousers will yell "that's a Russian Newspaper!" How's the Guardian for you? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/13/topstories3.russia I am plotting a new Russian revolution. London exile Berezovsky says force necessary to bring down President Putin. Quoting the article: "We need to use force to change this regime," he said. "It isn't possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure." Asked if he was effectively fomenting a revolution, he said: "You are absolutely correct."
Wouldn't a person plotting to remove Putin from power, or Medvedev from power who came out of Putin's United Russia, blame Putin for everything under the Sun? Why are certain editors using Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories? BTW, Wikipedia has something about Conspiracy Theories. Something about "not making conspiracies look more credible than they already are. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 08:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yulia Latynina recently spoke with criticism of Anderson's article at Echo Moskvy:
“ | Теперь собственно о взрывах домов. Десять лет прошли при полном молчании власти и шумном торжестве либеральной оппозиции, обсуждавшей только одну версию – версию о причастности к взрывам ФСБ. Причем масло в огонь подлила статья Скотта Андерсена «Владимир Путин – темное восхождение к власти», опубликованная в американском «GQ», запрещенная к переводу в российском. Статью мгновенно везде перепечатали. Даже те, кто ее не читал, знают, что она была. Статья г-на Андерсена почти дословно воспроизводит утверждение Михаила Трепашкина. Это бывший сотрудник ФСБ РФ, который за свои утверждения был совершенно несправедливо посажен в тюрьму и отсидел, единомышленник г-на Литвиненко, с которым, как известно, случилось еще хуже – его угостили полонием. Так что вокруг этих обеих фигур, бесспорно, заслуженный ими ореол мучеников.
Я стала читать эту статью и немножко обалдела. Например, я прочла в этой статье, что чеченцы не взрывали дома, потому что им это не выгодно. С таким же успехом можно сказать, что Кремль, видимо, не имеет никакого отношения к запрещению статьи г-на Андерсена, потому что это же ему не выгодно. Не говоря уж о том, что это точно не Кремль отравил Литвиненко, ему же это не выгодно. Или, например, я прочла в статье г-на Андерсена, что из членов парламентской комиссии, которые занимались расследованием взрывов в Москве, двое погибли. Я бы сказала, что это, мягко говоря, нечистоплотное утверждение. Это типичный «черный пиар». Действительно, Сергей Юшенков и Юрий Щекочихин погибли. Мы знаем, кто убил Юшенкова, даже человек сидит, мы догадываемся, почему убили Щекочихина. Это в любом случае не имело никакого отношения ко взрывам в Москве. И когда видишь такой аргумент в статье, то, естественно, начинаешь сильно сомневаться. Я буду говорить о взрывах в Москве уже после новостей. А сейчас вкратце скажу, что я считаю версию о том, что взрывы сделала ФСБ, не просто абсурдной версией. Я считаю, что эта версия нарочно придумана Борисом Абрамовичем Березовским после того, как его отлучили от власти. Я сейчас постараюсь это доказать. И мой главный аргумент заключается в том, что, поскольку Борис Абрамович был одним из тех людей, которые приводили Путина к власти, то он совершенно точно знает, что это не так. Потому что если бы не Борис Абрамович приводил Путина… Он инсайдер. Если бы он в момент того, когда они делали Путина (как вся семья делала Путина), почувствовал, что за Путиным стоит кто-то еще, какие-то страшные силовики, которые дома взрывать могут, то они бы Путина выкинули, как горячую картошку. Т.е. это версия не интеллигента, а инсайдера, который точно знает, что это не так. Перерыв на новости. [11] |
” |
Not sure what article does this info fit the best -- GQ, Russian apartmtnt bombings, or the Theories, but it's certainly interesting. Latynina is not a person who thinks favourably about the Kremlin or Putin, rather than that, she counted among their harshest opponents.
ellol ( talk) 09:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SatterHouseTestimony2007.pdf
1. Putin was never head of the secret service. He was (is?) a Col. of the KGB. That's not the same as head of the KGB.
2. Criminal Division of property was actually subject to re-examination.
3. The Second Chechen War didn't achieve popularity overnight.
4. Article states that bribes grew ten times in value; article doesn't mention the inflation, nor that the amount of bribes lessened, nor that the Russian standard of living, at the very least doubled under Putin.
5. Article confuses WWII with Stalin's Purges, which were pre-WWII. This is why historians study those thingies called dates.
6. Attack against Estonia was done primarily by Russian hackers and their allies. The article fails to mention that the attack came in response to Estonia's "Hero of USSR Removal Program".
7. Russia offered to cooperate with Litvinenko's murder, if the trial was to take place in Russia. Article doesn't mention this, instead it portrays Russia as "refusing to cooperate". HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 21:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Re:4. Russian per capita GDP, which is what is usually taken as a standard of living grew by about 60% under Putin (not "at the very least doubled" which would be 100%+). This implies a growth rate of about 4.5-4.7% per year. This is actually nothing to sneeze at - I think basically you're failing to realize how big a doubling of living standard actually is (maybe, just maybe, if you can trust the official data, China's the only country that has ever managed to pull off a doubling within a decade - the 90's). But it doesn't help to be sloppy, with this point, or the others. radek ( talk) 10:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It probably depends on which set of figures you look at. I was using Penn World Tables [12] which is the dataset most relied on academically. Growth of GDP per capita already embodies changes to population (% change in GDP per capita = % change in total GDP - % change in population). I think the doubling would be an upper bound estimate. radek ( talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
What's probably going on here is the difference in PPP adjustment - basically during Putin's time, in addition to other factors, Russia also benefited from a substantial improvement in its terms of trade, specifically with the price of oil. So yes, it does seem that in PPP adjusted terms, it grew at close to 100%. radek ( talk) 23:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3665772/All-roads-lead-back-to-Berezovsky.html
It's about Litvinenko's murder, but it also shows who is really behind the conspiracy theory claim, due to Putin's "betrayal" of his "henchmen". How dare did Putin not follow the Davos Pact. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 00:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This article does it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
Why exactly are we trying to insist that calling a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory, against NPOV? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Russian_apartment_bombings&action=historysubmit&diff=329775558&oldid=329774888 Wikipedia has very clear rules, that we cannot make conspiracy theories appear more than they are. Yet now I am branded a POV warrior, for calling a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory.
What are the facts? There are none, it's all hearsay, perpetrated by a single, anti-Russian Government group.
On the other hand you have Khattab, who used a similar Modus Operandi to bin Laden, stating that he did it. Then realizing that nobody liked his terror tactics in Dagestan to begin with, and that this incident isolated Khattab's terror group completely, he suddenly starts denying evidence. Instead a person from a non-existent "Dagestan Liberation Army" calls, and uses the exact same speech that Khattab used. Here, compare:
"The mujahideen of Dagestan are going to carry out reprisals in various places across Russia."
"Our response to the bombings of civilians in the villages in Chechnya and Dagestan."
Well he changed reprisals to response, and added Chechnya, a funny act by the "Dagestan Liberation Army", but otherwise the texts are identical.
Here is another sample, (from this very article):
"From now on, we will not only fight against Russian fighter jets and tanks. From now on, they will get our bombs everywhere. Let Russia await our explosions blasting through their cities. I swear we will do it."
And the mysterious caller "said that the explosions in Buynaksk and Moscow were carried out by his organization. According to him, the attacks were a retaliation to the deaths of Muslim women and children during Russian air raids in Dagestan. "We will answer death with death," the caller said".
But nobody heard of his "organization" before or after the blasts.
Khattab did it. He threatened to do it, he carried it out, and the Russian Government was blamed, because they were sloppy, disorganized, and careless.
And all the people who are accusing the Russian Government are those who either want to overthrow it by use of force, or are directly tied to those who want to overthrow by the use of force. If it walks like a conspiracy theory, and it quacks like a conspiracy theory, it's a ... HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
IMHO the Conspiracy Theory is just OK. More than 10 years have passed. The time is ripe to stop teasing readers with "may be"'s and to be more encyclopaedic. There are no proofs of the theory that would stand in a court, but there's the rich criticism of it. It's the conspiracy theory. ellol ( talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is the previously inserted quote by Jeremy Putley:
"Jeremy Putley, who had written an article in October 2002 for "The Spectator" supporting the view that the Russian FSB was responsible for the bombing campaign ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/10496/getting-away-with-murder.thtml) reviewed the book "Darkness at Dawn" for the August 20, 2003 issue of "Prospect", also expressing support for that view."
My problem was not that the quote was inserted, but with how it was inserted. Someone placed it under scholars but Putley is just a reviewer, not a scholar. Additionally it was placed as criticizing the conspiracy theory, whereas in reality it supports the conspiracy theory. Ergo I removed it, because I don't believe that they article should become a battlefront of he said/she said crap. If Putley's notable enough to make such a review, he should be properly included. If not, then he should not be included. And his notability to make such a statement has yet to be established. A blogger, parroting what larussophobe says, is not notable. http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jeremy-putley/ HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 07:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone please source it, is it Caucasian race or Peoples of the Caucasus as the context doesn't provide this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There are now references to sacks with "sugar" in Ryazan being tested somewhere outsite the city. When exactly that was done? According to book by Rdward Lucas, FSB indeed claimed about the test, but it was done much later, not the day when sucks were found. Biophys ( talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The recent edits by Biophys do not meet NPOV criteria. Under the guise of "a more detailed abstract", Biophys writes: " They were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen separatists and together with the Islamist invasion of Daghestan 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."
"Quickly blamed by the Russian Government", does that sound NPOV to anyone? Additionally, factual evidence showed that everyone in government was in favor of the Second Chechen War, so it would not make sense to bomb your own popular to support a war that already had widespread support.
Biophy continues:
"The (then) Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians and ordered air attacks on Grozny. The local police caught two Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who planted the bomb in Ryazan shortly afterwards. "
However he has yet to cite an NPOV that those were FSB agents. I don't really see what air attacks on Grozny have to do with anything, except a cheap shot against Russia that is superbly unencyclopedic.
"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 Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page)." was not what the source says, so I checked it. "Как сообщила в 16-часовом выпуске новостей телекомпания НТВ, при экспертизе в подозрительных мешках взрывчатых веществ не обнаружено." - As the 1600 News Block on NTV announced, when the suspicious looking sacks were checked, no explosives were detected. That's exactly what the source says, and it should not have been removed. Reworded, maybe, removed, definitely not.
And I think the Ryazan explanation and expansion should go into the Ryazan column. Just my two cents. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 20:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I made a few edits to keep this article as factual as possible and only briefly mention theories that are described in a separate article. All factual events belong here. Long debates of "theories" belong there. OK? Biophys ( talk) 04:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
All sources tell that investigation was supervised and conducted by the FSB as a serious terrorism case (in US that would be handled by the FBI). But let's talk about our main disagreement. We have two options here: (a) we leave only a brief description of theories in this article, and the theories are debated in detail in a separate article, Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings (that is what I tried to do in last edits), or (b) we discuss the theories here, with all pro and contra (then the "Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings" should be eventually deleted as a POV fork). I would agree with any option. Which one do you prefer? Biophys ( talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I see no troubles with the article in its current state. The Conspiracy theory is laid out, then, its criticism is provided.
There's no support of the conspiracy theory, which does not use authority ("McCain said there are serious evidence in support of the theory." McCain did not say which ones.) As the option, I can propose removing any mentions of the conspiracy theory at all.
The Criticism section in this article was not copypasted from the article "Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings". Rather than that, the corresponding section in the "Explanation attempts" article was copypasted from this article. You can see it in 1) history of the "Explanation attempts", 2) the criticism list in this article is better updated, than the one in the "Explanation attempts".
I object inclusion of a section, which reviews the books. Yet, these books are listed in the Bibliography section of this article. ellol ( talk) 14:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The story of Russian apartment bombings with the time passing becomes a matter of history. And as such, it can't depend on mere speculations. If you can reference solid evidence in favour of the conspiracy theory, you are more than welcome to do that. If you can't, do not harm this article with any more speculation of opposition politicians that's not based on any publicly available evidence. ellol ( talk) 13:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Books that provide no definitive conclusion, but consider such scenario highly probable:
Books claiming that bombings definitely were not committed by the FSB:
Everyone is welcome to continue these lists of books by experts to see which list will be longer. Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 04:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please propose something definite or else what is the point of the discussion? I would propose again to remove the word 'conspiracy' from the section heading and let the readers decide by themselves whether it's a conspiracy theory or no based on the sources in that section. Alæxis ¿question? 19:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I have protected the article until this dispute has been resolved. Please come to a consensus and let either me or WP:RFPP know when the page is ready to be unprotected. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the article. Nakon 23:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I just noticed that there are two articles featuring essentially the same content: Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings and Theories of the Russian apartment bombings. The articles are a a textbook example of WP:POVFORK - one is written primarily in support of the FSB involvement claim ("Evidence"), the other - against it ("conspiracy theory"). I would suggest merging these two into one article with a neutral title, such as Russian apartment bombings controversy. This would allow us to merge the sections "Attempts at independent investigation" and "Theory of Russian government involvement" into a single "Controversy" section, that would list the findings of the Kovalev commission and the FSB involvement theory, as well as provide a short summary of the currently disputed "relevant events" section, that is currently discussed in detail in both of those articles. -- Illythr ( talk) 10:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I will be blocking anyone attempting to continue the edit war, regardless of the 3RR rule. If you can not come to a consensus on this page, please consider opening a request for comments. Nakon 05:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
There appears to be a dispute between two sets of users regarding the inclusion of a "Related Events" section. The article's history is full of edit wars over this section and the article has been protected twice in response to the edit warring. I have unfortunately began to block editors that continue to edit war over this section but it does not seem to have an effect. I would like to gain a consensus regarding the inclusion or exclusion of this section so that these editors can contribute constructively to this article's development. Nakon 21:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I notified Nakon about this. In view of the recent reverts by IP, I suggest the following: (1) revert whole article or at least the disputed section to last version by Nakon; (2) semi-protect article; (3) make only non-controversial changes that do not cause objections by others; and (4) if there are objections, discuss and vote until new consensus found. Biophys ( talk) 22:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, older is not necessary mean worse. The versions in the current edit war seem to have a lot of difference. Can some kind soul summarize the differences so it would be easier to discuss and find a compromise Alex Bakharev ( talk) 12:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Response to Alex: here are some of the problems in the Biophys version.
Dear user Radeksz,
You wonder, why I restored the version of the intro based on universally recognized facts.
Let me explain my position. Theory of FSB involvement is not recognized by serious actors -- like, governments of the leading countries. Instead, in days of this great tragedy they sent condolescences to the Russian people.
That's why it's reasonable to view first of all the well-recognized facts. Of course, after the facts are viewed, the existing conspiracy theories are also mentioned.
ellol ( talk) 05:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like Biophys made the same revert to a year old version of the lead again. [3] Compare the versions: [4] [5]. Only one sentence in the lead was changed. How many times are you going to revert back to this year old version, ignoring all the improvements and discussions by many editors? Offliner ( talk) 16:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the lead can be improved, but in any case the solution is not to restore a year old version, undoing dozens of edits by several editors. Offliner ( talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
(reindent) If you search for 9/11 conspiracy theories you may also come to a conclusion that majority of the publications support them. There is even a huge WP article which covers them as well as their criticisms in detail. The "standard practices" of CIA are as notorious as ones of KGB a lot of people have prejudices about both agencies. However the lead in September 11 attacks does not mention the conspiracy theories at all. There is also no mention of any "pretext" there as well, citing the official view only: "US responded to the attacks by launching...". Why can't this article follow the suit? ( Igny ( talk) 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC))
That's a strange point. The official version indeed suffers from some under-clarified points. Much of the information is classified, what prevents historians from operating on richer basis of the information.
But it's not a reason to equalize the weight of the conspiracy theory with that of the official version.
E.g., that's what Richard Sakwa writes in his "Putin: Russia's choice":
[skipped] Moscow sent considerable forces to defeat the invasion and to destroy the fundamentalist salafite enclaves in Dagestan. In response, according to the official version, the insurgent forces (assumed typically to be Chechens, but also involving Dagestanis) decided to take the battle to Moscow and Russia. On 31 August one person was killed and 45 injured when a bomb damaged the underground Manezh shopping complex. [skipped]A primed bomb ready to destroy yet another apartment block was found in Ryazan on the night of 22–23 September, and although the FSB claimed that this had been a test exercise with a ‘dummy’ bomb, the incident still requires full explanation. These terrible events created a climate of fear and, to a degree, retribution against Chechens, although the involvement of Chechens in these atrocities remains uncertain. The pressure was on for some sort of response, and Putin’s resolute statements and decisive actions, including the willingness to take personal responsibility, won
him considerable popularity. Failure to act at this time would have conclusively discredited the Russian government.
The fundamental course of Barsenkov and Vdovin on Russia's history of XXth century does not even mention the Apartment Bombings. Instead, authors believe that the major reason that allowed Putin to win the election was his set of views. That set of views was expressed in his December 1999 article "Russia at the turn of the millennium".
I was a kid that time, but as a personal account (if that's interesting), I remember that there were 2 major factors before the election: earlier -- war in Chechnya (Chechens and Chechnya were indeed appreciated that time with great apprehension) and later -- Putin's idea that there's no need to engage in political chat or make promises, but instead to work and let people see the results (people were tired of empty promises). ellol ( talk) 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Will you please refrain from edit warring and blind reverting people while discussion and attempts at compromise are going on talk? Doing so, particularly without explaining your edits as you did here [8], is very disruptive. radek ( talk) 15:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Well let us see. There are 5 paragraphs in this version of the lead of about the same size. 1/2 of the first actually describes the primary events, 300 killed. The second half of the first paragraph connected the events to the Chechens and Chechen war. The 2nd paragraph described in details some activity of FSB which it called suspicious. The third paragraph went on the accusations of the false flag attack, including one sentence mentioning that there are criticisms of such a claim. The fourth paragraph in detail described some Duma drama seemingly connected to the events (I remind you that Russian Duma is notorious for its dramas). The fifth finally described the conclusions of the official investigation, while noting that the convicts denied involvement.
I am now asking if there is anyone who sees any problems with this version of the lead. ( Igny ( talk) 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC))
I think in order to resolve this you first need to stop referring to outside (non-Russian government official line) investigations as "conspiracy theories". I believe the Russian government version is already mentioned in the lede so I don't understand what your problem with also including independent versions of the bombing in the lede is, since you state that you are fine with the lead including both. radek ( talk) 06:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Ellol, once again, will you please refer to the top of this section? Why are you removing any mention of the investigations from the lead? Surely the info belongs in there. BTW, the term might "convenient" but in this context it is also POV. radek ( talk) 18:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This edit summary this version has too many problems, as described on talk is not very helpful. Obviously the other version has too many problems. You articulated the problems you have with something like this version above, [10], I took care of one problem, explained why the other ones weren't problems (because asserting something isn't the same thing as making an argument) and further work for a compromise version was done by Biophys. You have not responded to my response. At this point this is beginning to look like completely obstinacy to insist on "your" version, rather than working with other editors in building consensus. Please respond above and here. radek ( talk) 18:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Which concerns have not been addressed? Can somebody explain this in more detail? I read the versions and the one Radek reverted to seems more neutral to me. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I corrected usages of commas, definite articles, and indefinite articles in sentences, and tried to clarify some of the more poorly written areas. — Rickyrab | Talk 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It should be mentioned that all of the people claiming that the Russian Government was involved in the bombings, (instead of being too inept to prevent them as a result of Yeltsin's "Democratic Reforms") all have ties to Boris Berezovski, who claimed that he wants to topple Putin via a revolution.
It should also be mentioned that Berezovski has a history of trying to frame Putin for everything under the Sun, including Basaev asking Putin invade Dagestan, but stop at the Terek River, before reaching Chechnya. I have discussed why that is ridiculous here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)#Berezovki.27s_Conspiracy_Theory.2C_aka_why_we_all_should_learn_Georgraphy, and interested users can find the link. Additionally, Berezovski tried to blame Putin, (not Kadyrov) for the assasination of Anna Politkovskaya. Of course people like Berezovski don't need proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invasion_of_Dagestan_(1999)#Berezovki.27s_Conspiracy_Theory.2C_aka_why_we_all_should_learn_Georgraphy. And of course who can forget the Berezovski clique blaming Russia for daring to defend herself. Those statements were so dead wrong, that even Rupert Murdoch withdrew his statements.
Why the frame up? Well here's an article: http://www.siberianlight.net/berezovsky-says-he-wants-to-overthrow-putin-by-force/. Berezovsky says he wants to overthrow Putin – by force. It'd be funny if it wasn't true. Of course the rabble rousers will yell "that's a Russian Newspaper!" How's the Guardian for you? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/13/topstories3.russia I am plotting a new Russian revolution. London exile Berezovsky says force necessary to bring down President Putin. Quoting the article: "We need to use force to change this regime," he said. "It isn't possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure." Asked if he was effectively fomenting a revolution, he said: "You are absolutely correct."
Wouldn't a person plotting to remove Putin from power, or Medvedev from power who came out of Putin's United Russia, blame Putin for everything under the Sun? Why are certain editors using Wikipedia to promote conspiracy theories? BTW, Wikipedia has something about Conspiracy Theories. Something about "not making conspiracies look more credible than they already are. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 08:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yulia Latynina recently spoke with criticism of Anderson's article at Echo Moskvy:
“ | Теперь собственно о взрывах домов. Десять лет прошли при полном молчании власти и шумном торжестве либеральной оппозиции, обсуждавшей только одну версию – версию о причастности к взрывам ФСБ. Причем масло в огонь подлила статья Скотта Андерсена «Владимир Путин – темное восхождение к власти», опубликованная в американском «GQ», запрещенная к переводу в российском. Статью мгновенно везде перепечатали. Даже те, кто ее не читал, знают, что она была. Статья г-на Андерсена почти дословно воспроизводит утверждение Михаила Трепашкина. Это бывший сотрудник ФСБ РФ, который за свои утверждения был совершенно несправедливо посажен в тюрьму и отсидел, единомышленник г-на Литвиненко, с которым, как известно, случилось еще хуже – его угостили полонием. Так что вокруг этих обеих фигур, бесспорно, заслуженный ими ореол мучеников.
Я стала читать эту статью и немножко обалдела. Например, я прочла в этой статье, что чеченцы не взрывали дома, потому что им это не выгодно. С таким же успехом можно сказать, что Кремль, видимо, не имеет никакого отношения к запрещению статьи г-на Андерсена, потому что это же ему не выгодно. Не говоря уж о том, что это точно не Кремль отравил Литвиненко, ему же это не выгодно. Или, например, я прочла в статье г-на Андерсена, что из членов парламентской комиссии, которые занимались расследованием взрывов в Москве, двое погибли. Я бы сказала, что это, мягко говоря, нечистоплотное утверждение. Это типичный «черный пиар». Действительно, Сергей Юшенков и Юрий Щекочихин погибли. Мы знаем, кто убил Юшенкова, даже человек сидит, мы догадываемся, почему убили Щекочихина. Это в любом случае не имело никакого отношения ко взрывам в Москве. И когда видишь такой аргумент в статье, то, естественно, начинаешь сильно сомневаться. Я буду говорить о взрывах в Москве уже после новостей. А сейчас вкратце скажу, что я считаю версию о том, что взрывы сделала ФСБ, не просто абсурдной версией. Я считаю, что эта версия нарочно придумана Борисом Абрамовичем Березовским после того, как его отлучили от власти. Я сейчас постараюсь это доказать. И мой главный аргумент заключается в том, что, поскольку Борис Абрамович был одним из тех людей, которые приводили Путина к власти, то он совершенно точно знает, что это не так. Потому что если бы не Борис Абрамович приводил Путина… Он инсайдер. Если бы он в момент того, когда они делали Путина (как вся семья делала Путина), почувствовал, что за Путиным стоит кто-то еще, какие-то страшные силовики, которые дома взрывать могут, то они бы Путина выкинули, как горячую картошку. Т.е. это версия не интеллигента, а инсайдера, который точно знает, что это не так. Перерыв на новости. [11] |
” |
Not sure what article does this info fit the best -- GQ, Russian apartmtnt bombings, or the Theories, but it's certainly interesting. Latynina is not a person who thinks favourably about the Kremlin or Putin, rather than that, she counted among their harshest opponents.
ellol ( talk) 09:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SatterHouseTestimony2007.pdf
1. Putin was never head of the secret service. He was (is?) a Col. of the KGB. That's not the same as head of the KGB.
2. Criminal Division of property was actually subject to re-examination.
3. The Second Chechen War didn't achieve popularity overnight.
4. Article states that bribes grew ten times in value; article doesn't mention the inflation, nor that the amount of bribes lessened, nor that the Russian standard of living, at the very least doubled under Putin.
5. Article confuses WWII with Stalin's Purges, which were pre-WWII. This is why historians study those thingies called dates.
6. Attack against Estonia was done primarily by Russian hackers and their allies. The article fails to mention that the attack came in response to Estonia's "Hero of USSR Removal Program".
7. Russia offered to cooperate with Litvinenko's murder, if the trial was to take place in Russia. Article doesn't mention this, instead it portrays Russia as "refusing to cooperate". HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 21:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Re:4. Russian per capita GDP, which is what is usually taken as a standard of living grew by about 60% under Putin (not "at the very least doubled" which would be 100%+). This implies a growth rate of about 4.5-4.7% per year. This is actually nothing to sneeze at - I think basically you're failing to realize how big a doubling of living standard actually is (maybe, just maybe, if you can trust the official data, China's the only country that has ever managed to pull off a doubling within a decade - the 90's). But it doesn't help to be sloppy, with this point, or the others. radek ( talk) 10:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It probably depends on which set of figures you look at. I was using Penn World Tables [12] which is the dataset most relied on academically. Growth of GDP per capita already embodies changes to population (% change in GDP per capita = % change in total GDP - % change in population). I think the doubling would be an upper bound estimate. radek ( talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
What's probably going on here is the difference in PPP adjustment - basically during Putin's time, in addition to other factors, Russia also benefited from a substantial improvement in its terms of trade, specifically with the price of oil. So yes, it does seem that in PPP adjusted terms, it grew at close to 100%. radek ( talk) 23:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3665772/All-roads-lead-back-to-Berezovsky.html
It's about Litvinenko's murder, but it also shows who is really behind the conspiracy theory claim, due to Putin's "betrayal" of his "henchmen". How dare did Putin not follow the Davos Pact. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 00:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
This article does it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
Why exactly are we trying to insist that calling a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory, against NPOV? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Russian_apartment_bombings&action=historysubmit&diff=329775558&oldid=329774888 Wikipedia has very clear rules, that we cannot make conspiracy theories appear more than they are. Yet now I am branded a POV warrior, for calling a conspiracy theory, a conspiracy theory.
What are the facts? There are none, it's all hearsay, perpetrated by a single, anti-Russian Government group.
On the other hand you have Khattab, who used a similar Modus Operandi to bin Laden, stating that he did it. Then realizing that nobody liked his terror tactics in Dagestan to begin with, and that this incident isolated Khattab's terror group completely, he suddenly starts denying evidence. Instead a person from a non-existent "Dagestan Liberation Army" calls, and uses the exact same speech that Khattab used. Here, compare:
"The mujahideen of Dagestan are going to carry out reprisals in various places across Russia."
"Our response to the bombings of civilians in the villages in Chechnya and Dagestan."
Well he changed reprisals to response, and added Chechnya, a funny act by the "Dagestan Liberation Army", but otherwise the texts are identical.
Here is another sample, (from this very article):
"From now on, we will not only fight against Russian fighter jets and tanks. From now on, they will get our bombs everywhere. Let Russia await our explosions blasting through their cities. I swear we will do it."
And the mysterious caller "said that the explosions in Buynaksk and Moscow were carried out by his organization. According to him, the attacks were a retaliation to the deaths of Muslim women and children during Russian air raids in Dagestan. "We will answer death with death," the caller said".
But nobody heard of his "organization" before or after the blasts.
Khattab did it. He threatened to do it, he carried it out, and the Russian Government was blamed, because they were sloppy, disorganized, and careless.
And all the people who are accusing the Russian Government are those who either want to overthrow it by use of force, or are directly tied to those who want to overthrow by the use of force. If it walks like a conspiracy theory, and it quacks like a conspiracy theory, it's a ... HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 06:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
IMHO the Conspiracy Theory is just OK. More than 10 years have passed. The time is ripe to stop teasing readers with "may be"'s and to be more encyclopaedic. There are no proofs of the theory that would stand in a court, but there's the rich criticism of it. It's the conspiracy theory. ellol ( talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Here is the previously inserted quote by Jeremy Putley:
"Jeremy Putley, who had written an article in October 2002 for "The Spectator" supporting the view that the Russian FSB was responsible for the bombing campaign ( http://www.spectator.co.uk/spectator/thisweek/10496/getting-away-with-murder.thtml) reviewed the book "Darkness at Dawn" for the August 20, 2003 issue of "Prospect", also expressing support for that view."
My problem was not that the quote was inserted, but with how it was inserted. Someone placed it under scholars but Putley is just a reviewer, not a scholar. Additionally it was placed as criticizing the conspiracy theory, whereas in reality it supports the conspiracy theory. Ergo I removed it, because I don't believe that they article should become a battlefront of he said/she said crap. If Putley's notable enough to make such a review, he should be properly included. If not, then he should not be included. And his notability to make such a statement has yet to be established. A blogger, parroting what larussophobe says, is not notable. http://en.wordpress.com/tag/jeremy-putley/ HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 07:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone please source it, is it Caucasian race or Peoples of the Caucasus as the context doesn't provide this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arenlor ( talk • contribs) 07:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There are now references to sacks with "sugar" in Ryazan being tested somewhere outsite the city. When exactly that was done? According to book by Rdward Lucas, FSB indeed claimed about the test, but it was done much later, not the day when sucks were found. Biophys ( talk) 03:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The recent edits by Biophys do not meet NPOV criteria. Under the guise of "a more detailed abstract", Biophys writes: " They were quickly blamed by the Russian government on Chechen separatists and together with the Islamist invasion of Daghestan 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."
"Quickly blamed by the Russian Government", does that sound NPOV to anyone? Additionally, factual evidence showed that everyone in government was in favor of the Second Chechen War, so it would not make sense to bomb your own popular to support a war that already had widespread support.
Biophy continues:
"The (then) Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians and ordered air attacks on Grozny. The local police caught two Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) agents who planted the bomb in Ryazan shortly afterwards. "
However he has yet to cite an NPOV that those were FSB agents. I don't really see what air attacks on Grozny have to do with anything, except a cheap shot against Russia that is superbly unencyclopedic.
"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 Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page)." was not what the source says, so I checked it. "Как сообщила в 16-часовом выпуске новостей телекомпания НТВ, при экспертизе в подозрительных мешках взрывчатых веществ не обнаружено." - As the 1600 News Block on NTV announced, when the suspicious looking sacks were checked, no explosives were detected. That's exactly what the source says, and it should not have been removed. Reworded, maybe, removed, definitely not.
And I think the Ryazan explanation and expansion should go into the Ryazan column. Just my two cents. HistoricWarrior007 ( talk) 20:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I made a few edits to keep this article as factual as possible and only briefly mention theories that are described in a separate article. All factual events belong here. Long debates of "theories" belong there. OK? Biophys ( talk) 04:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
All sources tell that investigation was supervised and conducted by the FSB as a serious terrorism case (in US that would be handled by the FBI). But let's talk about our main disagreement. We have two options here: (a) we leave only a brief description of theories in this article, and the theories are debated in detail in a separate article, Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings (that is what I tried to do in last edits), or (b) we discuss the theories here, with all pro and contra (then the "Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings" should be eventually deleted as a POV fork). I would agree with any option. Which one do you prefer? Biophys ( talk) 17:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I see no troubles with the article in its current state. The Conspiracy theory is laid out, then, its criticism is provided.
There's no support of the conspiracy theory, which does not use authority ("McCain said there are serious evidence in support of the theory." McCain did not say which ones.) As the option, I can propose removing any mentions of the conspiracy theory at all.
The Criticism section in this article was not copypasted from the article "Explanation attempts for the Russian apartment bombings". Rather than that, the corresponding section in the "Explanation attempts" article was copypasted from this article. You can see it in 1) history of the "Explanation attempts", 2) the criticism list in this article is better updated, than the one in the "Explanation attempts".
I object inclusion of a section, which reviews the books. Yet, these books are listed in the Bibliography section of this article. ellol ( talk) 14:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The story of Russian apartment bombings with the time passing becomes a matter of history. And as such, it can't depend on mere speculations. If you can reference solid evidence in favour of the conspiracy theory, you are more than welcome to do that. If you can't, do not harm this article with any more speculation of opposition politicians that's not based on any publicly available evidence. ellol ( talk) 13:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Books that provide no definitive conclusion, but consider such scenario highly probable:
Books claiming that bombings definitely were not committed by the FSB:
Everyone is welcome to continue these lists of books by experts to see which list will be longer. Thank you. Biophys ( talk) 04:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please propose something definite or else what is the point of the discussion? I would propose again to remove the word 'conspiracy' from the section heading and let the readers decide by themselves whether it's a conspiracy theory or no based on the sources in that section. Alæxis ¿question? 19:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)