Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings

Mention of Cyclonite in CNN Source
Hey @Mellk, you reverted my edit because you say the CNN source does not mention that residents at first believed the sacks to be filled with cyclonite. This is the exact wording of the source: "A resident late Wednesday night noticed two men carrying what looked like sugar sacks into the basement of the 12-story apartment in Ryazan, 200 kilometers (125 miles) south of Moscow. He alerted police, who found three sugar sacks in the basement with a timer and detonators. The sacks were filled with small crystals that resembled cyclonite, the powerful sugar-like explosive which destroyed several apartment blocks across Russia over the last month, killing up to 300 people." I interpreted this as the resident and the local police at first identified the substance as cyclonite, which the source says looks similar to sugar, so it needs to be mentioned here or else the reference to "sugar" is just confusing. I think I see now though, I could edit the sentence before it instead, as a better and more neutral-sounding edit. LightProof1995 (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I do not see the point of adding this new sentence when the first sentence in that paragraph already says: A suspicious device resembling those used in the bombings was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian city of Ryazan on 22 September. So this just becomes repetitive. You also added quotes but these were misattributed. You added the quote "sacks of suspected explosives" and "small crystals that resembled cyclonite, the sugar-like explosive" but these is what CNN says, not quotes from the police. Mellk (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I added a little bit about sugar-like substance resembling RDX, since I suppose it makes it a little bit clearer. Mellk (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Mellk, I think your edit is great :) Good job and thank you for helping me with it! LightProof1995 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Aimen Dean
, can you explain why you've removed Aimen Dean's testimony? Are there RS which say that his book is unreliable? I don't see how WP:FRINGE is applicable here. There is some compelling indirect evidence but not smoking gun and reasonable people have different opinions about these events. Alaexis¿question? 19:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Dean's book and claim is fine to cite, but and way less detail and space should be given, since it's a PRIMARY claim from Dean's bio. I mean a confession over a phone call he made in 1999, before he was an asset? That's not verifiable by anyone, even if CIA/MI6 were to rack him over that, which is probably why it's not been reported by anyone else, and likely won't be reported by anyone else reputable. Like I said, he's an RS and it's not a BLP, but more than a blurb is UNDUE. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, one sentence should be enough.
 * Aimen Dean, a Western spy within the al-Qaeda, reported on a phone call with Abu Said al-Kurdi—a logistics chief for Chechen jihadis- in which he said that the apartment bombings were perpetrated by the Islamic Emirate to revenge the atrocities committed by the Moscow OMON in the Caucasus.
 * WDYT? Alaexis¿question? 05:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty much fine, with two things I'd change (your style of English is slightly different from mine, so how I interpret this may be different): "reported on" and "in which he said" sound to me like Aimen Dean is acting in this role as something of a journalist, rather than the witness/participant. I'd word it more like: [Dean] "[said]/[wrote that]/[reported] he had a phone call in 1999 with al-Kurdi ... in which al-Kurdi said that ...". The only main change is to add the year of the call, and to replace the "he" with "al-Kurdi" to make it clearer that Dean is reporting not a possible fact or conjecture (as would be the case if it were "... in which Dean said ...") but what was said during the call. Please consider and reword as you see fit. SamuelRiv (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not actually my style but rather that of an IP editor who added this information. I've made the changes in line with your suggestions. Alaexis¿question? 23:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I have brought this issue to Reliable Source Noticeboard. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out there, there are more serious problems with the way Dean's account is used here - he is specifically skeptical of al-Kurdi's claims throughout the cited section and concludes that who was actually responsible may never be known. Personally I would prefer to omit entirely unless a secondary source can be found, but if we do include then we have to include those aspects or we're risking misusing the source. --Aquillion (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please move your responses from the RSN thread to here. It's neither a fact nor an assumption -- it's what Dean told Cruickshank and Lister, and the latter two generally believe Dean. What was on a phone call in 1999 cannot be independently verified, and no substantial facts were given that would make it any more verifiable than any further investigation in the bombing story. Whether Dean is reporting what he heard accurately, or whether al-Kurdi was lying for any possible reason, is unknowable to the authors. So the paragraph is a simple statement: Dean reports that al-Kurdi told him this over the phone in 1999. That has exactly the reliability it sounds like it has, being unverifiable. In the context of the quality of everything reported about the bombings, a short sentence is all the weight it could or should be given. SamuelRiv (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dean himself doesn't have a position on this, he literally wrote "[j]ust how the bombings occurred and who was responsible will probably never be known for sure." We surely don't need to add it to this article, which is not about Dean. Alaexis¿question? 14:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Btw, if we are to believe Dean, the British intelligence did not ignore his report and it influenced their assessments (The information gleaned from the al-Kurdi call had at least raised questions about the bleakest appraisals of Russia’s new leader). Hopefully once it's not longer classified we'll get a confirmation or refutation from them. Alaexis¿question? 14:47, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Content Removed. The RSN discussion brought 3 new editors to this conversation, and they unanimously supported removal. Atlantic306 "not reliable", TFD "The best approach is to avoid it", Aquillion "prefer to omit entirely". Along with myself that makes 4. To the extent the source is considered reliable it still presents problems for use, and it presents messy and contradictory information. At best it is a poor source and we shouldn't attempt to include long messy analysis of the source in the article. The British Government or other secondary sources can be considered if they have published, or ever do publish, about this. Alsee (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see that User:Aquillion has since edited the article adding some context. Alaexis¿question? 08:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis as I quoted above, four people say we should not be using this source. When someone identifies fixable problems AND they say it shouldn't be used at all, you cannot just ignore the part you don't like. I suggest you not WP:Editwar the losing end of 4 v 2. Alsee (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of how the people at RSN assessed the source seems to misinterpret what RSN is for, which is (in cases like this) to give advice on assessing a specific RS. If you want a consensus it has to be here, in the article Talk page, and if one can't be reached it should have an RfC (inappropriate at this stage because there is inadequate discussion without the emergence of two clear good options). 's comments in RSN and above are the only ones that were really useful IMO in terms of how to actually help improve the situation of sourcing and how to properly contextualize the statement, if it's to be included, without making it look undue. I agree with all of their points, except that I would advocate for more effort to finding a reasonable way to give this some mention, anywhere in the range of a vague allusion with a wl to Dean, but ideally with further secondary coverage. If non-Russian-government unofficial theories can be consolidated briefly into a separate brief subsection, that would improve things as a start. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * SamuelRiv I am active contributor on the RFC Feedback request service and an experienced RFC closer. I am more than happy to participate in an RFC if necessary, and I will certainly respect the outcome. However given that my requests for uninvolved editor feedback have thus far brought 4 uninvolved editors opposed to using the source and ZERO uninvolved editors supporting using the source (totaling 5 vs 2), I would humbly suggest that opening an RFC here would be a frivolous, disrespectful, wasteful use of the community's time.
 * Regarding Aquillion's comments, I agree they are "useful [] in terms of how to actually help improve the situation of sourcing and how to properly contextualize the statement, if it's to be included". However you single mindedly disregard the words after the comma in that quote, and disregard that Aquillion "would prefer to omit entirely unless a secondary source can be found". Just because something can be improved does not mean that improvement is sufficient to remedy the problems. When I've worked in the Article Deletion process I sometimes cast a delete vote AND improved the articles in case we ended up keeping them. In most cases those articles ended up deleted because no amount of improvement could remedy the underlying problem. Alsee (talk) 18:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * (from RSN) First, WP:NOTBURO means we don't discount editors' opinions because those opinions were posted on that page (RSN) rather than this page. Having to post the same opinion on two pages is annoying and unnecessary. Anyway, I don't think an attributed statement to this autobiography is WP:DUE unless other RSes cite the autobiography for the statement, at which point those other RSes should be cited rather than citing the autobiography directly. (A person's memory is a primary source, so I think citing someone's recollection in an autobiography is citing a primary source.) This is exceptionally true for exceptional claims, like who perpetrated a massacre. Levivich 16:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Perpetrators
The perpetrators of this were the FSB and other Russian Government agencies. The infobox should say so. The second paragraph makes this clear:

This is contradicted only by Russian Government "investigations". But the Russian Government is not a remotely credible source. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not true, as the Russian_apartment_bombings section shows. Also, recently Aimen Dean wrote that Ibn Khattab told him he had done it. Personally, I find the government involvement version plausible and even likely but it's still disputed and should be described as such. Alaexis¿question? 11:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing the infobox so that only the accused Islamists are named or only the FSB is quite obviously pushing a POV. The paragraph does not say the FSB were in fact behind the bombings. Mellk (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * These recent POV edits are also unhelpful. Mellk (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 April 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  17:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Russian apartment bombings → 1999 Russian apartment bombings – This article has a way too general title. Yesterday Russia bombed itself at Belgorod and while doing a Google search I ended up in a Second Chechen War article. That should say something. Super  Ψ   Dro  16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support per nomination. The main title header, Russian apartment bombings, is indeed incomplete. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Rename there have been many such inccidents over the centuries -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom—blindlynx 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sources check
Let's have a look at sources supporting Others disagree with such theories or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks in the lead. Because I see for example ''Ware, Robert Bruce (2005). "Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies.'' and he is a philosopher. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking further, there is 2002 book by Strobe Talbott. Not sure of his reliability - what is his academic degree in a field? His book discusses the matter in only 3 paragraphs and he concludes There was no evidence to support this conspiracy theory, although Russian public opinion did indeed solidify behind Putin in his determination to carry out a swift, decisive counteroffensive. He provides no explanation and does not mentions Ryazan incident at all. His book has been finished late January 2002 which means just a little bit more than 2 years has passed after the event. Manyareasexpert (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Going further, Pope, Ronald R. (2004). "Feature review. Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State". The best he says against the FSS bombing is "Pankratov argues that if the alleged attempted bombing in Ryazan was masterminded by the FSS, we should assume they have been able to keep the lid on the cover-up..." so Pope don't disagree but quotes Pankratov (who is Pankratov?) doubting the "alleged attempted [FSS] bombing" version, so Pope's position is to not to disagree but to doubt. Manyareasexpert (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. What are you suggesting to do about this? Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Newer sources should be preferred.Developments in Russian Politics 10 - Google Books The 1999 Moscow Bombings Reconsidered in: Russian Politics Volume 8 Issue 3 (2023) (brill.com) ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It was previously discussed here. Yes, according to the book by Pete Earley (based on interviews with Sergei Tretyakov (intelligence officer)), one should not cite Talbot as an authority on this subject. At best, he knew nothing of substance and just provided his personal opinion. There are so many sources on this subject that one must be selective. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there is an overall consensus of best sources right now that the bombings were almost certainly conducted by Russian secret services. Some controversy is related to the existence or lack of "direct evidence". But would not someone caught red-handed while planting a bomb be a direct evidence? That is what had happen with FSB agents in the city of Ryazan. My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely think the language should be switched up. As of now it sounds like there is a 50/50 split between the two opinions. Most sources I have seen as of late definitely attributes the attacks to FSB, albeit not conclusively. This line "The attacks were widely attributed to Chechen terrorists, although their guilt has never been conclusively proven.", also needs a change. It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations. I'm interested in seeing what changes you have in mind so feel free to make them and we can discuss it here further if there is anything. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let me think about it. Or you can just fix it yourself. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As a double check for "due weight", I am making Google books search for "Russian apartment bombings", and first 5 books in the list (Satter, Goldfarb, Dunlop, Felshtinsky) strongly assert that the bombings were conducted by the FSB/GRU. These books are specifically on the subject of these bombings or dedicate them at least a big chapter. 6th book (Soldatov) mentions the bombings mostly in passing and expresses a concern that they were work by the "services". Next book (by Amy Knight) also says it was conducted by Russian services. And so on. I do not have much time for fixing this page, so will do it quickly. My very best wishes (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that using top 5 books from the google books search results is a good method. For all we know, they could generate different results for different users to confirm their beliefs.
 * Andrei Soldatov is definitely a subject matter expert, so his opinion should stay in the article even if it contradicts other viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. Alaexis¿question? 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, and I did not remove his opinion, just shortened it. As of note though . I shortened a big paragraph with their views for a few reasons. It says: "and claims by Trepashkin were highly dubious." Which claims by Trepashin? He made a lot of claims. As about the ""Muslim Society", they say according to Russian state security services, .... Yes, exactly. Everything we supposedly know about the role of Gochiyaev in this "Society" is according to Russian state security services, and they lied a lot regarding these bombings. But OK, we can keep it, just rephrase. My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, the sentence starting from "According to Russian state security services" can be removed or rephrased if more sources can be found. Alaexis¿question? 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I remember, the claim that Gochiyaev was a leader of this "Muslim Society" was a lie and a part of his framing by the FSB - according to the book by Dunlop. Actually, the only book saying he was indeed a leader of this "Society" ("according to the FSB") is the "Nobility" by Soldatov. No doubts, he had excellent connections with FSB people who fed him various info. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations. This is precisely what the source says, and the quote is there. We are not going to rely on WP:OR. Mellk (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which source? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Last edit by Mellk provides this link, but the quote is not there. However, this is the lead, a summary of the content on the page. I just removed this phrase for now, simply because it does not to fit the rest of the text. My very best wishes (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory and you have made a lot of edits since then, so I have not checked what was removed. Mellk (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A revert

 * . Well, several participants suggested to change this (see above), and that is exactly what I did. Moreover, the content is sourced to this link, and the quotation is simply not there. This ref should be either fixed or removed, together with text. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * . And I see one editor who suggested to change this based on OR. But I guess you do have objections now despite the edit summary? Mellk (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what exactly and  wanted to fix, so would rather wait for their comments. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, it is not really possible to have a discussion with you when you go ahead with several changes between each comment, including repeated changes to text being actively discussed. Mellk (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with my edits, please explain why or suggest a new/compromise version. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted you (twice) and responded to the discussion. In the edit summary you said you had no objections to this being restored "somewhere", then started a new section here and said you would rather wait for others' comments, and despite all this, still continued making changes to the text in question and restoring some of the previous changes. So I am not sure, is a 3RR warning needed instead? Mellk (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but it was you (not me) who made two reverts. Moreover, you did not really explain here why you did these reverts. Yes, after saying "I have no objections to this being restored somewhere" in edit summary, I did not revert your edit, but rather modified text to improve it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I just said I reverted you twice, and you continued with partial reverts. You put "per talk" as the reason for this. I gave my reason for reverting you above. But I am not going to play these games anymore. Mellk (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said, I am OK with your last revert. What exactly my edit you disagree with (a diff) and what reason did you give? I have no idea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I already said the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory, therefore your initials changes were not accurate summaries. Anything else I should repeat? Mellk (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory". Yes, of course. I agree and always agreed with it, and it is reflected in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As found above, the lead sentence "Some others disagree with this or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks.[24][25][26][27][28]" contain sources which weakly support the statement, their support is questionable or arguable, are old, are not on subject, are not an expert on a subject, or vice versa. This should be reworked, newer sources preferred. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead is just a summary of the page and does not require referencing directly in the lead. You are welcome to rewrite or whatever. I am more concerned about first phrase in the same para: "The attacks were attributed... ". Attributed by whom? And this is definitely not a correct summary of content on the page (as already noted in discussion above). This phrase should be removed, rewritten or moved somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this article doesn't have many active editors/edits so if we would wait for article body to be changed we may never improve. In our situation, let's say it is possible to edit the lead directly.Agree regarding "were attributed". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. So, I fixed accordingly. As about the phrase you talked about, I thought just removing it would be OK because we do not say that everyone agrees with the claim in the previous phrase (which perhaps would be a proper balance), but this apparently caused objection by Mellk, hence I kept it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)