Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings/Archive 6

Why did you revert?
What exactly "emotional stuff" are you talking about? There was none. Everything was completely sourced. If something was not, please mark as "unsourced". Or please fix any errors starting from the current version. I made 18 edits. Let's consider them in reverse order. What was problem with this? With this? With this? And so on and so on. Please explain. I did no reverts yesterday.Biophys (talk) 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A good example of emotional vs. rational stuff:
 * Your version: They [bombings] 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.
 * My version: Together with the Invasion of Dagestan launched from Chechnya in August 1999 by Islamist militia led by Shamil Basayev and Ibn al-Khattab, the bombings caused the Russian Federation to intensify the Second Chechen war.
 * This needs to be discussed. May be a compromise version?Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything is sourced, that's fine, but we don't need here further details into the conspiracy theory, if there are no, albeit tiniest, facts in support of the theory. ellol (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding your examples, 1 raises no questions, 2 removes the sentense "He [Tkachenko] added that the detonator was a hunting cartridge and that it would not be able to detonate any known explosives", 3 is the fine example of emotional stuff. I am sure, that the list of facts, investigated by Kovalev would be 100% more approppriate here. ellol (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to fix it, please fix it in the current version instead of making blind reverts. Same applies to any other specific issues you disagree with.Biophys (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please self-revert right now and allow me to include the phrase by Tkachenko and make any other specific changes you want? Or you can do it yourself in last version.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not quite understand what are you asking me for! Why would I revert to a version I disagree with? Besides, you ignore my objections sounded above, e.g., about inclusion of Galkin's testimonies, obtained under torture. ellol (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I ask you to self-revert. Then me or you will include the phrase by Tkachenko you want to be included. If you have any other specific disagreements with current version, please post them here, and we will fix everything after discussion. We can include the note that Galkin was tortured, for example. Note that it is you who started edit war today after a series of constructive changes we both made yesterday.Biophys (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any disagreements with the current state of the article. That's why I made the revert. Thanks, and hope for constructive cooperation. ellol (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, current version of the article is the last version excluding your revert to an older version. In other words, you are going to continue reverts instead of working towards compromise with the last version. And that is what you call "constructive cooperation".Biophys (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope, that you follow the consensus previously reached at this talk page, in particular, regarding the evidence of Galkin, obtained under torture. Please, explain, why do you believe that evidence obtained under torture can be viewed in a civilized society? ellol (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, let's remove Galkin from last version and discuss it again. To be constructive, let's do the following. Could you please make a list what exactly was wrong with the last version (Galkin, etc.)? Then I will either fix all of them or temporarily remove for discussion. OK? Biophys (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope, that you follow the consensus previously reached at this talk page, in particular, regarding the evidence of Galkin, obtained under torture. Please, explain, why do you believe that evidence obtained under torture can be viewed in a civilized society? ellol (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, let's remove Galkin from last version and discuss it again. To be constructive, let's do the following. Could you please make a list what exactly was wrong with the last version (Galkin, etc.)? Then I will either fix all of them or temporarily remove for discussion. OK? Biophys (talk) 16:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * As we agreed to remove Galkin's testimony, we have to remove at least from this article, dependent contents such as this.
 * In the edit from the previous point, I also disagree with removal of the wording "Conspiracy theory". Why can't we call a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory?
 * I disagree with removing the subsection "Theory of Ibn Al Khattab's Involvement" as a structural unit (despite its contents is saved).
 * I disagree with removal of analysis by Dr. Robert Bruce Ware, an associate professor of Southern Illinois University.
 * I believe, that inclusion of the reviews of books and movies related to the bombings deserves better discussing: ; principally, I don't have cardinal objections against it, but am not sure whether it belongs to this article; so I propose to discuss whether to include it with more discussion participants.
 * Regarding the inclusion of points of support of the conspiracy theory in this edit, I can agree to leave the officials part of that; the "analysts" section there is based solely on emotions: a good example is "although it sounds far-fetched at first, remember that the FSB is simply the renamed KGB", so I vote strongly for removal the "analysys" from this edit; I did not understand as well the passage about "Putin's willingness to shut down Novaya Gazeta" -- Novaya Gazeta is alive and sound, and it was never shut down, so it's simply dis-informing Wikipedia readers.
 * I disagree with providing details on Felshtinsky/Pribylovsky theory, as "they did not provide any direct evidence to back up their claims about FSB involvement in the bombings", as one of commentors say; so, the passage edited in this edit should be removed.
 * This edit, beyond simply rearranging stuff, removes an important claim: On September 2, Al-Khattab announced: "The mujahideen of Dagestan are going to carry out reprisals in various places across Russia."
 * This edit removes an important claim by Basayev: In an interview to the Czech newspaper Lidove Noviny on September 9, Shamil Basayev denied responsibility, saying: "The latest blast in Moscow is not our work, but the work of the Dagestanis. Russia has been openly terrorizing Dagestan, it encircled three villages in the centre of Dagestan, did not allow women and children to leave."
 * About this edit: while providing chronology is generally a good idea, this edit fails to pass as a fair depiction.
 * Regards, ellol (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Specific problems with current version

 * As we agreed to remove Galkin's testimony, we have to remove at least from this article, dependent contents such as this.
 * You suggest to remove not only Galkin testimony, but also any references to his testimony taken from the books. Fine, let's remove everything about Galkin for now, but only to discuss it here. No, we did not agree. There is no consensus to remove. Let's discuss.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, let's discuss, and let's invite more people to discuss. ellol (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could I ask you, if it's not very difficult, to initiate the discussion? Or, as an option, I can initiate it myself. Because simply having a discussion doesn't guarantee peaceful resolution of the argument, would you agree to invite, for example, Alex Bakharev to draw the conclusion of the discussion, after all arguments are made? ellol (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He already stated his view on inclusion of materials about Galkin (see discussion above), and I can agree with him.Biophys (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, it's a win-win situation for you. So, would you agree for a discussion, and to accept the whatever conclusion made by Alex Bakharev? ellol (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree to discuss, and he is a good mediator. I can't promise anything, but I would like to accept any reasonable compromise he might suggest per the policies.Biophys (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you explain, please, which decisions of the mediator would be unacceptable for you? (If that's your point.) After all, the mediator is supposed to take a decision. We can't know which one. But if we don't agree to accept his decision, this all will end in another edit war.
 * I hope, you understand, that the alternative to mediating this question is an edit war. I can agree, that unfortunately, as Russians say, "the choice is not rich", i.e., there are just a few of options in this situation. However, personally, I would be happy to engage in some less senseless activity than edit warring. Regards, ellol (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done as you asked.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However, you said nothing about what you are intended to do in regards of this question, and what principles are you going to follow. ellol (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the edit from the previous point, I also disagree with removal of the wording "Conspiracy theory". Why can't we call a conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory?
 * How about mentioning word "conspiracy" in the text?Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not to mention it once in the header and forget of that problem? ellol (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The wording "conspiracy theory" is not used in the header of the section. ellol (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removing the subsection "Theory of Ibn Al Khattab's Involvement" as a structural unit (despite its contents is saved).
 * Let's keep it.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with removal of analysis by Dr. Robert Bruce Ware, an associate professor of Southern Illinois University.
 * It is currently included. That was a duplication. Certainly, let's keep.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It was not a duplication.
 * What you saved is: According to Dr. Robert Bruce Ware of Southern Illinois University, "The assertions that Russian security services are responsible for the bombings is at least partially incorrect, and appears to have given rise to an obscurantist mythology of Russian culpability. At the very least, it is clear that these assertions are incomplete in so far as they have not taken full account of the evidence suggesting the responsibility of Wahhabis under the leadership of Khattab, who may have been seeking retribution for the federal assault upon Dagestan's Islamic Djamaat."
 * While you removed somewhat quite a stronger statement: According to Dr. Robert Bruce Ware, an associate professor of Southern Illinois University, the best explanation for the apartment block blasts is that they were perpetrated by Wahhabis under the leadership of Khattab, as retribution for the federal attacks on Karamachi, Chabanmakhi, and Kadar. "If the blasts were organized by Khattab and other Wahhabis as retribution for the federal attacks on Dagestan's Islamic Djamaat, then this would explain the timing of the attacks, and why there were no attacks after the date on which fighting in Dagestan was concluded. It would explain why no Chechen claimed responsibility. It would account for Basayev's reference to Dagestani responsibility, and it would be consistent with Khattab's vow to set off bombs everywhere... blasting through [Russian] cities." 
 * ellol (talk) 17:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the material is organized as arguments by people, let's keep all statements by him in one place. But this is basically the same argument: he thinks, based on the timing, that Khattab retributed for the federal attacks on Dagestan.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The second statement, IMHO, is stronger, as it provides some argumentation (timing of bombings, claims of responsibility), while the first statement is somewhat more vague and ambiguous. ellol (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's keep both statements, OK? ellol (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe, that inclusion of the reviews of books and movies related to the bombings deserves better discussing: ; principally, I don't have cardinal objections against it, but am not sure whether it belongs to this article; so I propose to discuss whether to include it with more discussion participants.
 * Regarding the inclusion of points of support of the conspiracy theory in this edit, I can agree to leave the officials part of that; the "analysts" section there is based solely on emotions: a good example is "although it sounds far-fetched at first, remember that the FSB is simply the renamed KGB", so I vote strongly for removal the "analysys" from this edit; I did not understand as well the passage about "Putin's willingness to shut down Novaya Gazeta" -- Novaya Gazeta is alive and sound, and it was never shut down, so it's simply dis-informing Wikipedia readers.
 * This is about keeping the "Support" of FSB involvement theory. If you include "Criticism", we must also include "support" per WP:NPOV. And we should apply the same rules to the both sub-sections. Probably the best way is to briefly summarize the arguments rather than simply words "I think so" by the both sides. I can try to do it. But remember: "FSB is simply the renamed KGB" (and so on) is precisely the argument by the author ("they did it in the past, so they did it again"). This can be re-worded of course.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear arguments of supporters of that theory. But I hate to hear just more of Russophobic claims. "FSB the heir of KGB" is the standard mantra of a bunch of Russophobic journalists. I don't see why do we have to store such contents here.
 * The problem is, that even if FSB were the old KGB, it wouldn't explain anything. KGB did not explode houses in the Soviet Union, right? ellol (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You can not selectively exclude arguments by simply claiming author to be "Russophobic". Why the claim "FSB the heir of KGB" is Russophobic? What this has to do with ethnicity? I have to look at the source, but the answer is obvious. Arranging terrorism acts worldwide through their own agents and proxy organization was one of KGB specialities. And they conducted Great Terror and other official terrorism campaigns within the country.Biophys (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Why the claim "FSB the heir of KGB" is Russophobic?" Because it exhibits the fear before the Russia, and ignores positive changes in the Russian society, such as the policies of democratization, unveiling the information about NKVD crimes (such as GULAG), which took place in late 1980-s/early 1990-s and cleaned, cured the Russian society, in particular from fear before the formerly totalitarian government (and KGB was exactly the symbol of totalitarian repression).
 * Again, in any case, KGB did not explode houses in the Soviet Union. Even in that time it would have been too a monstrous crime. Nobody says it was white and fluffy -- it's ridiculous. But it did not do monstrous stuff like that. So "doing it again" is far-fetched. ellol (talk) 18:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * People from the FSB and SVR proudly consider themselves heirs of not only KGB, but even CheKa. Did not you know? As about the source, yes, it makes the point that there is no difference between KGB and FSB based on the analogy of murders of Markov and Litvinenko, both in London. This argument is now widespread: remember the title of the book by Goldfarb "...and return of the KGB". You probably do not know, but KGB conducted bombings in Moscow metro in 1975 to blame it on Armenian nationalists. And creating "fake rebels" (like controlling some Chechen groups) was also their favorite. They did such things  to fight Basmachi and Stepan Bandera.Biophys (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know of the bombings in 1975, and I've never heard of serious sources which blame them on KGB. Indeed, the information about the bombings was not open, i.e. the event was not officially reported, it gained no public attention. The bombings had practically no effect on the society, so KGB wouldn't have benefited of it.
 * But it's well known (I can provide sources), that Berezovsky sponsored Basayev. He used the pretext of buying out Russian captives. Well, but any way, Basayev got money from Berezovsky. ellol (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (the original issue). I trimmed down and moved around some parts of support, but the KGB argument was written precisely as stated in original source. If you have objections, please modify this per source.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with providing details on Felshtinsky/Pribylovsky theory, as "they did not provide any direct evidence to back up their claims about FSB involvement in the bombings", as one of commentors say; so, the passage edited in this edit should be removed.
 * Yes, we can tell in this section something like this: "there is no direct evidence of FSB involvement". Would that be OK? But we must describe what the theory claims prior to providing arguments pro and contra. This part can be reworded.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's explicitly stated (possibly in a stand-alone passage) that "there is no direct evidence of FSB involvement", immediately following Felshtinsky/Pribulovsky 's claims, then, why not? ellol (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This edit, beyond simply rearranging stuff, removes an important claim: On September 2, Al-Khattab announced: "The mujahideen of Dagestan are going to carry out reprisals in various places across Russia."
 * This edit removes an important claim by Basayev: In an interview to the Czech newspaper Lidove Noviny on September 9, Shamil Basayev denied responsibility, saying: "The latest blast in Moscow is not our work, but the work of the Dagestanis. Russia has been openly terrorizing Dagestan, it encircled three villages in the centre of Dagestan, did not allow women and children to leave."
 * Do you agree that they both denied responsibility? If so, what's the reason for keeping this? But no problem, let's keep it.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worth of keeping, because Basayev claimed that Dagestanis did the bombings. It's an important fact, and for example, Dr. Robert Bruce Ware referred to it. ellol (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This edit: while proving chronology is generally a good idea, this edit fails to pass as a fair depiction.
 * Please be more specific. I can guess and fix what you mean of course.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I propose to introduce into this article the translation of the Chronology of Events Of June-September 1999 from the Russian wiki entry of this article. It's a thorough description, and I can do the translation. ellol (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Trimmed down. Please do what you suggested about ruwiki.Biophys (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Regards, ellol (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, we can fix everything later.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, I reverted your last edits, because of the massive POv-ed changes, especially, in the introduction. Hope for your understanding. Since your major concern is how the conspiracy theory is viewed, I propose to leave the body of the article above the conspiracy theory intact so far. For example, I can't agree that changes made into the section "Claims and denials of responsibility" are fair and NPOV.

Then, I object 1) inclusion of the section with books reviews (we have bibliography, that's enough; but you can provide links to reviews made by professional reviewers), 2) inclusion of the chronology in its current state (only selected events, no sources provided).

I noticed, that you have removed the sentence "Mr. Kovalev said, in 2002, that the theory of the FSB involvement published in the book of Litvinenko and Felshtinsky seemed to be doubtful." Why?
 * This is new issue which we should fix in current version. Because that is selective citation out of context and an arbitrary interpretation.Biophys (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In this article it's claimed that Kovalev said that the version about training excercise in Ryazan is not true. He did say that. But why it's not stated that his own version was that it was an FSB propaganda operation to picture FSB agents as rescuers of that house? "Взрыв дома не планировался, но и учений не планировалось." "Explosion of a house was not planned, but trainings were also not planned." [same 2002 interview] ellol (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Regards, ellol (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What article are you talking about? I talk about the most recent report dated 2008. It does not tell this at all. I provided Russian text in footnote to be completely sure.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I do not understand. I corrected everything yesterday to fulfill every your request. The only outstanding issue was the single phrase in introduction. Why did you revert everything instead of correcting one phrase?Biophys (talk) 14:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, your intent was, as far as I can remember, to provide points of support of the conspiracy theory. That's what we mainly discussed. Now you are wondering why your changes not related to the conspiracy theory gets reverted. Fine, let's discuss that. ellol (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, absolutely not; I do not care about any conspiracy theories. I asked you to provide all your points of disagreements with the whole current version. You provided them and I fixed everything. Now I also fixed the phrase in Introduction almost as you wanted. Sure, we have a lot other things to fix, but let's do it in the the last version created two days ago. Biophys (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys, I disagree with viewing the conspiracy theory in the introduction. It's only a conspiracy theory, as even Kovalev admitted, we can't give it equal weight as the mainstream view. There's a separate secion to view the conspiracy theory, what else would you wish? ellol (talk) 14:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In particular, I disagree with your claim to use your version as a starting point. You made quite a number of controversial edits. Let's start with Offliner's version as the starting point. ellol (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You did not tell about this yesterday. If I made a number of controversial edits, you had an opportunity to note all of them yesterday (and you still can continue today). Do you agree to start from current version after I corrected everything you asked about yesterday?. If you agree, please self-revert, and we can start discussions and corrections today. If you do not, I am not sure this makes any sense.Biophys (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. Let's start with Offliner's version (or your "intermediate version" ). ellol (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I brought any misunderstanding, but I only showed how controversial was your version. Great many objections. ellol (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, but I spent many hours yesterday to discuss all issues with you and correct them. You noted all of them; they are now fixed, and you still revert to an older version?.Biophys (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It were only some of the issues. Besides, I am not serving you, you are not serving me. But we are trying to positively communicate to improve the project. In particular, I disagree with your view of the introduction. We don't have to say that people accused of the bombings did not take responsibility, at least, we don't have to say that in the introduction. Similarly, we don't have to mention the conspiracy theory in the introduction. It's the pure conspiracy, as even Kovalev commented. ellol (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, if you suggest any specific new changes today, let's discuss them today. But all changes we agreed about yesterday must be kept (self-revert, please). Wasting many hours for nothing is something I can not afford.Biophys (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What did we agree on? I showed you some problems with your version. Mostly your edits are just rearranging stuff. You contributed something only in regards of the views of the conspiracy theory. I propose to discuss it better and make the necessary amendments into the article. If you believe that editing Wikipedia is a waste of your time, please, do not bring it into the Wikipedia. Regards, ellol (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a series of 10 edits I made yesterday: . Each of them was making changes according to your suggestions yesterday (Galkin removed and so on, see this talk page above). Your response? You reverted everything. Sorry, but it was not me who does not want to work toward a compromise.Biophys (talk) 18:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys, I believe that you can be a very positive Wikipedia contributor but not with ways like these. Per your request, I showed you some problems with your edits. Those were serious problems, but it doesn't mean they were the only problems with your edits. That's why I propose to start with the non-controversial version, as the one proposed by Offliner. Regards, ellol (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Galkin's Testimony
Considering that Galkin's Testimony was extracted under torture, why are we using it? I mean heck, if someone's beating me up 24/7 and gives me a text to read to stop the beatings, I'll read the text. So would anyone else. Even James Bond, (in the movie with the North Korean thingy in the air) broke under torture. (M admitted that he was "leaking intel".) No one can withstand torture, especially if it's done over a long period of time. You can force your brain to forget the information, so torture confessions often don't help Recon, but in terms of forcing a person to read a testimony, that's pre-written, it's not complicated at all. Which other Wikipedia Articles sink to the level of using "testimony" obtained under torture? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What?! It's absolutely inadmissible in the world practice. Quoting his evidence here, we effectively support torture. I strongly vote for removal of his evidence. ellol (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Three Worlds Gone Mad, Robert Young Pelton. Good. The piece from that book about the captive officer's testimony must be translated into Russian. What the barbarism. ellol (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From Galkin's interview to Novaya Gazeta:
 * After I got to ours, I was immediately put into hospital. Half a year was spent for medical treatment. I described what happened with me to my commanders. After the hospital, when I learned writing anew (yes, it's exactly so, I had to learn walking, had to learn writing, and my friend had to learn talking -- he stuttered too much), I reported everything in a short document.
 * It's a fate that we stayed alive. When I passed a medical investigation, got an x-ray, doctors revealed that four ribs are broken. During the captivity they healed a bit with displacement of a rib fracture inside a lung. The jaw was broken three times, head traumatized, arms shot through... With my health condition I couldn't continue serving in the Armed Forced. Got dismissed to reserve in Summber 2002 after a rehabilitation course. And psychologically... I would just like to forget it all. And as such things can't be forgotten, I try to imagine it happened not with me.
 * ellol (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ellol (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ellol (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

HistoricWarrior007, I only want to add to your comment, that as Galkin is alive today, using the evidence obtained from him under torture in this article may lead to further traumatizing the man. (Imagine, he opens English wikipedia with this article, and sees the "evidence" he was tortured to say. That's horrific.) ellol (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that the HRW, which according to Wikipedia is a valid source, states that evidence extracted under torture cannot be used. Evidence extracted under torture is inadmissible in civilized countries. We must defend Wikipedia from becoming as accepting of evidence, as the North Korean Courts! Where is Radio Free Europe's outrage on this? I cannot believe that they missed it, only because the testimony extracted was anti-Russian. If that's true, that would be an atrocious thing to do! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel very uncomfortable removing well-referenced relevant information that is widely used by proponents of a point of view. On the other hand the text labeled words extracted under torture as "volunteer interview" and only then added that after escaping from his prison Galkin changed his "confession" saying that he was tortured. IMHO we should restore the section changing a few words in the first paragraph so to emphasize that this "confession" was extracted under torture and has very little reliability. We might want to add a few details of how exactly he was tortured (in the notes) so the reader would get an idea Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are ok with testimony extracted under torture if it is well-referenced? Doesn't torture contradict being well-referenced, as, when you are under torture you will confess to anything? In the Salem Witch Trials, Mary confessed that John was pure evil, and that testimony was very well referenced. It was allowed to convict John, who later turned out to be innocent. I don't see why we should follow that mistaken precedent, why we should quote others, when they said something against their will. What is the difference between someone, say Galkin, confessing under torture, or someone simply misquoting Galkin? Both are false, and a waste of the reader's time. Yet you propose allowing one, but not the other. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's pretty much clear, that Chechens forced him to say that his interview was "volunteered". But it's likely that he had at that moment broken ribs or arms shot through -- what the interviewer did not care to check. During the interview his Chechen captors were present (you can see that from Pelton's interview), so he had to say what pleased them.


 * It's not a merely Wikipedia rules issue. But if we leave the "evidence", we collectively are to held responsibility for extending the mental sufferings of the living person who suffered physically and mentally much worse than you or I can ever imagine.


 * I emphasize that Galkin is not an acting officer now. He retired from the Armed forces in 2002 -- that means, he is a civilian. I think it's the general respect of mercy that we shouldn't prevent that person from living a normal life now. The mention of his "evidence" in a political article may actually hurt the living person -- himself. Imagine he opens this article and sees that "evidence" -- what would he think, that people in the world support the torture applied to him?


 * But we are not the enemies of civilians who did not committ any crime! ellol (talk) 14:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no point in removing the references about the rendition. The rules only require to verify the facts of publishing.   So referring to the rendition directly is not allowed, but including references to the publications about the rendition and presenting their summaries is OK.  The WP:NPOV policy mandates to stay away from monopolizing the truth.  Only published statements and contradictions between them matter.  As for the biographic limits, I did not see that Galkin's personality was denigrated, taking into account the possibility of tortures.  Whether the Wikipedia editors are extending the mental suffering of Galkin or of the relatives of the bombings' victims who might feel betrayed by the state secret service has little to do with libel. --ilgiz (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Publishing tortured testimony is by its very definition unverifiable. How can you even be talking about truth and NPOV, if it's crystal clear that the testimony was obtained under torture? Any testimony obtained under torture isn't going to be NPOV, and violated WP:NPOV. It's also not the truth, it's complete bullshit. And about Galkin being betrayed by the state secret service, that's your own original research, please see WP:OR. Agents get captured and tortured, that's part of the job. This has nothing to do with NPOV, as how can you be NPOV, if you are told what to say at gunpoint? "Read this document, or we shoot your kid, but say it's NPOV, k?" HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ilgiz, do you think that testimonies obtained with the use of torture are valid? ellol (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no strong opinion on this. The editors' beliefs or "common sense" should be irrelevant in representing the summaries of references. --ilgiz (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that the use of torture to obtain evidence is the most disguisting behaviour, and using the data obtained with torture in a Wikipedia article really stinks. That's my opinion, you can have yours. ellol (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a very strong and firm belief that common sense should not be irrelevant. And here, common sense, dictates, that a testimony obtained under torture isn't NPOV. Editors must strive for NPOV. Thus, we cannot use testimony obtained under torture, irrespective if it's pro-Berezovski or pro-Tooth Fairy. How can one speak from a neutral point of view, if he or she is being tortured? And this is the first time I see Common Sense challenged on Wikipedia. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:VERIFY policy talks about verifying the fact that the reference was published. Verifying the facts presented in the publication and tossing publications deemed untrue is beyond Wikipedia's policies. --ilgiz (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * From the policy: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.


 * Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, along with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three.


 * Is testimony extracted under torture NPOV? No. Is testimony extracted under torture reliable? No. You must have all three, not just one. Here you only have verifiability, and the other elements for inclusion are simply not met. Quoting from Wikipedia's policies: "they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another". And yet here you are doing exactly that. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The NPOV policy refers to the relationship between publications and their editorial summaries. Your understanding seems to imply that NPOV is focused on dissonances between the facts and their interpretation in the publications.  As for the reliability criteria, again, they are about the authors of the publications not the facts or persons covered by the publications. --ilgiz (talk) 06:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is WP:NPOV - Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. Do you honestly believe that a view extracted under torture is significant in any way, shape or form? "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Ilgiz, do you honestly believe that "evidence" extracted under torture, can ever be considered to have NPOV quality? It's right there in the definition. You need NPOV and Verifiability. Verifiability you have, NPOV you do not have. Anything extracted under torture cannot ever be NPOV type or NPOV quality. You need both. You cannot just pick and choose what you like. As per WP:NPOV this is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * HistoricWarrior007, I wonder what the next discussion will we have, after discussing whether torture is a proper means to get information. Justification of pedophilia, or morality of cannibalism? I always thought that such questions are just too much neanderthalean. It's really a wonder for me that there are people like Ilgiz, eager to justify things like torture.
 * I really wonder, in fact. Usually in criminal codes of various countries there is no law prohibiting cannibalism -- there's just no need of it. Is then cannibalism an acceptable sort of behaviour for Ilgiz?
 * IMHO, the whole topic is just that much nauseating and humiliates our human nature as discussing cannibalism does. Like hell, we are the people of certain culture, that stands against torture, regardless of who is the victim. We are, like, people, not a bunch of animals. Don't you think so? ellol (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with that entirely. Both, governmental rules and rules of society must be respected, but not worshiped. Often we forget that rules are created by humans and they can change. If we never broke the law, there would still be De Facto segregation in the South, India would be in British hands, etc. As Lincoln said, "A House Divided cannot stand". When societal rules clash with governmental rules, one or the other must go, and often society is correct. But certain people worship rules of government, and ignore societal rules, and are later surprised when society punishes them for it. At least it provides good, societal entertainment for historians. But I think that a lot of people don't get this concept, so I won't apply it to anyone here. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's wrong. "Divided we stand, united we fall".Biophys (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it's "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_we_stand,_divided_we_fall HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Alex Bakharev. This must be described as an important incident described in numerous sources, but noticing that the confession could be forced.Biophys (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, Wikipedia does not use information obtained under torture, as that is by its very definition, unencyclopedic. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia does not use information...". No, wikipedia uses any information published in books identified as WP:RS. This is not a court room. We only must provide proper attribution. This is is anotable controversy on the subject of this article. At least two books claim that he was telling the truth, and the matter was debated in many other sources.Biophys (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, the point is, that evidence obtained under torture can't be considered as evidence, because a person does not act not on a free will. You consider political prisoners of GULAG as victims, because albeit they put their signatures under false evidence, they were forced to. Galkin was forced to provide that evidence. Galkin is a victim, exactly like the political prisoners of GULAG. ellol (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, none of us considers this as evidence (we are not judges). We consider this as notable material published in multiple books by several people like Robert Young Pelton, Felshtinsky, Pribylovsky, Goldfarb and others. Once again, torture is a legitimate subject, we have many articles about this. He was a victim? Fine. Let's describe what he said in Novaya gazeta when he was freed.Biophys (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As encyclopedia editors, it is our duty not to trick the reader into misinformation. This was obtained under torture: " say this or we'll torture you some more!" There was medical proof of torture. What was done to Galkin, is exactly what Stalin did during the purges, i.e. you beat the crap out of a guy, and you force him to confess. So what you are saying, is that if person A is kidnapped, beaten up, forced to "confess", we should go ahead and use Wikipedia to publicize the "confession" to promote a conspiracy theory? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism and support of FSB involvement theory
I am checking all references here and to focus on arguments by sides rather than on names of people who made the claims (we do not have articles about most of them any way). One very strange argument by Pankratov:

"Finally. Had FSB any need to declare this a “training exercise”, if it wasn’t one, thus arising suspicion and controversy? No. It was much easier to show great relief that the bomb has been discovered and didn’t explode, and continue trying to find the “perpetrators” of bombing attempt."

What this suppose to mean? The “perpetrators” were caught, so who they were going to find? Biophys (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Another question. Should we even note the ridiculous discussions about the non-existing Liberation Army of Dagestan? The existence of such organization was officially disproved by Russian authorities (and rightly so), as well as by all supporters of FSB involvement theory.Biophys (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There was no response here, no constructive editing to include any missing information, just a blind revert to a very old version. Please note that I trimmed down the part with Support of FSB involvement theory recently, and I did not touch your "criticism" section yet.Biophys (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, of course, the Support section must be included per NPOV policy. Regards, ellol (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No man, you just reverted this article to your old version, many days and 64 edits away. That's not the way.Biophys (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your criticism. But, this article deals with both facts and theories. Imho, it's necessary to keep all the facts within the body of this article. While the ways theories are explained are not that important. I'm afraid that some of your edits do not help to keep all the facts in this article. Regards, ellol (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, I can't agree to your breaking the chronological order in the "Claims and denials of responsibility" section: "Chechen warlords Ibn Al-Khattab and Shamil Basayev denied involvement in the bombings, saying "We would not like to be akin to those who kill sleeping civilians with bombs and shells." ... Al-Khattab also said earlier: "The mujahideen of Dagestan are going to carry out reprisals in various places across Russia."" ellol (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly facts did I exclude?. If any facts were excluded, let's place them back.Biophys (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of your edits, like this in my example, did not hide any fact, but obstructed the natural flow of the events (such as breaking the chronological order), which can hardly be agreeable. Regards, ellol (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with this particular section, let's restore old version here, instead of reverting everything. I have no objections. BTW, you failed to mention any facts that I allegedly removed.Biophys (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, you have removed the contents of the section "Suspects and accused". I believe, that it belongs to the article. ellol (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Which specific facts were not laid out in the previous sections? All factual information about the suspects and accused was included except their plain list, which is a copy-paste from another article and belong to "lists" per WP:MOS. Also, if you disagree with this, why did you revert to much older version?Biophys (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All right, I included this phrase by Khattab and improved a section about factual events in Ryzan using an additional book by Edward Lucas. This is now described on the hour-by-hour basis. Plus, I also quoted Putin and FSB to NPOV. Just stop your blind reverts, please.Biophys (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys, you are very welcome to edit Wikipedia, yet, the list of convicts and accused is not a copy-paste from a different article (it's you who created a fork article with a list in March 2008 ). It well belongs to this article, because it's the factual information about the topic. Thanks for your participating, ellol (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The other objection is, that the conspiracy theory shouldn't be viewed before the major block of facts is laid out. Regards, ellol (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Theory of Mukhin and Pelevin
The most serious question for me is, why the Theory of Mukhin and Pelevin is not viewed in this article?

Yury Mukhin is a talented Russian investigator who promoted an idea that Yeltsin died in 1996, and was replaced by a ringer (Mukhin counted up to 3 different Yeltsin's ringers). Mukhin proves his considerations with factual findings based on the form on Yeltsin's ear rim:

If you will be fed with suggestions — such as, like, Yeltsin's ears changed because of his illness — clarify: ears are not clips, people do not attach them at morning to any sort of neck-ties.

There are many more facts to prove Mukhin's theory, which can be found in his book "Code of Yeltsin".

Mukhin ran a newspaper which was closed by the authorities. Mukhin himself is a political prisoner, convicted to a term of two years under the pretexts of "inciting ethnic hatred".

Viktor Pelevin is a Russian mainstream author who suggested in his 1999 novel that Yeltsin died in 1996 and was replaced by a 3D computer image. According to Pelevin's theory revealed in his "Generation P", there are no politicians in Russia. All politicians are 3D images, and the only thing that citizens can see are images of politicians broadcast by the national TV. Since politicians do not exist in real life, there's a special organization "Народная воля" ("People's will") whose aim is to maintain the myth and members of which have an agenda to tell people that they have "just 10 minutes ago" seen a politician in a real life.

In a successive novel "Empire V" published in 2005 Pelevin completed his theory, claiming that Russia is actually ruled by a group of vampires, whose aim is to maintain the consumerist society in Russia.

The works of Mukhin and Pelevin were published in a far greater number of copies that any publications devoted to the Conspiracy theory of FSB bombings.

As Sergei Kovalev noted, any theory must be verified against facts, no matter how bizarre might it be looking. That's why I propose that at least 1/4 of this article shall be devoted to view this theory.

Thank you, ellol (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that Pelevin wrote in "Generation P" about the bombings? Biophys (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys, Putin could not "capture power" because he (or any different politician) does not exist (what you call "Putin" is only a 3D model, per Pelevin). FSB could not bomb houses, because Russia is ruled by vampires rather than FSB. And it's a 100% logically strict consideration. Yet, it lacks of a small detail called "common sense", but it looks, that we don't care of it either way. ellol (talk) 07:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that at least one of the 2 authors you mentions did not claim that the events he described happened in reality. But both theories have little in common with the main article.  They do not aim at linking, highlighting the events related to the bombings into a scheme.  Finally, the main article presents independent investigations whose participants did not claim any agenda.  Remember the residents of the spared Ryazan building who converged at the NTV talk show to voice their concern over handling the alleged training exercises.  Or the killings of those who questioned the government's role.  This is not quite the same as building far-fetching theories. Your point on Kovalyov's intention to verify facts does not explain why he received meaningless answers from the official bodies. --ilgiz (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ilgiz, OK. You are a reasonable person. Then why not to write something like what Russians have in their Wikipedia entry on Apartment bombings, in the introduction?

Различными деятелями и организациями выдвигаются также версии, согласно которым Владимиру Путину могли быть выгодны взрывы жилых домов: для создания благоприятного общественного мнения перед вводом войск в Чечню, поднятия предвыборного рейтинга и обеспечения победы на президентских выборах. Люди, придерживающиеся этих версий, считают, что карачаевские террористы, перевозившие взрывчатку, являлись сторонниками чеченских сепаратистов и действительно хотели осуществить взрывы в Москве и Волгодонске. Но взрывы не жилых домов, а военных и административных объектов. При этом, как предполагают эти версии, агенты ФСБ ввели их в заблуждение и использовали перевозимую ими взрывчатку для подрыва домов.

Various activists and organizations introduced also versions, according to which apartment bombing could be favourable for Vladimir Putin: to create favourable public opinion prior to moving troops in Chechnya, to raise pre-election rating and secure the victory in the presidential election. People, adhering to these versions believe that Karachai terrorists who transported explosives took the side of Chechen separatists and actually intended to perform explosions in Moscow and Volgodonsk. But explosions not of apartments, but military and administrative objects. With that, as these versions suggest, FSB agents disoriented them and used the explosives they transported to explode houses.


 * ellol (talk) 07:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. Proposing to insert a section with "Mukhin and Pelevin" theory was a joke. I'm not that much a nut. Regards, ellol (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There one "little" problem: this is not what they tell. According to supporters of the theory, the explosions were planned by the FSB, and not by the Chechen separatists. It were FSB man who came and asked these guys to transport the explosives from the army/FSB facilities, according to this version. Why did they ask instead of transporting themselves? Obviously to set up the guys, according to this version. Not mentioning that none of the convicts or accused was an ethnic Chechen.Biophys (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Take two
Why do not we ask Alex to comment as you suggested? Let's do the following. 1. We make a list of our disagreements. One can start and another can add as many as he wants. 2. We keep last non-reverted version of the article, but all disputed matters are included as in your version (the theory of FSB involvement is not included in the introduction, and so on). 3. Alex goes through the list of issues and tells his opinion (anyone else is also welcome). Yes, I will listen. Would that be OK? Biophys (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's get started. I can see the following disagreements based on our comments above:


 * Should we mention the FSB involvement theory in introduction?
 * Yes, we should, because it now occupies a significant part of the article, maybe ~30%. We should mention what the theory states (one-two phrases), and maybe define the theory as "alternative" rather than a "conspiracy theory", because the latter is inconsistent with majority of sources.Biophys (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we should not. I made these points already but they were ignored.
 * 1) There is no direct evidence unambiguously proving the Conspiracy Theory.
 * 2) A reader should be first of all allowed to learn all the facts. Only then shall we allow interpretations.
 * 3) Sergei Kovalev -- an authority among Russian human rights defenders -- referred to the theory as a "pure conspiracy". By the way, I don't like that this quotation of him was removed.
 * ellol (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Should we include the list of the suspects and convicts in this article?
 * No, we should not, because everything about these suspects has been already fully described in the text of this article. If something was not, let's add. But the lists belong to a separate article-list that we already have. This is per WP:MOS. Biophys (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I already made a point on this subject, and it was ignored. The list of suspects and convicts is factual information about the Apartment bombings, and as such it certainly belongs to the article.
 * You made a point that the list adds nothing to the description. But I can hardly agree. Indeed, it's not merely a list, but the role of this or that person is also detailed. For example, there are police people who were bribed to help the terrorists. There are people involved in these or those operations, etc.
 * Contrary to what you are claiming in the edit summary, the "list of the suspects" is not a copy-paste from a different article, but that other article was created as a fork article by you in March 2008 (prooflink). If the operation of copy-paste occurred, it were you who did it, and the source was this article and the destination was the fork article.
 * Regards, ellol (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This article is already too big. Therefore, some parts can and should be moved to sub-articles per WP:MOS.17:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys, I agree that it may be reasonable to shorten this article. But this shall not be done at the expense of the factual information. Or we won't be Wikipedia, but a rumours gathering. ellol (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. But all suspects are already described in the text. We do not loose any factual information. If we missed anyone, let's include him in the text per WP:MOS.Biophys (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rewording your statement, we don't need a list in the article, because we have all information from that list in the article already. I agree with the article version which has all information from the list. This means, an article WITH the list. ellol (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not you understand: we have the same information included twice with the list.Biophys (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How would you estimate the amount of information included twice, compared to the whole information from the list? I guess it is about 0.1, and 0.1 is almost negligibly small compared to 1. ellol (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Should we include the "testimony of Galkin" in Related events?
 * Yes, we should, because supporters of FSB involvement theory refer to his testimony in multiple books. But it's better to be described as a separate factual section. Biophys (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There are three issues:
 * 1) Factual issue. Evidence obtained under torture can't be treated as such. Being tortured enough, a captive would say anything to please his captors. And Galkin was tortured quite enough, it's well documented.
 * 2) Ethical issue. Wikipedia is not a place for evidence obtained under torture, regardless of who was tortured, whether did you like one or not.
 * 3) Moral issue. Galkin is a victim, essentially like the GULAG prisoners who were tortured to obtain false evidence about political anti-Stalin conspiracies. It's an exact situational match. That's why I vote strongly against inclusion of Galkin's "testimony", and if you know the feeling of remorse, you should act the same way. ellol (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any statement may be included, such as those made under the alleged torture and those made to refute the former. You forgot that the statements included into the main article are not presented as an absolute truth.  It is the editors' responsibility to attribute the statements to their authors and contexts.  By bringing the question of morale you imply that Galkin's post-capture refutation was true.  --ilgiz (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey, but IMHO that does damned matter. And if you insist that Galkin's "testimony" must appear (what I still disagree with), I will review in this article every bruise obtained by Galkin while in captivity, his every broken bone, and I will provide a detailed account of how did he suffer of those broken bones which weren't allowed to be cured. ellol (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do. Keep in mind that the editors may only refer to published sources. --ilgiz (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these subjects are currently resolved in your favor. So, please stop reverts and add other subjects in this list if needed.Biophys (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Biophys, I fail to see what way is your version more neutral. Would you please care to explain your point? ellol (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you agree to create a list of our disagreements to be checked by Alex or other outside reviewers? Yes or no, please. I also do not see any your objections with regard to three points included in the list so far. As I said, all these issues were currently resolved in your favor. So, I am not even sure what you are talking about. Biophys (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Surely I agree to discuss and to invite "outside" reviewers. Surely I do not agree to stop reverting until the discussions result in some conclusions. Surely I will not revert anything that a society agrees on. ellol (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is your response. Since you did not comment about these three specific points above and did not extend this list any further, I assume that you have nothing to tell, and that we do not have other disagreements.Biophys (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, since there was no objections, let's fix it.Biophys (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait. No, there are objections. As for disagreements, I am well contented with the last version by Ilgiz. If you believe there are more problems with that version, please, sound your concerns. Thanks, ellol (talk) 10:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All edits made by Ilgiz are included in the last version. No, I do not have any problems with his edits.Biophys (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then, why do you insist to make the unreviewed changes to the last Ilgiz'es version? ellol (talk) 17:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have three points of disagreement so far. I asked Alex to review this matter as soon as he can.Biophys (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You imply that I agree to the changes you made to the last version by Ilgiz. But that implication is not true. ellol (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with anything else, please add your disagreements to the list.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, add your disagreements to the list if you disagree with anything else in the last version by Ilgiz. I did not do unrevised changes, so, please, care to explain your suggestions. ellol (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Way forward
How about the following approach? You made a number of changes yesterday to improve this article. This is good. Let's keep your changes (and they are currently kept). Ilgiz made improvements a couple of days ago. We keep them. But the same should apply to changes I did: the better description of events in Ryazan, and so on. Please do not revert them. Thanks, Biophys (talk) 00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An official KGB FSB investigation.
 * Claims and denials of responsibility.
 * And other issues which I can explain if you like. ellol (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you just go and fix whatever you want to fix in last version? "FSB", and so on and so on. That would save a lot of time.Biophys (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey. ellol (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I mean you should not just delete what I did, but fix it. For example, replace "FSB investigation" by "... investigation" after looking in the sources which organization(s) were officially responsible for investigation, and so on. I will look at your changes and discuss if I strongly disagree with something.Biophys (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues in the introduction

 * "...the bombings caused the Russian Federation to start the Second Chechen War on September 30." This is a far-fetched statement, given that "The Second Chechen War, in a later phase better known as the War in the North Caucasus[21] was launched by the Russian Federation starting August 26, 1999, in response to the Invasion of Dagestan by the IIPB." It's more adequate to say that "... the bombings caused the Russian Federation to intensify the Second Chechen war."
 * Why do you think war started at August 26? First aerial bombings were conducted on September 23, after the events in Ryzan. Ground operations started on October 1. This is according to all books. We might tell: "... which was used by Russian government as a casus belli to start aerial bombing and ground operations in Chechnya", for example. See how this is corrected in version below. Biophys (talk)
 * Russia acknowledges bombing raids in Chechnya, August 26, 1999, CNN. ellol (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Chechen militants and secessionist authorities, however, have denied their involvement in the bombing campaign." This sentense does not make sense in the context of the article and shall be removed, because the official investigation did not find "Chechen militants and secessionist authorities" guilty. Instead "According to the Russian State Prosecutor office, all apartment bombings were executed under command of ethnic Karachay Achemez Gochiyayev. The operations were planned by Ibn al-Khattab and Abu Omar al-Saif, Arab militants fighting in Chechnya on the side of Chechen insurgents."
 * Yes, they denied involvement, and this is important to tell. The denial by Maskhadov (an official Chechen representative) was important because the bombings were used as a reason to start the war. Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The official investigation concluded that Khattab is responsible. The official investigation did not conclude that Chechen authorities (Maskhadov) were responsible. So, there's nothing to deny. Speaking of Khattab, it's unfair to claim that he denied responsibility without acknowledging that in some previous interviews he acknowledged responsibility. It's also necessary to say that he was recognized by the United States as a terrorist. ellol (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In other terms, Chechen authorities were not responsible of the Apartment Bombings, that's the official position of Russia. You can't deny that position, but you can confirm it. ellol (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Проведенным расследованием установлено, что во исполнение отдельных положений совместного приказа Директора ФСБ и Министра внутренних дел России о проведении операции "Вихрь-Антитеррор", командование спецподразделе- ния ФСБ России 20.09.99 г. утвердило план-задание, предусматривающее в целях проверки состояния охраны объектов жизнеобеспечения и жилых зданий, оценки эффективности предпринятых оперативно-розыскных и режимных мер, направленных на недопущение террористических актов, создание и направление в отдельные областные центры групп условных террористов.
 * "Two other bombs planted in apartment blocks were defused in Moscow on September 13 and in Ryazan on September 22. The local police caught three 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. Contrary to this, the police explosives expert who defused the Ryazan bomb, insisted that it was real." Handy. But the "official version" is not shown adequately, IMHO. According to the official publicly available documents,

Для направления в г.Рязань была сформирована группа из трех человек, перед которыми были поставлены задачи: прибыть в город, изучить оперативную обстановку, оценить предпринятые местными правоохранительными органами меры по противодействию возможным актам терроризма. А также подобрать места удобные для совершения "диверсии" (квартиры первого или второго этажа многоквартирных домов, подвальные или иные помещения в жилых зданиях), закупить от 3 до 5 мешков сахара и складировать их на выбранном месте, при этом изготовить и установить на мешках имитатор инициирующего устройства.
 * I suppose to write something like "According to the official investigation, command of an FSB special unit sent a group of three in Ryazan to "evaluate measures taken by the local law defense bodies to prevent possible terrorist acts", to find a proper place for a fake diversion, buy three to five sacks of sugar and store them there, produce detonator imitations and install them on sugar sacks."
 * This portion should simply summarize the events in Ryzan as described in the body of the article. What had happened, in chronological order? 1. A device identified as a bomb was found. 2. State officials including Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryazanians. 3. Three FSB officers who planted this device were arrested by local police while attempting to escape the city. 4. This all was declared to be a training exercise. This should simply be described.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The official position is not that it was a training excercise, but a test to check capabilities of the local militia. This view is not reflected in the introduction. ellol (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "An official FSB investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and ..." As far as I understand, the body responsible for the investigation was the General Prosecutor's Office of Russia, while the bulk job was done by the official investigation by the Investigation Directorate of the Federal Security Service. I propose to write simply "Investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002".
 * I agree if you show me refs telling that investigation was conducted by the prosecutor's office. Who has actually conducted it? This is fixed.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "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." I oppose including this statement into the introduction, per previous discussion.
 * This should be included simply per WP:MOS. We have at least 20-30% of article dedicated to this theory. OK, I made it much shorter and removed names of supporters of the theory. Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okey, per MOS, I propose to put a single statement: "Some reviewers propose a conspiracy theory which states that the bombings were favourable to Vladimir Putin." ellol (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

These are all my disagreements with the Introduction section. ellol (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's wait for 3rd opinions (e.g. by Alex, Ilgiz, other suggestions?). In any case, this is not a justification to revert whole article.Biophys (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about posting an official request for 3rd opinions in "History" or "Politics" section.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

New version of introduction
Let's try a longer version and modify it. Note that abstract ends by the official version of events, which makes it more conclusive, but everything else was described as well. Importantly, everything was described in chronological order. Note that FSB involvement theory was downscaled.

Biophys (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Khattab is a field Commander and although in later interviews he denied responsibility, he acknowledged responsibility in previous interviews. It's unfair to suggest that only his last words matter, as we do not follow the same line in regards of e.g. Ryazan incident. Maskhadov was not found guilty of Apartment Bombings by the official investigation, and it's important to say that if we are speaking of his guilt. ellol (talk) 13:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The view that "Next day Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the Ryzanians and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War." is contradictory with the generally accepted view that the war started on August 26 with air bombings of Chechnya. ellol (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is what cited book claimed. Most sources count the beginning of the war from the ground operations (October 1) or missile attacks (after the events in Ryazan). This can be modified.Biophys (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, in this case different sources cite different dates. ellol (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose a compromise version of the introduction, which gives voice to one of the accused people, provides information about failure of the independent investigation and mentions the conspiracy theory. ellol (talk) 14:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked you to modify current version, not to make revert to very old version: . I know what you suppose to think assuming AGF on your part. That was said by Kovalev during one of his older interviews: "I do not want to believe that the bombings were committed by our services, because if this is all true, one can not live in this country, even for one day" [but he wants to stay, so ...]. But there is such thing as verifiability/falsifiability of a theory. I mean any theory, from physics to sociology. If a theory was correct, the more experiments or facts you collect, the more they support the theory. The more we are working on this article, the more it will be obvious that the bombings have in fact been committed by the FSB. This is not because I am clever, but because that's the law of nature.Biophys (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a very interesting personality. Now you are talking that you can collect evidence in favour of the conspiracy theory of Russian Government involvement. Fine. But if you care, that's what I called you to do since your first edits this season.
 * Besides, I did not make a mere revert, but attempted to make some progress. ellol (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You first agreed to modify current version but then reverted everything. Why is that? Biophys (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, let's discuss issues, not personalities. ellol (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What personalities? You first agreed to work with last current version:, but then reverted everything.Biophys (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, explain what objections against the current version do you have. My version has a compromise introduction. As agreed, I reverted "Claims and denials". Regarding the Ryazan incident, I don't understand why a lot of related information is removed in your version, please, explain. ellol (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's work on a compromise version of the introduction but keep the remainder of the article as it was in the most recent version, rather than as it was several weeks ago. Would you agree?Biophys (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ryazan is a separate question. I removed nothing. If there is anything I removed, let's place it back. What is it?Biophys (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I self-reverted that section. ellol (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about main question: Let's work on a compromise version of the introduction but keep the remainder of the article as it was in the most recent version, rather than as it was several weeks ago. Would you agree?Biophys (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys, I self-reverted the "Ryazan incident" section, I respect your labor to improve Wikipedia. ellol (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But I made a lot of other changes in other parts of the article.Biophys (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Besides, there's a trouble with your description of the Ryazan Incident. As reported by Kommersant, "В Рязани в отличие от других городов обезвреживанием бомб занимаются не специалисты ФСБ, а муниципалы." "Unlike other cities, in Ryazan it's the local administration that's engaged in defusing bombs, rather than FSB experts". ellol (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, you are highly welcome to edit Wikipedia, to improve it, but how is it called, when other people have to clean-up your editions after you? In my opinion, that's not quite good. When you visit a bathroom in your house, do you leave it clean after yourself? Then why do you think you can treat Wikipedia differently? ellol (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lost pieces
A few items seem to be missing in the new version.
 * (a) Mikhail Trepashkin's finding that the composite sketch changed after the first few days and Mark Blumenfeld's statement on FSB "talking him into" changing his testimony. Perhaps, the open letter to President Medvedev by Tatyana and Alyona Morozovs and the famous GQ article could be referenced, too.
 * (b) The timeline on August 22-September 24, 1999.
 * (c) The list of books and films about the events. Perhaps, these could be moved into another article.

Let me know if the above items need to be restored. --ilgiz (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Everything is reasonable. Yes, perphaps (b) and (c) can be made as two additional, separate pages and removed from this article. This article is too big. Could you make it?Biophys (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ilgiz, I do not object against any reasonable edits, you know. ellol (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys, your revert was not explained at this talk page, contrary to what you stated in the edit summary. ellol (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just want to state, that botching the investigation isn't the same thing as committing the crime. Claiming that because FSB may have botched the investigation, they committed the bombings, is ridiculous. Bush botched the Hurrican Katrina rescue, but no one is arguing that Bush conspired with Hurricane Katrina to hit New Orleans. Ilgiz, I would also be very curious to see a list of films about the events, as to date I have not seen anything that made sense, but ultimately Ellol is right, the books, films and timeline should be in another article. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The dispute about possible FSB involvement is tangential to the article edits. If there is a notable statement for or against the theory, such a statement may be added to the article.--ilgiz (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FSB involvement in what? In possibly botching the investigation - maybe. In carrying out the bombings? No. You don't need to bomb to promote a war that is already popular. Additionally, there are numerous sources, such as Khattab's earlier statements, about who did it. As I pointed out several times: Saudi born terrorist, Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab, states that he will fly planes into buildings blow up apartments in Russia, if the Al Qaeda Wahhabist bases are hit. Because these bases are used for armed incursion, they are hit. The buildings apartments are blown up. Osama bin Laden Ibn-Al Khattab takes responsibility for the bombings. As a result, people hate him even more. After finding that out, Ibn-Al Khattab stands up and says "I didn't do it, honest!" And instanly the Berezovksy clique yells "it was Putin's FSB!" HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Last edits
We now have three disagreements, in addition to other disagreement discussed above.
 * 1. The abstract. We must describe all important factual events in chronological order (the bombings -> the appearance of FSB involvement theory as a result of events in Ryzan (this should be mentioned in intro) -> attempts at independent investigation -> completion of the official investigation. This is all in chronological order. If we do not tell about the FSB involvement theory and where it came from, it became totally unclear why Schekochikhin and others requested the independent investigation. If we can't agree on that, let's ask someone else. Biophys (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with purely chronological order for this case, but think that logical order is better for understanding (Facts of bombings -> Official results -> Mentions of whichever facts that caused people to think different). ellol (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 2. Huge quotation that you inserted (see diff above). What was quoted can be described by one sentence (and it has been already described): the events in Ryazan were declared to be a training exercise. What else? If there is anything else, let's briefly summarize it. We should not dilute the article with meaningless quotes.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It can be explained in one sentence, but can't be reduced to one sentence. For example, it explains their actions with high precision (date, time, action), it explains that they did not know what to do if they are unveiled, so they continued playing terrorists until they were caught -- a number of such nuances. These nuances are important, because the controversy section is a large discussion of related nuances. ellol (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 3. Your version of chronology. Why should we describe in great detail something that had happened long before the bombings? Once again, let's not dilute the article with irrelevant materials.Biophys (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not diluting the article, because it does not mix with the contents. But it's some additional material that an average reader can poke into after one has read all the information that's somewhat more directly related. ellol (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I think we could save a lot of time by finding someone else (better an admin) who would look at the content issues and decided them one way or another (see your talk page).Biophys (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, specify what exactly do you disagree with and for which reason. Of course, other people, especially admins, are more than welcome to come and express their opinions, but you did not make your own position clear. ellol (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to start from something, I insist on the version of Introduction posted above for the reasons described above (all events in chronological order, etc.). First thing, we would ask the outside reviewer, which version he prefers (or something in between).Biophys (talk) 18:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, answer questions. "I do not like" is not an argument, as you say. ellol (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, I disagree with the wording in the introduction that "Contrary to this, the police explosives expert who defused the Ryazan bomb, insisted that it was real."

Because of

Разъяснения по ситуации и фактам дал и эксперт Ю.В. Ткаченко, бывший начальник инженерно-технического отделения ОМОБ г.Рязани (сейчас сотрудник ОБОП). Он выезжал на место происшествия и проводил экспресс-анализ. Вот лишь два заключения эксперта. Во-первых, газовый анализатор не использовался. Во-вторых, якобы "взрыватель" (штатный) не что иное, как охотничий патрон, и он не может подорвать ни один из известных видов взрывчатого вещества.

'''First, gas analyzer was not used. Second, the ostensibly "detonator" is nothing else but a hunting cartridge and it can't explode no type of a know explosive.'''

That means, that at least the beforementioned statement is not fair. I propose to place this event in chrono order, but to leave only the mention of the official version (Training excercise) there. It can be mentioned below -- yet within the introduction -- that proponents of the government conspiracy theory believe that the Ryazan incident was an unsuccessful bombing attempt by FSB. ellol (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not a common knowledge. An earlier statement by Tkachenko opposed to his later statement.  Referencing both statements in the article should be fine.  What I do not agree with is accepting one of the POVs as absolute truth.--ilgiz (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ilgiz, I 100% agree. Regarding the introduction, that means, we can either cite or mention the both statements or do not view this controversy at all. ellol (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ellol, please read my version of Introduction (it is now included in Quotation box). It does not mention Tkachenko at all.Biophys (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Biophys, it does not make sense to cite the theory of gov-t conspiracy before declaring the results of the official investigation. However, now all facts follow in chronological order, and theories follow in the order of their significance / acceptance. Regards, ellol (talk) 08:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

-

"Two key members of the Kovalev Commission, Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin have since died in apparent assassinations." Before this could be included in the introduction, I think it's necessary to answer the following question: Were their assassinations related to their work as members of Kovalev's Commission? For example, Yulia Latynina thinks differently. She said that their assassinations were not related to Apartment bombings case. ellol (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The other consideration which lead me to a minor self-revert and which was sounded earlier by Historic Warrior is that the failure of unofficial investigation can't prove the theory of Governmental involvement in the bombings. All what it can do is to raise concerns over the official investigation, but it can't be a proof of any theory. That's a purely logical consideration, regardless of anything. ellol (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"False flag"
I have tagged all the uses of the phrase "false flag" as dubious. Please do not remove these tags. Instead, replace them with citations to reliable sources that specifically use the phrase "false flag" to describe the operation. If no such sources exist, then the phrase shouldn't be used at all. Wikiacc (¶) 22:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, perhaps this expression and a few other things in introduction could be rephrased. Biophys (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you're misstating Reliable sources (and the related Verifiability). If we use a phrase or statement unquoted, we need to base it on one or more sources, but it does not need to be present in the source.  For example, if the source says, "The cabinet began to believe that Jones was a frequent liar", we can describe that as "Jones acquired a reputation among the cabinet for deception."  The word "deception" does not need to be present in the source.


 * In other words, we can't express original ideas, but we can use a well-established word for the concept that the source does not. I'll remove the tags, unless you are prepared to argue that the concept is not in the given sources. Superm401 - Talk 00:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)