This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Disaster management B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: History / Politics and law C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force. Terrorism Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In a recent edit I've added a mention of the Global Terrorism Database entries, relevant to the article. I wonder how reliable is the source, so I've asked about it at RS/Noticeboard. --Document hippo (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the reply was not encouraging [1]. It should not be used here. And in general, this page relies on numerous outdated and low-quality sources and personal opinions, whereas there are more recent books by experts like Amy Knight. I can fix it if you do not mind. My very best wishes (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly fixed a few things. Will finish later. My very best wishes (talk) 19:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, [2] - story with Gochiyaev. What a patsy. My very best wishes (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the reply to my inquiry about GTD has not been encouraging.

Then, this edit by you has removed well-sourced information which belongs to the article. Of course, the question is, which major event warranted reaction by the U.S. Government? A bombing by Islamic terrorists or a false-flag operation by the Russian Government? Clearly, the U.S. Government had no indication in 1999 that the bombing in Russia was anything but a genuine terrorist attack, which is reflected in the sources. I'm restoring that content.

Document hippo (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The response by Albright on the February 2000 hearing is telling in that regard. I would cite it here in full.

Document hippo (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to provide very long quotations. They must be briefly summarized or only briefly cited. My very best wishes (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of that edit, I want to acknowledge that the sources are paywalled, and for your convenience I've uploaded them here. Izmailov's source has contacted him 12 hours prior to the September 9 Guryanova bombing — well in advance! If a secondary source is needed, the story was acknowledged by Dmitry Muratov, former editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, in a recent documentary by Alexey Pivovarov: here. Hope it helps! Document hippo (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I as said in my edit summary: the story is WP:Extraordinary, and there is no reliable secondary RS which would be published long after the events to support the story. My very best wishes (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dunlop, pp. 89-91. Document hippo (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly Dunlop wrote about it? Can you cite it here? As currently written, one can not make any sense of this story. If it does appear in a book like one by Dunlop, we can include it, but this should be included as described in this book (a good secondary RS). My very best wishes (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Previously you wanted to know what precisely has Izmailov said. Have you read the articles I've provided? Now, as regards Dunlop, here you go. Alright, let me shorten the paragraph to keep the salient details which appear in Dunlop (and I suppose, New York Times could be used, too)? --Document hippo (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Document hippo. In your revert [3] you (a) included a claim by Vladimir Zhirinovsky sourced to YouTube, (b) you included "Law on Freedom of Movement" (totally unrelated to the subject of the page), (c) you moved factual and well sourced information about prevented bombings to another section, and so on. ??? My very best wishes (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you've returned to editing! As I said, I'm open to a debate.

(a) A claim by Zhirinovsky is notable as Zhirinovsky's opinion, because previously he has been a subject of a major controversy. He makes his explanations to a notable Russian journalist.

(b) As I said, see Dunlop pp. 89-91. The story is well known.

(c) It's Yury Luzhkov's take on the bombings. We cite John McCain and a lot of others, while Luzhkov was immensely more involved and informed. It's clear that he (A) believes in the official version and (B) identifies certain reasons which facilitated terrorist attacks -- i.e., the Law on Freedom of Movement. I thought it's more appropriate to be kept as a part of a more general context, than in the criticism section.

--Document hippo (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a) No, a primary source (a YouTube record) is not good for sourcing such claim. If you disagree please ask at WP:BLPNB.

(c) No, debating propiska in the context of bombing is clearly undue for a big page like that one.

(b) Yes, if you cite exactly what Dunlop say (and this is something important), this might be included - as described by Dunlop. My very best wishes (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(a) How about we just say Zhirinovsky said it has been a misunderstanding? As appears in this secondary source.

(c) That could be shortened, too.

(b) As regards the links to those two articles, I've restricted the content to what appears in Dunlop. Note that Dunlop cites the two articles by Izmailov. The information from the NYT is somewhat differently worded, but is also contained there. --Document hippo (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update. I've asked users at the BLPNB about our present dispute.

It's good that you suggested it! Won't hurt to ask, I suppose.

--Document hippo (talk) 15:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I agree with Masem this might be included and not an outright BLP violation when supported by the additional RS (it was not when I removed it). Same about the story with Ismailov when it is supported by the book by Dunlop. But my main and general objection to your edits here is different: you dilute this big and barely readable page with a lot of marginally important claims, which makes it even less readable. All these things are hardly due on the page. But whatever. I simply do not have time for this right now. Perhaps I will, but not sure when. My very best wishes (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you would kindly provide the examples, so we could work through them.

Take your time.

--Document hippo (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For example, I think the "support" and "criticism" sections must be significantly condensed (and there should be no such subsections). This should be just a couple of phrases like "this version/interpretation of events was supported by ... [list of authors with refs]. However, a number of others believe that the official version by the Russian government/FSB could be true" [list of authors with refs]. Or something similar. As currently written, these personal opinions do not provide any real information or important ideas, but only a statement of supporting/disagreeing with something, just like a vote. This is not encyclopedic content. There are many other issues with your revert/version. For example, the US government does NOT have an official position about it. I did not see the claim about Gochiaev being a leader of an Islamist organization in the book by Soldatov (can you cite it directly, please?). You repeatedly cited nearly identical claims by FSB people. And the list goes on and on. My very best wishes (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! In any way, the conspiracy version of events is far from being universally accepted , so there's going to be some form of a debate. Be it in the "criticism" section or a "discussion" section or just spread evenly across the text. I think it makes sense to try to keep a discussion in a dedicated section.

Here's the quotation from New Nobility you have requested (pp. 266-267).

Will reply to the rest of your points a bit later!

--18:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• So, "Gochiyaev, Adam Dekkushev, and Yusuf Krymshamkhalov were members of the so-called Muslim Society No. 3, founded in 1995. According to the Russian secret services, by 2001 Muslim Society No. 3 counted more than 500 members and began a campaign of terror in nearby regions." (I did not see it in Russian version of the book). So that is according to the FSB, i.e. the organization that allegedly committed the bombings and well known for planting disinformation anyway. And of course we know that most of the information in the book by Soldatov did come from his FSB contacts and other similar sources. Do you have any strong RS that claim the same? I am a little skeptical about Soldatov who created several pages in WP about himself, his book, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here is an actual RS which discusses that claim by the FSB (and Soldatov) in length. As it say, In reality, since his (unwitting or deliberate) role in the 1999 bombings, Gochiyayev cannot be decisively tied to any rebel military operation or terrorist attack in the Caucasus. So this is all a disinformation by the FSB. Why? According to the source, "Much of Bombing Russia relies on the testimony of Gochiyayev, so it is perhaps not surprising that Russian security forces might resurrect his name as a current terrorist leader just as the Litvinenko poisoning investigation intensified in December. If Gochiyayev were indeed an active resistance leader, this would discredit his account of himself as an innocent patsy of the FSB who has gone underground, fearing for his life.". My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no direct contradiction, because Soldatov and Borogan don't claim there was any direct involvement by Gochiyaev since after 1999, which is the gist of the Jamestown argument.

No, author clearly considers Gochiyeav as a "patsy", see also another article by same author [4]. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soldatov and Borogan's book is also not the only RS on the subject.

For example, Elena Pokalova says the following in "Chechnya's Terrorist Network" on pages 98-99:

Sources by the FSB can be also reliable sources, if they are properly published.

Yes, they have a vested interest, but so have Litvinenko, Satter and others.

--Document hippo (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the US government does NOT have an official position about it.

How about "Reaction of the US government"?

--Document hippo (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you are making a typical WP:GEVAL argument. Yes, fringe sources and disinformation claims (e.g. by the FSB) can be cited, but they must be clearly defined as such, at least according to WP rules. The RS are books by experts like the books by Satter. Are other authors experts? That needs to be seen on a case to case basis. Someone quoting FSB and unreliable Russian newspapers as the ultimate truth - that would be hardly an RS. My very best wishes (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what are "disinformation claims" that you cite. Could you be more specific?

Yes, any author covering the subject matter would deal with the information coming from the FSB. Soldatov and Borogan had their conflicts with the FSB, their computers were confiscated, etc. You know that no worse than I do. --Document hippo (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"У меня был еще один эпизод после «Норд-Оста», когда со мной пытались договориться: было уголовное дело, серия допросов, когда таскали меня, Иру, а потом и еще ряд сотрудников газеты «Версия», где мы тогда работали. На меня вышел мой источник в московском управлении ФСБ и предложил сделку: я должен был прекратить шуметь, а они закроют дело. Но у нас есть принцип, который разделяют журналисты, работающие по этой теме и в других странах: такие контакты, такие попытки договориться нужно делать публичными."[5]

--Document hippo (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course all of them use such sources, but how? Someone critically analyzing such publications in context of other sources and facts (like [here, Satter, Dunlop, etc.) is a researcher/RS, but someone uncritically citing FSB and other unreliable sources as the ultimate truth (like Soldatov) is probably not really an expert or promotes disinformation. I would not say more beyond noticing that the page he wrote in WP about himself (or his other claims about himself) do not provide full picture. My very best wishes (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, which specific point are you trying to make?

The example with Jamestown article is not convincing, because there's no contradiction between Soldatov and Borogan and the article you cited.

Why do you think Soldatov "uncritically cites FSB"?

--Document hippo (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is bottom line. I think that including views by the FSB, Soldatov and whoever else is fine. Just do not present their views as "the truth" and do not overemphasize their views, for example, by providing very long descriptions of their views, as it is in the current version. That would be undue weight. My very best wishes (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure why you protested including the official account of the prevented bombing incident. Felshtinsky himself admits that he has no evidence he communicated with Achemez Gochiyaev: [6]. --Document hippo (talk) 06:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will check the sources and will possibly edit something later, when I have more time. My very best wishes (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great! See you around! --Document hippo (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. BTW this your edit summary about the comment by Madeleine Albright is hardly correct. Secondary sources, even ones produced by US Congress [7] interpret it as that FSB/Russian government have no evidence of the Chechen involvement: "Putin blamed the bombings on Chechen terrorists and immediately ordered Russia’s armed forces to retaliate. Yet while Russian authorities said that there was a ‘‘Chechen trail’’ leading to the bombings, no Chechen claimed responsibility. In response to questions from the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 2000, then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrote that ‘‘We have not seen evidence that ties the bombings to Chechnya.’’ State Department cable from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow relays how a former member of Russia’s intelligence serv-ices told a U.S. diplomat that the FSB ‘‘does indeed have a specially trained team of men whose mission is to carry out this type of urban warfare,’’ and that the actual story of what happened in Ryazan would never come out, because ‘‘the truth would destroy the country.’’" My very best wishes (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you remember the parable of the Blind men and an elephant?

Here's another secondary source about the same exact event:

"The U.S. never raised the question of why FSB agents were caught putting a bomb in the basement of an apartment building. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declined to answer questions about the bombings from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying only that “acts of terror have no place in a democratic society.” Russia blamed the bombings on Chechen rebels. Unless the truth is established, terror may become the way power changes hands in Russia from now on."

[8]

--Document hippo (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that source cites another comment by Albright (“acts of terror have no place in a democratic society.”) Obviously, she only said "We have not seen evidence that ties the bombings to Chechnya". She or other US officials did not rise the question of why FSB agents were caught red-handed while planting a similar bomb in Ryzan'. That is "How America Helped Make Vladimir Putin Dictator for Life". My very best wishes (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check the source. The question by Senator Jesse Helms (who presided over the Senate Foreign Relations Committee) and the answer by Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright:

"Question 1. Last September, bombs went off in four apartment complexes in Moscow and other cities. Russian authorities have attributed these bombings to Chechen terrorists and used these accusations to justify the invasion of Chechnya. Do you believe that the Russian government is justified when it accuses Chechen groups as responsible for the bombings? If so, would you please forward to the Committee any evidence that you have that links these bombings to Chechen entities?

Answer. We condemned the deadly apartment bombings in the harshest terms. Acts of terror, in all their forms, have no place in a democratic society.

The investigation into these bombings is ongoing. We offered our assistance to Russian law enforcement immediately following these incidents.

We understand that Russian authorities have linked the bombings to Chechnya. Chechen authorities, including President Maskhadov, deny this link.

We have not seen evidence that ties the bombings to Chechnya."

--Document hippo (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure.

Q: "Do you believe that the Russian government is justified when it accuses Chechen groups as responsible for the bombings? If so, would you please forward to the Committee any evidence that you have that links these bombings to Chechen entities?

A:We understand that Russian authorities have linked the bombings to Chechnya. Chechen authorities, including President Maskhadov, deny this link. We have not seen evidence that ties the bombings to Chechnya.

She is an experienced diplomat. She did not answer directly first quest (what she believes). She said there is no any evidence to support the claim by the Russian government. In US culture saying there is no evidence that someone (Maskhadov or Chechen authorities) was guilty meaning they are not guilty. This is a typical interpretation of her comment in secondary RS. And indeed, they were not guilty, even according to the official "Russian"/FSB version. My very best wishes (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's one way of seeing it. David Satter sees it differently. In his article that I linked, he says: "Secretary of State Madeleine Albright declined to answer questions about the bombings from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, saying only that “acts of terror have no place in a democratic society.”"

--Document hippo (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me a link to a copy of book by Dunlop on Google drive. Do you have a similar copy of latest book by Satter ("The less you know...")? My very best wishes (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Here, but you would need any software which opens epub. I own some copies of books on the subject, but got this particular file from libgen. -- Document hippo (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW, that photo (just inserted to the page) was allegedly fabricated by the FSB, according to this and other sources. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes Do you have sources for that? I read in the BBC article that there was an expert who said that he couldn't confirm the identity of the person on the photo, but I'm sure if they had a smallest shred of evidence it's fabricated they would say so (it was Litvinenko after all). In any case it's now very clearly attributed to FSB. Alaexis_¿question? 07:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am OK with current legend of the figure. Here some RS: [9], [10]. According to BBC (since you mentioned BBC), "Mr Litvinenko said a British forensic analyst said it could not be determined whether the man in the photo was in fact Mr Gochiyayev. The analyst, Geoffrey Oxlee, confirmed that statement.". So, this is it. No one really knows if it was Gochiyayev or who. Of course one should put this in context i.e. FSB was apparently working hard to produce fake evidence about Gochiyayev in general [11].

Also add the story with photo of "Laipanov" , i.e. "In Lefortovo prison," Korolkov quoted from Blumenfeld's statement, "they showed me a photograph of a certain person, and they said that it was Gochiyaev and that I had supposedly rented the basement to him. I answered that I had never seen this man. But it was insistently recommended to me that I identify Gochiyaev. I understood everything and ceased arguing, and I signed the testimony. In point of fact, the person whose photograph was shown to me, and whom they called Gochiyaev, was not the person who had come to me." (Dunlop, page 128, and here - that ref puts everything to proper context, but I am sure you know the story). My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@LightProof1995: 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alsee, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with that, one sentence should be enough.

WDYT? Alaexis_¿question? 05:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have brought this issue to Reliable Source Noticeboard. Alsee (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]