Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Counterarguments to FSB theory: Moscow circuit military court re-published news reports on its verdicts, but not the verdicts themselves.
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{WikiProject Terrorism}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{disaster management}}
{{WikiProject RussianDisaster Historymanagement|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Mid|hist=yes|pol=yes}}
==Pointing to Putin==
{{WikiProject Crime|terrorism=yes|terrorism-imp=Low|importance=Low}}
The [[conspiracy theory]] I gathered was that prime minister [[Vladimir Putin]] had nothing to show in the coming elections.
}}
His policy was showing no good results.
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=e-e}}
After the bombings and the war answer, Putin's new party successfully passed over any of the candidates.
Can this theory be attributed to anyone, so that it is put in the article?
--[[User:Error|Error]] 01:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 
{{User:MiszaBot/config
----
|maxarchivesize = 100K
From all appearances, this is most likely what happened in short and in all clumsiness and insolence in the making of the Kremlin politics recently given that there is a team rather than one man to be blamed for although he must be involved in everything but as a cover.--[[User:Björn-Isak Rosendahl|BIR]] 07:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
|counter = 11
|algo = old(180d)
|archive = Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{old move|date=21 April 2023|from=Russian apartment bombings|destination=1999 Russian apartment bombings|result=moved|link=Special:PermanentLink/1152175771#Requested move 21 April 2023}}
 
== ReferencesPerpetrators ==
The perpetrators of this were the [[Federal Security Service|FSB]] and other Russian Government agencies. The infobox should say so. The second paragraph makes this clear:
Any references on the official (Amir Khattab and Gochijaev) version? Did they suggest any other suspects later?
{{tqb|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. On 23 September, Vladimir Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of Grozny, which marked the beginning of the Second Chechen War. Three FSB agents who had planted the devices at Ryazan were arrested by the local police. The next day, FSB director Nikolay Patrushev announced that the incident in Ryazan had been an anti-terror drill and the device found there contained only sugar.}}
Why Litvinenko books were not cited? Are they considered a reliable source? [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 04:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
: How and when all these terrorists were convicted? I was waiting for a month. There are no any references in the official part of the story. Should the unreferenced statements be deleted? [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 06:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
:: The Russian language version of this article does have some references, perhaps a Russian speaking editor could look at them :-). According to [[WP:CITE|policy]] things should be verifiable by sources other than Wikipedia. It looks as though the English version mirrors the Russian article and that article and hence this one is thin on references. I would try and get some references rather than delete it as the conviction's are central to the article and it wouldn't make sense without reference to them. [[User:Alex Sims|Alex Sims]] 06:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::: I could only find the official answer from the general prosecutor's office to a Duma member, [http://terror99.ru/documents/doc24.htm in Russian] and its [http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http://terror99.ru/documents/doc24.htm computer translation]. [[User:Ilgiz|ilgiz]] 10:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Yes, probably this is it. However source says that all claims about these people are made by prosection or investigators. It seems that all or most of these people were not convicted in a court. If this is indeed the case (is it?), nobody can say that "The following people either delivered explosives, stored them, or harbored other suspects", as written in this article. Any opinions? [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::There was a 1.5 month trial in the end of 2003.[http://2003.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2003/96n/n96n-s08.shtml] [http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=2003.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2003/96n/n96n-s08.shtml computer translation], [http://www.novayagazeta.ru/rassled2/vzrivi/tayny.shtml] [http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=www.novayagazeta.ru/rassled2/vzrivi/tayny.shtml computer translation] The press was not allowed, so the journalists had to resort to intermediary sources. The verdict was public. [http://2004.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2004/02n/n02n-s14.shtml] [http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=2004.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2004/02n/n02n-s14.shtml computer translation] [[User:Ilgiz|ilgiz]] 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 
This is contradicted only by Russian Government "investigations". But the Russian Government is not a remotely credible source. [[User:Adoring nanny|Adoring nanny]] ([[User talk:Adoring nanny|talk]]) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
==Alexander Litvinenko==
:This is not true, as the [[Russian_apartment_bombings#Criticism]] section shows. Also, recently [[Aimen Dean]] wrote that Ibn Khattab told him he had done it. Personally, I find the government involvement version plausible and even likely but it's still disputed and should be described as such. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 11:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Article is missing information about [[Alexander Litvinenko]] --[[User:LeeHunter|Lee Hunter]] 17:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
:Changing the infobox so that only the accused Islamists are named or only the FSB is quite obviously pushing a POV. The paragraph does not say the FSB were in fact behind the bombings. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
::The paragraph does not in fact say that the Russians were behind the bombings at all, as the devices had not gone off, they weren't responsible for any of the casualties, which makes putting those Russians agencies in the infobox misleading, as the average reader will assume that they might be responsible for all the bombings, which isn't claimed anywhere. [[Special:Contributions/185.227.191.35|185.227.191.35]] ([[User talk:185.227.191.35|talk]]) 09:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
:These recent POV edits are also unhelpful. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 18:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 
== Requested move 21 April 2023 ==
==Counterarguments to FSB theory==
<div class="boilerplate mw-archivedtalk" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
The Russian article has a section on counterarguments to the theory on FSB involvement. I think it needs to be translated - I'd do it myself but it mentions a lot of names that I don't know how to translate. [[User:Esn|Esn]] 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
:''The following is a closed discussion of a [[Wikipedia:Requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.''
: Why do you think this should be translated? Could you just briefly summarize here the conterarguments from this Russian text? If there is anything, we can write it down. But I found only one thing. They say that the original chemical test was declared inaccurate due to contamination of the analysis apparatus from a previous test. But this has been already stated in this English article. [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 03:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
: Here is [http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25D0%2592%25D0%25B7%25D1%2580%25D1%258B%25D0%25B2%25D1%258B_%25D0%25B6%25D0%25B8%25D0%25BB%25D1%258B%25D1%2585_%25D0%25B4%25D0%25BE%25D0%25BC%25D0%25BE%25D0%25B2 computer translation]. The article is being updated these days, and the pro and contra arguments are scattered around all sections. [[User:Ilgiz|ilgiz]] 04:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
:: The best way to organize material is to have all pro arguments in one section and all contra arguments in another section (as it is right now). I agree that the governmental version looks too weak. It is supported by only one reference, whereas the opposite verison is supported by 21 references. If someone could provide more good references about different people mentioned in the governmental version who were convicted or killed - that would be great (I could not find anything!). Also, more can be said about Gochiyaev - who he was and what he claimed. Another interesting question is about 3 FSB persons who conducted the "exercise" in Ryazan. I remember their photos. What are their names? Are they still alive or dead? That would be important to include. [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 17:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC) Sorry, the official version was supported by four references. Still, could be more. [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 17:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
::: (Fixed the computer translation link). I saw the photo-robots of the 3 suspects in a short video clip on Google that seemed to be a part of the "FSB blows up Russia" narrated documentary.[[User:Ilgiz|ilgiz]] 09:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::: Here are the screen shots from the advocacy documentary "Assassination of Russia" by Transparence Production, parts of which were re-published in "Crimes of the Kremlin" by Journeyman Pictures. [[User:Ilgiz|ilgiz]] 11:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
:::: So, are they alive or dead? Obviously, they worked for FSB if the claim by Patrushev about the "exercise" was true (and they also worked in FSB if the alternative version is correct). Can we include some of these images in the article? [[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 15:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
::::: A staged interview with one of the imitation perpetrators was shown later, but the interviewed man was shown from the back. I added the screen shot below. I haven't investigated any news on Gochiyaev or the FSB version's participants. I marked the screen shots with the {{template|promophoto}} template. I believe a fair use clause might apply to these screen shots, but the drop-down list of licence types in the upload page doesn't have such option. Perhaps, the "fair use" clause wasn't considered precise enough. [[User:Ilgiz|ilgiz]] 08:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 
The result of the move request was: '''moved'''. <small>([[Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Closure by a page mover|closed by non-admin page mover]])</small> – [[User talk:MaterialWorks|<span style="color:#000000">Material</span>]][[Special:Contributions/MaterialWorks|<span style="color:#00008b">Works</span>]] 17:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I have made a translation of the Counterarguments section in the Russian article, but I would like to have it approved here before adding it, as this is clearly a sensitive issue:
----
 
[[:Russian apartment bombings]] → {{no redirect|1999 Russian apartment bombings}} – This article has a way too general title. Yesterday Russia bombed itself at Belgorod and while doing a Google search I ended up in a Second Chechen War article. That should say something. [[User:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#0099FF;">Super</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#800080;">Ψ</span>]] [[User talk:Super Dromaeosaurus|<span style="color:#E60026;">Dro</span>]] 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
"Officially, Trepashkin was charged with keeping official documents at home (thus breaching security) and not over accusing FSB of the bombings. His conviction had no connection to the bombings. {{fact}}
*'''Support''' per nomination. The main title header, [[Russian apartment bombings]], is indeed incomplete.&nbsp;—[[User:Roman Spinner|'''Roman Spinner''']] <small>[[User talk:Roman Spinner|(talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Roman Spinner|contribs)]]</small> 17:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
*'''Rename''' there have been many such inccidents over the centuries -- [[Special:Contributions/64.229.90.172|64.229.90.172]] ([[User talk:64.229.90.172|talk]]) 17:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom—[[user:blindlynx|blindlynx]] 20:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
*'''Support''' per nom. -- [[User:Necrothesp|Necrothesp]] ([[User talk:Necrothesp|talk]]) 13:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from [[Template:Archive bottom]] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>
 
== Sources check ==
A parliamentary enquiry was made to the [[Prosecutor General of Russia]]; the response was that the events in Ryazan were indeed a training exercise. According to the Prosecutor General, initial investigations included an attempt of a [[controlled explosion]] of 3 kilograms of the substance from the sacks. The substance failed to detonate. The more detailed investigation ordered by the Prosecutor General concluded, on the basis of a [[pyrotechnics|pyrotechnical]] analysis, that:
{{bquote|The sacks contained [[sucrose]] — a [[disaccharide]] based on [[glucose]] and [[fructose]]. No traces of explosive substances ([[trotyl]], [[hexogen]], [[octogen]], [[tannerite]]?, [[nytroglycerine]], [[tetryl]], and [[picric acid]]) were detected. An investigation of the clock, the batteries, the detonator, the lamp, and the wires showed that although this itemd constituted a single electronic device, it was not, however, capable of producing an electric discharge at the signal from the alarm clock and was not an explosive device.}} It was also noted that:
{{bquote|...the operation in Ryazan was planned and executed in an inappropriate way. In particular, the matter of the limits of the operation was not looked into. There was no contingency plan of informing the local authorities and the police of the training nature of the operation. in case of its detection.<ref>{{ru icon}} [http://grani.ru/Politics/Russia/FSB/m.3240.html The reply of the Prosecutor General to the parliamentary enquiry]</ref>}}
Critics of the FSB involvement theory suggest that ''Novaya Gazeta'' is funded by [[George Soros]] via the Open Society (Otkrytoe obshchestvo) fund and the journalists' views are therefore biased."
 
Let's have a look at sources supporting ''Others disagree with such theories or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks'' in the lead. Because I see for example ''[[Robert Bruce Ware|Ware, Robert Bruce]] (2005). "Revisiting Russia's Apartment Block Blasts". The Journal of Slavic Military Studies.'' and he is a philosopher. [[User:Manyareasexpert|Manyareasexpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 16:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
My opinion is that this should be added, for although it does look somewhat weak, it is nevertheless a sourced opinion, an official opinion I might add. Without it, the article looks too POV. --[[User:AVIosad|AVIosad]]<sup>([[User talk:AVIosad|talk]])</sup> 22:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
:Looking further, there is 2002 book by [[Strobe Talbott]]. Not sure of his reliability - what is his academic degree in a field? His book discusses the matter in only 3 paragraphs and he concludes ''There was no evidence to support this conspiracy theory, although Russian public opinion did indeed solidify behind Putin in his determination to carry out a swift, decisive counteroffensive.'' He provides no explanation and does not mentions Ryazan incident at all. His book has been finished late January 2002 which means just a little bit more than 2 years has passed after the event. [[User:Manyareasexpert|Manyareasexpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 16:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
:Going further, Pope, Ronald R. (2004). "Feature review. Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State".<br>The best he says against the FSS bombing is "Pankratov argues that if the alleged attempted bombing in Ryazan was masterminded by the FSS, we should assume they have been able to keep the lid on the cover-up..." so Pope don't ''disagree'' but quotes Pankratov (who is Pankratov?) doubting the "alleged attempted [FSS] bombing" version, so Pope's position is to not to disagree but to doubt. [[User:Manyareasexpert|Manyareasexpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 18:11, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::Hello. What are you suggesting to do about this? [[User:Ola Tønningsberg|Ola Tønningsberg]] ([[User talk:Ola Tønningsberg|talk]]) 19:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
:::Newer sources should be preferred.{{pb}}[https://www.google.com/books/edition/Developments_in_Russian_Politics_10/re3rEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=putin+elections&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=putin%20elections&f=false Developments in Russian Politics 10 - Google Books]<br>[https://brill.com/view/journals/rupo/8/3/article-p375_5.xml The 1999 Moscow Bombings Reconsidered in: Russian Politics Volume 8 Issue 3 (2023) (brill.com)] [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 20:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
::::It was previously discussed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strobe_Talbott#Reliability_of_Talbott's_information_on_Russia here]. Yes, according to the book by [[Pete Earley]] (based on interviews with [[Sergei Tretyakov (intelligence officer)]]), one should not cite Talbot as an authority on this subject. At best, he knew nothing of substance and just provided his personal opinion. There are so many sources on this subject that one must be selective. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::I think there is an overall consensus of ''best'' sources right now that the bombings were almost certainly conducted by Russian secret services. Some controversy is related to the existence or lack of "direct evidence". But would not someone caught red-handed while planting a bomb be a direct evidence? That is what had happen with FSB agents in the city of Ryazan. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::I definitely think the language should be switched up. As of now it sounds like there is a 50/50 split between the two opinions. Most sources I have seen as of late definitely attributes the attacks to FSB, albeit not conclusively. This line "''The attacks were widely attributed to Chechen terrorists, although their guilt has never been conclusively proven.''", also needs a change. It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations. I'm interested in seeing what changes you have in mind so feel free to make them and we can discuss it here further if there is anything. [[User:Ola Tønningsberg|Ola Tønningsberg]] ([[User talk:Ola Tønningsberg|talk]]) 22:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::I agree. Let me think about it. Or you can just fix it yourself. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::As a double check for "due weight", I am making Google ''books'' search for "Russian apartment bombings", and first 5 books in the list (Satter, Goldfarb, Dunlop, Felshtinsky) strongly assert that the bombings were conducted by the FSB/GRU. These books are specifically on the subject of these bombings or dedicate them at least a big chapter. 6th book (Soldatov) mentions the bombings mostly in passing and expresses a concern that they were work by the "services". Next book (by [[Amy Knight]]) also says it was conducted by Russian services. And so on. I do not have much time for fixing this page, so will do it quickly. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 21:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't think that using top 5 books from the google books search results is a good method. For all we know, they could generate different results for different users <s>to confirm their beliefs</s>.
:::::::[[Andrei Soldatov]] is definitely a subject matter expert, so his opinion should stay in the article even if it contradicts other viewpoints, per [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 22:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, sure, and I did not remove his opinion, just shortened it. As of note though [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_156#AndreiBrette_and_Agentura.ru]. I shortened a big paragraph with their views for a few reasons. It says: "and claims by Trepashkin were highly dubious." Which claims by Trepashin? He made a lot of claims. As about the ""Muslim Society", they say ''according to Russian state security services, ...''. Yes, exactly. Everything we supposedly know about the role of Gochiyaev in this "Society" is ''according to Russian state security services'', and they lied a lot regarding these bombings. But OK, we can keep it, just rephrase. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Sure, the sentence starting from "According to Russian state security services" can be removed or rephrased if more sources can be found. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 07:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::As far as I remember, the claim that Gochiyaev was a leader of this "Muslim Society" was a lie and a part of his framing by the FSB - according to the book by Dunlop. Actually, the only book saying he was indeed a leader of this "Society" ("according to the FSB") is the "Nobility" by Soldatov. No doubts, he had excellent connections with FSB people who fed him various info. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tq|It makes it sound like there is evidence for the accusation but not direct, even though the official Russian investigation didn't name any Chechen perpetrators nor was there any evidence of this claim except simple accusations}}. This is precisely what the source says, and the quote is there. We are not going to rely on [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 19:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Which source? [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 20:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Last edit by Mellk provides [https://web.archive.org/web/20210709181719/http://mau.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1557390&dswid=-2698 this link], but the quote is not there. However, this is the lead, a summary of the content on the page. I just removed this phrase for now, simply because it does not to fit the rest of the text. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 23:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Well the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory and you have made a lot of edits since then, so I have not checked what was removed. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 01:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 
===A revert===
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1999_Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=1216101376&oldid=1216100894]. Well, several participants suggested to change this (see above), and that is exactly what I did. Moreover, the content is sourced to [https://web.archive.org/web/20210709181719/http://mau.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:1557390&dswid=-2698 this link], and the quotation is simply not there. This ref should be either fixed or removed, together with text. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
*:[https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1557806/FULLTEXT01.pdf]. And I see one editor who suggested to change this based on OR. But I guess you do have objections now despite the edit summary? [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 01:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::I am not sure what exactly {{ping|Manyareasexpert}} and {{ping|Ola Tønningsberg}} wanted to fix, so would rather wait for their comments. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 02:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::Well, it is not really possible to have a discussion with you when you go ahead with several changes between each comment, including repeated changes to text being actively discussed. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::If you disagree with my edits, please explain why or suggest a new/compromise version. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::I reverted you (twice) and responded to the discussion. In the edit summary you said you had no objections to this being restored "somewhere", then started a new section here and said you would rather wait for others' comments, and despite all this, still continued making changes to the text in question and restoring some of the previous changes. So I am not sure, is a 3RR warning needed instead? [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 03:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I am sorry, but it was you (not me) who made two reverts. Moreover, you did not really explain here ''why'' you did these reverts. Yes, after saying "I have no objections to this being restored somewhere" in edit summary, I did not revert your edit, but rather modified text to improve it. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::I just said I reverted you twice, and you continued with partial reverts. You put "per talk" as the reason for this. I gave my reason for reverting you above. But I am not going to play these games anymore. [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 03:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::As I said, I am OK with your last revert. What exactly my edit you disagree with (a diff) and what reason did you give? I have no idea. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 03:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::I already said the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory, therefore your initials changes were not accurate summaries. Anything else I should repeat? [[User:Mellk|Mellk]] ([[User talk:Mellk|talk]]) 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::"the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory". Yes, of course. I agree and always agreed with it, and it is reflected in the lead. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::As found above, the lead sentence "Some others disagree with this or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks.[24][25][26][27][28]" contain sources which weakly support the statement, their support is questionable or arguable, are old, are not on subject, are not an expert on a subject, or vice versa. This should be reworked, newer sources preferred. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::The lead is just a summary of the page and does not require referencing directly in the lead. You are welcome to rewrite or whatever. I am more concerned about first phrase in the same para: "The attacks were attributed... ". Attributed by whom? And this is definitely not a correct summary of content on the page (as already noted in discussion above). This phrase should be removed, rewritten or moved somewhere. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tqb|text=The lead is just a summary of the page|by=My very best wishes|ts=14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)|id=c-My_very_best_wishes-20240329141800-Manyareasexpert-20240329135600}}Unfortunately this article doesn't have many active editors/edits so if we would wait for article body to be changed we may never improve. In our situation, let's say it is possible to edit the lead directly.{{pb}}Agree regarding "were attributed". [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Agree. So, I fixed accordingly. As about the phrase you talked about, I thought just removing it would be OK because we do not say that everyone agrees with the claim in the previous phrase (which perhaps would be a proper balance), but this apparently caused objection by Mellk, hence I kept it. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 
== Split of criticism to official and non-official ==
 
@[[User:Manyareasexpert|Manyareasexpert]], what's wrong with splitting the criticism section into two. Official denials aren't worth much in my view and it would be easier for the reader if they were not mixed with the criticism from uninvolved sources. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 12:51, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
: The official charges are described on the [http://trepashkin.ru/charges/ "Charges" page] of the trepashkin.ru web site. I have noticed that the prosecutor ("обвинение") and the inquiry, or enquiry, ("следствие") took the same side in finding that Trepashkin had disclosed state secrets. Because the conviction mentioned only an internal information disclosure, I believe that the judges have apparently demoted or disqualified the former charge. I could not understand what exactly was considered a state secret.
:I'm not opposing the abovementioned. But let's base the article on an academic sources in a field, not journalists [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1999_Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=next&oldid=1245674457] . [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:: I just tried to find a name that would work for all the sources in that section. Let's just split the official criticism then. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 12:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::For example, there is an interesting recent article with a new viewpoint [https://brill.com/view/journals/rupo/8/3/article-p375_5.xml The 1999 Moscow Bombings Reconsidered in: Russian Politics Volume 8 Issue 3 (2023) (brill.com)] , available via wikilibrary. These academic views should be the prevailing POV. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 13:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
::::Thanks, this is fascinating, I haven't heard about this new version. I wouldn't be too surprised if this turned out to be true.
::::Note that he, like Short, is rather skeptical about Litninenko's "FSB did it" version. Perhaps we should reassess the consensus. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 13:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Greetings, I've removed Short since there is no consensus to include it. We are pretty much can concentrate on gathering academic sources since there are plenty. Short's book is [[journalism]] and I haven't seen academic reviews praising his 1999 bombings arguments. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1999_Russian_apartment_bombings&diff=1248407311&oldid=1248350055] I haven't removed other non-academic works since they were there before. But we can reach the consensus and remove them as well. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 18:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{tquote|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content}}. [[WP:ONUS]] works this way whether the material is new or old.
::::::Short's book is has been called [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/01/books/review/putin-philip-short.html impressive], [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jul/03/putin-his-life-and-times-philip-short-review-collapse-that-shaped-man-who-would-be-tsar meticulous] and [https://www.thetimes.com/culture/books/article/putin-by-philip-short-review-wnr5rfgnx exhaustively researched] (by the same Edward Lucas who has a different opinion and whose opinion is mentioned in the article] so it might be journalism but it's not a random newspaper article.
::::::The inclusion of non-scholars' opinions doesn't change the overall weight we give to different viewpoints as they are also divided, but keeping only those who support a certain opinion would certainly violate [[WP:NPOV]]. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 20:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
 
== Weight of different viewpoints ==
:: ''По версии обвинения, проходя с 1984 по 1997 год службу в органах безопасности КГБ СССР и ФСБ РФ, Трепашкин копировал служебные документы, которые в дальнейшем незаконно хранил у себя дома.''
 
===Current text===
:: ''Разглашением сведений, составляющих гостайну, следствие считало передачу Трепашкиным своему бывшему коллеге - полковнику ФСБ Виктору Шебалину - материалов старых сводок прослушивания телефонных переговоров членов гольяновской объединенной преступной группировки (в них, по мнению следствия, содержались данные о методах работы ФСБ).''
{{cquote|Although the bombings were widely blamed on Chechen terrorists, their guilt was never conclusively proven.[14] A number of historians and investigative journalists have instead called the bombings a false flag attack perpetrated by Russian state security services to win public support for a new war in Chechnya and to boost the popularity of Vladimir Putin prior to the upcoming presidential elections.[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] ... Others argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks.}}
 
===Sources===
:: "According to the prosecutor, Trepashkin had been illegally copying office documentation and storing it at home when employed by KGB and FSB from 1984 to 1997.
 
I've created a table with the viewpoints currently mentioned in the article, adding the article by Robert Otto brought up by u:ManyAreasExpert in the previous thread.
:: "The inquiry considered a state secret disclosure the fact that Trepashkin had passed wiretaps of the Goliyanov gang to his former colleague, FSB colonel Victor Shebalin. The inquiry believed the wiretaps contained sensitive details about the FSB investigation techniques".
 
{| class="wikitable"
: Details on the sentence are given further on the same page.
|+ FSB Involvement in the 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings
:: ''Первый процесс Трепашкина проходил в Московском окружном военном суде с декабря 2003 года по 19 мая 2004 года. Трепашкин был признан виновным в разглашении секретных сведений без признаков гостайны и незаконном хранении боеприпасов. Обвинение в злоупотреблении должностными полномочиями (по ч. 3 ст.285 УК РФ) было прекращено в связи с истечением срока давности. Подсудимый не признал своей вины по всем пунктам и заявил, что дело в отношении него было сфабриковано. Он был приговорен к 4 годам лишения свободы в колонии-поселении.''
 
:: "The first Trepashkin's trial took place in the Moscow circuit military court between December 2003 and May 2004. Trepashkin was found guilty of disclosing internal information and illegal storage of arms. Another charge of office power abuse (part 3, article 285 of Criminal Code of Russian Federation) was lifted because of expiry. The convicted did not acknowledge his guilt on any charge and stated that the case was fabricated. He was sentenced to 4 years of imprisonment in a penal colony".
 
: My translation above may not be correct or accurate.[[User:Ilgiz|ilgiz]] 01:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 
: According to Novaya Gazeta, Trepashkin was convicted with "illegal acquisition and storage of arms" (article 222, part 1) and "disclosure of information that is a state secret, without the signs of treason" (article 283, part 1).[http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2006/96/02.html] [[User:Ilgiz|ilgiz]] 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 
 
I can translate the Russian section if desired, but there are no strong counterarguments in it. Just insistance by the FSB that the bag contained sucrose, and that Trepashkin was charged for revealing state secrets, again by the FSB. Should one expect that as a counterargument? Doing so would be based on the presumption that the FSB, if guilty of the bombings, would have charged him with their tru grievance, namely that he inteferred with an FSB cover-up operation. This beggars belief. {{unsigned|203.5.217.3|00:01, 23 March 2007}}
 
 
Old news reports from [[RIA Novosti]] on Trepashkin, re-published by the Moscow circuit military court in the section "Press about us":
* [http://www.movs.ru/about/press_sluzba/o_nas/detail.php?ID=1032 The Moscow circuit military court will announce a verdict in the case of Mikhail Trepashkin], 19 May 2004. [http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http://www.movs.ru/about/press_sluzba/o_nas/detail.php?ID=1032 Machine translation].
* [http://www.movs.ru/about/press_sluzba/o_nas/detail.php?ID=1030 The court will carry a verdict in the case of Trepashkin on 15 April], 12 April 2005. [http://www.online-translator.com/url/tran_url.asp?direction=re&autotranslate=on&transliterate=on&url=http://www.movs.ru/about/press_sluzba/o_nas/detail.php?ID=1030 Machine translation].
It is uncomfortable to know that the court published news articles on its decisions, but it did not publish all the decisions themselves. I could not find any official verdicts on Trepashkin at movs.ru. [[User:Ilgiz|ilgiz]] 19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 
== Snapshots from the Assassination of Russia film ==
 
{|
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-wanted.png|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list published after Ryazan incident, 1999.]]
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-wanted1.png|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list, photo-robot 1 of 3, 1999.]]
|-
! colspan="4" | Original source
|
|-
! Source !! Year !! Position on FSB involvement !! Notes
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-wanted2.png|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list, photo-robot 2 of 3.]]
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-wanted3.png|thumb|left|300px|The wanted list, photo-robot 3 of 3.]]
|-
| Alexander Litvinenko, Yuri Felshtinsky, and Vladimir Pribylovsky || 2002 || Strongly asserts FSB involvement || Litvinenko, a former FSB officer, along with Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky, accused the FSB of orchestrating the bombings to justify the Second Chechen War.
|
|-
! colspan="4" | Academic sources
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-explosives-technician.png|thumb|left|300px|Yuriy Tkachenko, an explosives technician who removed the wires from one of the bags.]]
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-bomb-timer.png|thumb|left|300px|The mechanism removed by Yuriy Tkachenko from one of the bags, according to the documentary.]]
|-
! Source !! Year !! Position on FSB involvement !! Notes
|
|-
| [[David Satter]] || 2003 || Believes in FSB involvement || Satter argued that the bombings were a political provocation by the Russian secret services similar to the burning of the Reichstag. He believes the evidence strongly supports FSB involvement.
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-phone-operator2.png|thumb|left|300px|Nadezhda Yukhnova, an telephone station operator who intercepted the suspicious conversation with a Moscow number starting with 224, the Lubyanka (FSB) exchange.]]
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-alert-resident.png|thumb|left|300px|Aleksey Kartofel'nikov, the alert resident who noticed people carrying bags from a car into the basement.]]
|-
| Amy Knight || 2012 || Strongly asserts FSB involvement || Historian of the KGB, Knight wrote that it was "abundantly clear" that the FSB was responsible and that Putin's "guilt seems clear."
|
|-
| [[Karen Dawisha]] || 2014 || Strongly asserts FSB involvement || In ''Putin's Kleptocracy'', Dawisha concluded that the evidence of FSB involvement, particularly in the Ryazan incident, is "incontrovertible."
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-report-on-prevented-explosion--interior-minister.png|thumb|left|300px|Interior minister Vladimir Rushailo reports on a diverted apartment bombing attack in Ryazan. 24 September 1999. Putin would give the same explanation some time later.]]
| valign="top" |
[[Image:ryazan-report-on-training--fsb-director.png|thumb|left|300px|FSB director Nikolay Patrushev reports on an emergency readiness exercise in Ryazan. 24 September 1999, 30 minutes after Rushailo's report.]]
|-
| [[Timothy Snyder]] || 2018 || Considers FSB involvement possible || Historian Snyder wrote that it "seemed possible" the perpetrators of the bombings were FSB officers.
|
|-
| [[Robert Bruce Ware]] || 2012 || Dismisses FSB involvement || Ware argued that Islamist extremists from the North Caucasus were responsible for the attacks as retribution for federal actions in Dagestan.
| valign="top" |
|-
[[Image:ryazan-mock-perpetrator-according-to-fsb.png|thumb|left|300px|FSB's proof of the Ryazan training exercise. The man shown from the back in an interview was presented as one of the mock perpetrators.]]
| Brian Taylor || 2018 || Skeptical of FSB involvement || Taylor cited multiple reasons to doubt FSB involvement, noting a lack of conclusive evidence and suggesting the Ryazan incident could have been a failed FSB "training exercise."
|-
| [[Max Abrahms]] || 2013 || Skeptical of FSB involvement || Abrahms suggested the bombings were counterproductive for Chechen independence, but argued the conspiracy theories arose because of the clear benefit to the Russian government.
|-
| [[John B. Dunlop]] || 2014|| Supports FSB involvement theory || The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule
|-
| Robert Otto || 2023 || Skeptical of FSB involvement || Otto argued that there is no conclusive evidence that the FSB or Putin were responsible for the bombings, although he concedes that Putin failed to conduct a proper investigation, which makes him complicit in them. He also suggests an alternative explanation involving Berezovsky and Rushailo.
|-
! colspan="4" | Other sources
|-
! Source !! Year !! Position on FSB involvement !! Notes
|-
| [[Edward Lucas (journalist)|Edward Lucas]] || 2008 || Strongly supports FSB involvement theory || In ''The New Cold War'', Lucas concluded that the weight of evidence supports the view that the bombings were a planned stunt to solidify Putin's rise to power.
|-
| [[Scott Anderson (writer)|Scott Anderson]] || 2009 || Suggests FSB involvement || Anderson wrote in ''GQ'' about Putin's role in the bombings, drawing on interviews with Mikhail Trepashkin, a former FSB agent.
|-
| [[Philip Short]] || 2022 || Skeptical of FSB involvement || Short argued that while it cannot be conclusively proved that no one from the FSB was involved, there is no factual evidence of Russian state involvement.
|-
| [[Christopher Steele]] || 2022 || Supports FSB involvement theory || Christopher Steele voiced support for the idea that the bombings were a false flag operation conducted by Russian security services.
|}
 
[[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 19:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
==Some references (Russian)==
*[http://2003.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2003/16n/n16n-s17.shtml#videokasseta What Gochiyaev said]
*[http://2003.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2003/16n/n16n-s18.shtml What Berezovsky said]
*[http://2005.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2005/18n/n18n-s08.shtml Gochiyaev - update]
*[http://2002.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2002/91n/n91n-s00.shtml#pismo What Krymshakhmalov and Batchaev (Крымшамхалов и Батчаев) said]
*[http://2002.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2002/91n/n91n-s01.shtml What Felshtinsky said]
 
Please let me know if you notice inaccuracies or believe that an important source is missing. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 
:John B. Dunlop in "''The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule''" also makes a strong case for FSB involvement. He's a good source. Overall most sources certainly believe FSB involvement [[User:Ola Tønningsberg|Ola Tønningsberg]] ([[User talk:Ola Tønningsberg|talk]]) 22:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Another interesting source: [http://www.lib.ru/HISTORY/FELSHTINSKY/naslednik.txt Who is Mr. Putin? (Russian)] by Pribylovsky and Felshtinsky[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 02:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
::{{Done}}. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 19:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:Also, please remove non-academic sources like Short from the comparison, thanks! [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 22:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::If I'm not mistaken we have 4 non-scholars in the list (Steele, Lucas, Short and Litvinenko himself). I'm not sure about removing them, Steele's account in particular is quite thorough (he interviewed several experts for that chapter) and his book has been praised for its meticulousness.
::But even if give less weight to all non-scholars, it doesn't really change the calculus. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 20:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Short's book is not published by academic publishers so it's a [[Opinion journalism|journalism]] and should be omitted. Litvinenko's work is pretty much a primary source by today and should be assessed by academic works, whose opinion should be presented instead. Please check others from your list above. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 20:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I've moved all non-scholarly sources to a separate section in the table. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 11:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
 
===Assessment===
It says (Russian):"Теракт в Буйнакске 4 сентября был подготовлен и осуществлен Главным разведывательным управлением Генштаба РФ во главе с генерал-полковником
 
Корабельнико-вым. Операцией руководил начальник 14-го управления Главного
If we simply count "support" and "skeptical" sources we'd have 8 (or 10 if we count Litvinenko, Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky separately) sources ranging from strong support to "seems possible" and 5 that are generally skeptical.
разведывательного управления генерал-лейтенант Костечко. Осуществлением
теракта занималась группа офицеров ГРУ из двенадцати человек, посланная для
этого в командировку в Дагестан."[[User:Biophys|Biophys]] 05:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
----
1. ''On 20 May 2004, an article in the Los Angeles Times described the conviction on an unrelated state secret charge of Mikhail Trepashkin, ...''
I couldn't find the LA Times article, but this [http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,2763,1403681,00.html Guardian article] essentially says enough to cover the first two citation demands of that paragraph.
 
Please note that the "skeptical" ones are generally newer. If we take only post-2010 or post-2020 sources, the supporting ones would be a minority.
2. ''In fact, Seleznyov was referring to an unrelated explosion which indeed happened in Volgodonsk three days earlier'' - This is a very strong statement, as it presents a statement by one of the interested parties, Genprokuratura, without proper attribution. Besides, the provided source states that the explosive device in question was hand-grenade based... --[[User:Illythr|Illythr]] 23:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 
It seems like the current text does not give due weight to the two main viewpoints. I would suggest something along the lines of {{tquote|The identity of the perpetrators is disputed. The official investigation blamed the Chechens. Some scholars believe that it was a false flag attack by the Russian security services while others consider it unlikely}}. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 20:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
== Talk page references ==
:First thing the reader would know is if sources support or disprove the official version. [[User:Manyareasexpert|ManyAreasExpert]] ([[User talk:Manyareasexpert|talk]]) 12:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
<references/> <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Ilgiz|Ilgiz]] ([[User talk:Ilgiz|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Ilgiz|contribs]]) 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:"The official investigation blamed the Chechens."
:Is this the correct way to word it? Since the official investigation only produced non-chechen perpetrators. [[User:Ola Tønningsberg|Ola Tønningsberg]] ([[User talk:Ola Tønningsberg|talk]]) 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::Let's say we were to consider the "official investigation" to be an at-face-value-equally-valid historical analysis, dated 2001--2002 (and possibly also consider the court in 2004 and 09 reviewed some more stuff in their limited scope). That's quite old compared to the rest of the sources we have (and counters the noted trend in argument, although the sample is small of self-selecting scholars who chose to study this). Is there any significant evidence that emerged since 2002 that weighed scholarship one way or another? (I don't see any indicated in the article, but I haven't read good amounts of any of the books above?
::Example: if the evidence has been mostly unchanged since 2002 (and depending on what is identified as the change in tone of the scholarship), then the sources probably have about equal weight, with slight preference to both the official version (more access to secret info, inherent notability) and the best-most-recent version. [[User:SamuelRiv|SamuelRiv]] ([[User talk:SamuelRiv|talk]]) 15:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Ola Tønningsberg|Ola Tønningsberg]], that's a good point, we should say "Islamic terrorists from Caucasus" or smth like that. [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Islamic terrorists from Caucasus?
:::including Dagestan? Osetia? Georgia? Azerbaijan? ets
:::why not Earth?
:::Islamic?
:::you have seen them leaving mosque on Friday?
:::or better state the reality - Chechen terrorists [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:12C0:630:5884:6393:BB5A:44EB|2607:FEA8:12C0:630:5884:6393:BB5A:44EB]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:12C0:630:5884:6393:BB5A:44EB|talk]]) 02:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)