Talk:1999 Russian apartment bombings

message: 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)
replies: text: OK. I do not see the point of adding this new sentence when the first sentence in that paragraph already says:  So this just becomes repetitive. You also added quotes but these were misattributed. You added the quote  and  but these is what CNN says, not quotes from the police. Mellk (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mention of Cyclonite in CNN Source 

message: The perpetrators of this were the FSB and other Russian Government agencies. The infobox should say so. The second paragraph makes this clear:
This is contradicted only by Russian Government "investigations". But the Russian Government is not a remotely credible source. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Alaexis¿question? 11:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Changing the infobox so that only the accused Islamists are named or only the FSB is quite obviously pushing a POV. The paragraph does not say the FSB were in fact behind the bombings. Mellk (talk) 16:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

text: These recent POV edits are also unhelpful. Mellk (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perpetrators 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – MaterialWorks 17:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian apartment bombings →  – This article has a way too general title. Yesterday Russia bombed itself at Belgorod and while doing a Google search I ended up in a Second Chechen War article. That should say something. Super Ψ Dro 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 April 2023 

message: *. Well, several participants suggested to change this (see above), and that is exactly what I did. Moreover, the content is sourced to this link, and the quotation is simply not there. This ref should be either fixed or removed, together with text. My very best wishes (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what exactly  and  wanted to fix, so would rather wait for their comments. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is not really possible to have a discussion with you when you go ahead with several changes between each comment, including repeated changes to text being actively discussed. Mellk (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you disagree with my edits, please explain why or suggest a new/compromise version. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted you (twice) and responded to the discussion. In the edit summary you said you had no objections to this being restored "somewhere", then started a new section here and said you would rather wait for others' comments, and despite all this, still continued making changes to the text in question and restoring some of the previous changes. So I am not sure, is a 3RR warning needed instead? Mellk (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but it was you (not me) who made two reverts. Moreover, you did not really explain here why you did these reverts. Yes, after saying "I have no objections to this being restored somewhere" in edit summary, I did not revert your edit, but rather modified text to improve it. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I just said I reverted you twice, and you continued with partial reverts. You put "per talk" as the reason for this. I gave my reason for reverting you above. But I am not going to play these games anymore. Mellk (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, I am OK with your last revert. What exactly my edit you disagree with (a diff) and what reason did you give? I have no idea. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I already said the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory, therefore your initials changes were not accurate summaries. Anything else I should repeat? Mellk (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: "the rest of the article does not only mention support of government involvement theory". Yes, of course. I agree and always agreed with it, and it is reflected in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 13:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

text: As found above, the lead sentence "Some others disagree with this or argue that there is insufficient evidence to assign responsibility for the attacks.[24][25][26][27][28]" contain sources which weakly support the statement, their support is questionable or arguable, are old, are not on subject, are not an expert on a subject, or vice versa. This should be reworked, newer sources preferred. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead is just a summary of the page and does not require referencing directly in the lead. You are welcome to rewrite or whatever. I am more concerned about first phrase in the same para: "The attacks were attributed... ". Attributed by whom? And this is definitely not a correct summary of content on the page (as already noted in discussion above). This phrase should be removed, rewritten or moved somewhere. My very best wishes (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this article doesn't have many active editors/edits so if we would wait for article body to be changed we may never improve. In our situation, let's say it is possible to edit the lead directly.Agree regarding "were attributed". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. So, I fixed accordingly. As about the phrase you talked about, I thought just removing it would be OK because we do not say that everyone agrees with the claim in the previous phrase (which perhaps would be a proper balance), but this apparently caused objection by Mellk, hence I kept it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: A revert