Talk:Beslan school siege

More pictures?

Just remember, media stuff is not free. But the Aushev tape is free (both fragments) and so are a public domain photos. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Few people are interested in this "High-importance" article. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In related articles

I believe I finished Kizlyar-Pervomayskoye hostage crisis, but it needs some copyedit.

Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis and Moscow theater hostage crisis are pretty good but need sources. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lovely article

I've still haven't seen a barnstar for an article and in too many cases only the negatives of the article are focused on. Thank you to the community for compiling such a comprehensive article on a controversial topic. I learned a lot about this tragic and rather complicated event. I see some pegging this article as long and perhaps overly referenced but I found (as an outsider) that the volume of references removed questions as to statement neutrality and reliability. Thanks, folks! Ogre lawless (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I too agree that article is good and provides a lot of detail, thanks to many good wikipedians who contributed here! As a critical comment, I do not understand this phrase in introduction: "On the third day of the standoff, a series of explosions shook the school, followed by a fire which engulfed the building and a chaotic gunbattle between the hostage-takers and Russian security forces". Actually, a majority of people were killed by direct tank gunfire and with flamethrowers used by Russian security forces, as can see from the character of their wounds and other materials. This has been discussed at the talk page above. Is not it? If so, this should be more clearly stated.Biophys (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC) BTW see Prosecution of Beslan activists.Biophys (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the introduction the way it was tbh (concerning the voice of beslan paragraph), otherwise it gets a bit too big. BTW it's pretty hard to define the "biggest terrorist attack since september 11", because for example the 2007 Yazidi communities bombings had twice the amount of casualties as Beslan, so maybe it's best to exclude that. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too much of pushing the point. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about "the biggest terrorist attack", but you simply deleted all my edits. "Too big" is not an argument. Please explain what is wrong and let others to reply and discuss.Biophys (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. I meant the part about the voice of beslan group, there are many organisations who demanded a new investigation etc, not just that group. Maybe the best would be to say something like "many organisations demanded an independent investigation but were charged by the federal government". "most were burned alive", are we sure about that? I used to believe that most simply died in blasts. That's hard to investigate but judging from the few grizzly images ive seen many bodies didn't have (much) burn marks. Also on a side-note you often place the dot _after_ a reference, best is before I think, which most people do. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I understand what you mean. Two comments. You wrote that Basyev blamed Putin. This is not clear. What does it mean? Second, I think it is important to tell something about Mothers of Beslan in the end of introduction. Perhaps previous version was not good. Let's try something better.Biophys (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well even though Basayev was largely responsible for the outcome, he didn't claim responsibility for the outcome, only the hostage taking, that's a difference. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but this fine distinction is not clear in introduction.Biophys (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruslan Khuchbarov / Ali

I think we're dealing with the same person here. "Ali" in BBC's documentary is the person who spoke with the woman and Aushev and was captured on tape. According to this article [1] they are the same person. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Can someone who understands Russian help out on this:

Here's a new list of alleged hostage takers.[2] Most of them aren't present on the list of this wiki page.

I can't find any information on them on english language sites when I try to translate their names. But I'd like to know their name in English as well as where they are from. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aushev

[3] Way to thank the only hero of the day... - PietervHuis (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Aushev was hounded by many in Russia for (gasp!) daring to negotiate and actually entering te school. He became a terrorist sympathiser or even an accomplice. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So, why is it not even a good article?

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm nominating this for GA, assuming 84.234.60.154 doesn't object. Gimmetrow 06:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a GA for many reasons. It is biased - parts of it are just a point of view, it lacks both Ossetian and Russian (as a whole) references, its use of word 'rebels' to describe people that take scoolchildren as hostages and then kill them is just a joke. Just compare to the 9/11 article to know what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.202.113.34 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "terrorist"

Please note that the use of the word "terrorist" throughout the article violates a Wikipedia guideline. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter. The 3 uses in quotations can be kept, but the other 21 should be replaced with a neutral term that does not imply a moral judgment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of other things to mention: there is no fair use rationale for Image:Vladimir Khodov.jpg, and the references are missing important information. At minimum, they should include a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a publication date and/or author is listed, this information should be included as well. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

gah. Not that discussion again. Please see archive for previous discussions before opening it again. Rune X2 (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but consensus can change. I would vote in favor of GaryColemanFan suggestion as consistent with WP rules. Although I personally believe these people were terrorists, the WP rules are more important.Biophys (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm Danish, so rules aren't so important to me and I generally think there is entirely too much petty bureaucratizing going on at Wikipedia as is. Anyway I notice that the 9/11 article is not shy of using the words terrorism and terrorists. I'd find it somewhat suspect that this would pass just because there are more US editors than Russian editors. Also I believe that it is ok to for instance to designate a person a murder if he has been found guilty of murder. Pretty much the whole world agrees that this was terrorism (it's also categorized under Terrorism in Russia - how can something be a terrorist act without being perpetrated by terrorists?). The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called it terrorism "the brutal and senseless slaughter"of children only served to emphasise the need for the world community to come together in confronting terrorism". The EU called it terrorism. The US called it terrorism. France, Germany, Italy. Nelson Mandela. The Pope. The Mufti of Chechnya. A host of newspapers. And the terrorists themselves called themselves terrorists. There is a world consensus that this was an act of terrorism, which it would not be NPOV to ignore or fly against. That would be a statement in itself.

And if the consensus should shift of the victim list, it has been preserved in the Danish wiki: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofre_for_terrorangrebet_i_Beslan Rune X2 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So, they kept the list. This is a good argument in favor of Danish wiki. We have more "partisans" here. Ironically, the list of Beslan victims has been deleted by users from Ireland because they had a dispute about a similar list related to the The troubles. Biophys (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

...this is a joke, right? Some sort of attempt at social commentary (done in bad taste) aimed at exposing the ridiculousness of some Wikipedia policies, right? Calling the taking of a school full of children as hostages not a terrorist attack, and the perpetrators not terrorists, is actually being considered here? A deliberate and planned attack on children, innocent civilians outside of a war zone, isn't terrorism? If this cannot be called terrorism, then what can? I'm really at a loss of words here. Wikipedia has become a joke.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan correctly cites WP policies. The precise word ("rebel", "terrorist", "murderer", "monster", etc.) does not really matter as long as we describe what these people have done. It is better practice to use neutral words rather than use slander.Biophys (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the policy, and I'm glad it is being implemented in articles. But let's use a little discretion here: clearly there are exceptions to every rule, and taking children hostage is pretty much the most perfect example of terrorism that one can think of. So are we banning the word from Wikipedia altogether because it inherently supports a view-point? The policy says these words should be avoided, not banned, and if they're going to be used anywhere, this is one article I would think people would have no qualms about its usage. I'm pretty sure everyone can agree this was terrorism other than a few nutty radicals, but a few nutty radicals also insist the world is flat. No one's going to avoid using the word "spherical" to describe the planet to accommodate certain persons' delusions.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

GA1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beslan_school_hostage_crisis/GA1

The "354 hostages" thing. This is discussed later in the article, but http://www.google.com/search?q=354+hostages+beslan&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2 and choose any of over 3,000 - "for some reason", because they didn't explain why they chose this number (and when the locals knew there were more and were angered by this). Are we going to guess their reason? If you searched the article for "354" you would find it explained (even who was spreading this over into the press and Russian TV). "For an unknown reason"? "For no apparent reason"?

• How about just removing the 'for an unknown reason'?

How about if you did then instead of asking me now? Hard much? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Chas being POV" - that they dumped there large numbers of armed people from various formations but had no preparations for fire-fighting (as in putting down any blaze) or dealing with a large number of casualties, for over two days, and did not even cordon the area properly, is not a "chaotic"?

• Is there a cite for the cordon being 'disorganized'? Why was the chaos worsened because of the militiamen being present?

Because of, I don't know, WHOLE CROWDS OF ARMED PEOPLE WHO WERE UNDER NO ONE'S COMMAND roaming all over the place inside of the so-called "security cordon"? This is what you'd call a well-organized cordon? One of the versions is even that it was them who opened fire/didn't stop firing.

If you just try and google "beslan" "cordon": "Otherwise it would have to be admitted that the cordon surrounding the school was purely symbolic and of no use at all. But from what I saw, not even in one’s wildest dreams could the cordon in Beslan be called secure. Breaking through the “ring” was elementary."[4] "Anarchy ruled. The federal government sent in their finest special forces to fight, but did not use their plentiful conscripts to erect a protective cordon for their operation."[5] "An insecure cordon was also made around the school - in places within range of the terrorist's grenade-launchers - and it broke down during the last battle, which the survivors say allowed some terrorists to escape."[6] And so on and on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Russian government defended the use of tanks and other heavy weaponry, arguing that it was used after surviving hostages escaped from the school. However, this contradicts the eyewitness accounts (including by reporters, photographers and videographers[227]), as many hostages were seriously wounded and could not possibly escape by themselves, while others were kept by the militants as human shields and moved through the building." no cite for this" - there's "cite for this" right there ([227]), but anyway, for example:

Then one of the terrorists told me: ‘Get of here; the roof is on fire, you can die.' We ran to the cafeteria; the situation was the same there, and there the militants told us to run out: ‘Now this part of the building will be fired on; get out of here.' Then they forced the hostages to stand on the windowsills, to tear down the drapery and to wave it, to shout [at them] not to shoot. I myself saw how they were shooting from the streets. I sat with the children on the floor, but in one moment I looked and saw a mountain of corpses on the windowsills. Then, an APC [armored personnel carrier] pulled up, three [soldiers] jumped out and point blank began to shoot those hostages who continued to stand on the windowsills. At that moment I was absolutely not scared of the militants; they were not firing at us. The only thing I feared was that they were going to kill them [the terrorists] and then come in the school and shoot all of us."[7]

• Cite 227 only appeared to be verifying the content within parentheses, my apologies.

"I'm going to stop writing a detailed review as such here" Pfff.

• I'd offer to review the rest but my review thus far is clearly less than capable :)

The rest is more or less valid. But I don't get "wtf vote". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• 'wtf votes' (I assume you're referring to the template?) just mean that I'm not sure (and am therefore unable to say yes/no) and probably need clarification from whoever's writing it before I can decide

And I just noticed: "original research"? And failing because of "too many commas"? WHAT? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I;n sure which criteria "stating information that is not backed up by the sources" falls into, but 'original research' seemed most fitting. And no, it was not failed because of "too many commas", as you note, it was failed because of my "more or less valid" concerns.

Yeah? What exactly "nformation that is not backed up by the sources"? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, "not focused"? On what exactly it should be focused and why it isn't? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

'Pfff', how did I know I'd be complained at for this? :) Responses to each concern above; feel free to ask for a re-review or whatever, although I did check with another reviewer to see if my concerns were fail-worthy. Naerii 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This was not answer for my question (regarding "focusing"). As of re-reviewing, I don't even know how and I don't care anymore. People like you will always find reasons, no matter if stupid or non-existing. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If my opinion matters, this article is indeed very good except it perhaps provides too many details and therefore too big. A great resource for anyone who would like to learn about this subject. Thanks, Captain!Biophys (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Leonid Roshal, a renowned pediatrician"

• http://www.geocities.com/svetlana.gubareva/other/140.html

Also:

The fact that Roshal contradicted the official explanation for the mystery illness is particularly interesting in light of the fact that the Chechen separatists view him with suspicion. Indeed, some observers expressed surprise that the terrorists in the September 2004 Beslan hostage-taking incident asked for him as chief negotiator, given that during the October 2002 Dubrovka hostage crisis he had helped evacuate children from Dubrovka theater but had also given advice to the Russian security services as they prepared to storm the theater—for which he received a medal from the Russian government. In addition, Roshal later publicly backed the Kremlin’s line that the narcotic gas that the security services used during the storming of the Dubrovka Theater, which killed as many as 200 of the hostages, was harmless (see Chechnya Weekly, September 8, 2004).[8]

He was made Hero of Russia, not just "medal". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kurs8.jpg

The image Image:Kurs8.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)