Talk:Crocus City Hall attack

Appearance of attackers

Here is the source https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1771240938418958800?s=20 PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It'll be better to wait for a more concrete source on this, but thank you. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

+1 queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 18:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a reliable WP:SOURCE Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

better source, for a video of the attackers: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-68642036?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=65fdd41fb26acd1fbf32f7b7%26Watch%3A%20Gunmen%20walk%20through%20venue%2C%20gunfire%20heard%262024-03-22T18%3A56%3A01.043Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:03f429c5-b465-41a0-8513-e8d929a21530&pinned_post_asset_id=65fdd41fb26acd1fbf32f7b7&pinned_post_type=share Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the video shows pretty clearly they look like Jihadists of some kind PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You got all that from a grainy video shot from three floors up? Please focus on reliable sources and don't use this space for speculation. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

No, there are like 20 different videos of the attack. This one is one of them that indicated Jihadists: https://files.catbox.moe/pe0wq7.mp4 PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

files.catbox.moe is not a reliable source Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Its a file hosting platform. https://twitter.com/narrative_hole/status/1771238686933307733

Besides, its not an article or a statement, its a video. Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

twitter is also not a reliable source. whether it's a video or a statement is irrelevant to whether we include it in the article; only reliably-sourced information can be added. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@PalauanLibertarian: Calling them jihadists based on video is original research. Everything in the article should remain stating descriptions provided in RS: they were masked and wore camouflage fatigues. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a video of the attackers published by the official telegram channel of the KP russian newspaper : https://t.me/truekpru/148701

I think it would be safe to use this one. Kamaz939 (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

U.S Embassy Warning

It should absolutely be mentioned that the U.S Embassy warned of an attack, as despite the age of the warning, it is still relavant by occuring in short time afterwards. Don't see why any mention of this is being removed, even when it is made clear the warning was on March 7 with an original 48 hour warning. The embassies page posts terrorism warnings very rarely, meaning this holds significance on it's own. Including the information does not automatically force a conclusion. DstressATL (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It's there Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I know, it's just being edit war added and removed constantly. Will remove topic once page stabilizes DstressATL (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The date of the embassy's warning should be given in the article and that it referred to "plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-68642036 2A00:23C5:BA8A:BF01:8486:552C:1201:CA63 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Should it not also be mentioned that the warning was only for the subsequent 48 hours, and that it is unknown whether or not it has any relation to this attack? BalotelliNanaimo (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like a good addition to me - in fact, John Kirby says it is unrelated https://www.axios.com/2024/03/22/moscow-shooting-concert-russia-40-killed Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Added - thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Move

@Dunutubble: I've reverted your move to Crocus City Hall attack for now. Per WP:NCWWW, in the absence of a common name, the title should say "when, where, what". Please start a requested move. Thanks, queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 19:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warning

Considering the UK embassy and US warning being added, I think adding the Norwegian MFA would also be fair. Source: https://www.nrk.no/urix/meldinger-om-skyting-i-konserthus-i-moskva-1.16818242

This source is in Norwegian, but the important parts I've tried to translate: "Norwegian citizens are encouraged to avoid mass gatherings, stay aware and follow advice from local authorities, the MFA wrote on their websites.", "It's not known if tonight's shooting has anything to do with these warnings.", "In the beginning of March the USA and Sweden went out and warned their citizens of possible terrorist attacks in Russia the next 48 hours." ItGoesItGoes (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Norway was among a bunch of countries that issued similar warnings following the U.K. and U.S., so unless they said something new or different I think it's fine to just say "other countries issued similar warnings." Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fair if multiple countries came out with the exact same warning ItGoesItGoes (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Dmitry Medvedev

Should we include Dmitry Medvedev's post on Telegram, it reads as follows: "To the families of those killed in the terrorist attack - sincere condolences, sincere strength to all the loved ones of the victims.

Terrorists understand only retaliatory terror. No trials or investigations will help if force is not countered by force, and deaths by total executions of terrorists and repressions against their families. World experience.

If it is established that these are terrorists of the Kyiv regime, it is impossible to deal with them and their ideological inspirers differently. All of them must be found and mercilessly destroyed as terrorists. Including officials of the state that committed such atrocity.

Death for death." Also this: https://www.barrons.com/news/russia-will-destroy-kyiv-officials-if-linked-to-moscow-attack-medvedev-78300d91 Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, it's mere posturing and sabre rattling in my mind. I'm fairly certain there's policy on this somewhere but I'm not remembering it. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 20:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We should exclude, he regularly makes inflammatory statements like this and more senior Russian officials have commented and will likely comment soon. PaulRKil (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024 (2)

Ommit the or change "On 7 March 2024, the FSB announced that it had neutralized a terrorist cell linked to the Islamic State (IS) in Moscow, which intended to attack a synagogue in the city." Right now there is no known connection between the Islamist extremist raid and the warning of the more vague "extremist" action made on the 7th; All referenced sources so far specifically do not indicate which sort of extremists the US made a warning about on the 7th. Connecting these two events is misleading unless some connection actually becomes substantiated (for example, if it comes out that Islamist Extremists were actually behind this attack, which we currently do not know, but the current version of this article implies). 2A02:A451:1F0B:1:8048:B771:3014:793C (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I would keep the statement to provide context to the new attack to relate it to what has been happening recently in Russia regarding violent crime. However another editor who wants to remove this should do so. Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction, you forgot to mark this as answered. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I think someone else ended up removing it - but I wanted to keep it open in case someone did do that. Would that be okay? Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

i've removed this as there has been no reports that even link the two events RedAuburn (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@RedAuburn looks like someone placed it back (edit conflict?); feel free to remove again Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

confirmed it was an edit conflict, removed again 👍️ RedAuburn (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement from Sadyr Japarov, President of Kyrgyzstan

According to RIA Novosti, in a telegram to Putin, Japarov said that "Kyrgyzstan condemns the terrorist attack in the Moscow region and declares support for efforts aimed at combating terrorism." https://t.me/rian_ru/237194 Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I would wait until a news outlet picks up on this somehow to add it to the article instead of using the Telegram link directly. But definitely should be added Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should focus on nations with a level of relevance to the matter. We should avoid a country soup of 150 countries giving boilerplate statements condemning the attacks and sending condolences. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, USA, UK, Moscow's leadership, Chechnya and similar subnational entities etc. would be worth inclusion, not peripherally involved nations like Kyrgyzstan unless there was a connection to the country. PaulRKil (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

officials of Ukraine reaction

According to Ukrainian intelligence statement: "This is the deliberate provocation by Putin’s special services that the international community warned us about. The Kremlin tyrant started his career like this, and he wants to end it the same way: committing crimes against his citizens." ERZKIK (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

already included - see 2024_Crocus_City_Hall_attack#International Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@ERZKIK, do you have a reliable source that says this? queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

already added into the article. ERZKIK (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This information has been deleted. Please return it to the article. We need to make sure it is not deleted again.

[1] [2] [3] Xx1973 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Translations / LLM Experiment

Doing a note for others that I translated (Russian to English) the Background section and Attack section. This was done amid an LLM experiment, meaning A.I. was used during this translation. Noting that one translated sentence received a CN tag due to the RU article citing a deprecated source. I may do further LLM experiments (most likely verification tests) after the editing dies off some. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

• Doing a note that all translations from the Background section were removed by RedAuburn. No need for discussion unless editors wish to discuss it. Just doing that note due to joint translations/LLM experiment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

  Noting that said translations have been added back, as of this message's posting Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Country responses to incident

There was a comment left that stated the reactions should be focused on nations with relevance to the story. However, there are other articles (see International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting for instance) where terrorist incidents have garnered an international reaction, where international reactions have been listed. I took the Wikipedia:Be bold of adding the international reactions, which was reverted; I am wondering - why shouldn't they be included? Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abductive Please do let me know for future reference - thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Editors despise the flag icons, the list formatting, and the unencyclopedic nature of sickening politicians mouthing platitudes. Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The corresponding section -- Charlie Hebdo shooting#Reactions -- has reactions that go far beyond boilerplate "we're sorry that happened" statements from diplomats. That's all I meant to encourage by the note. If something really goes beyond "We strongly condemn this blahblahblah" then it should be added Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"Reaction" sections turn into giant lists of groups saying the same thing over and over with no substance. Citing "other articles" means that bad practices that are accepted in one article spread like a virus to others, when it was never determined if it was a good idea or not. It's just fluff and should be trimmed. Stick to meaningful events in the aftermath section. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

There were some peculiar statements, especially from Rinkevics (Latvian President) and Landsbergis (Lithuanian Foreign Minister) who restrained from offering condolencies. https://twitter.com/edgarsrinkevics/status/1771270501513482483 https://twitter.com/GLandsbergis/status/1771258371087224942 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.81.37.232 (talk) 07:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. https://twitter.com/Amirabdolahian/status/1771265507989033094 Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me guess, they strongly condemned the attack? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn it probably is. We need to avoid boilerplate reactions from countries with no connection to the attack. PaulRKil (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean no connection to the attacks? If were going by "connections" to the attacks, no countries have a "connection" to the attack, but they still are relevant in regards to it. Iran is important because it is a part of the so-called "Axis of resistance" against the US, which is a very relevant party here. Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but connection means something tangible and ongoing. Like the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. It's a slippery slope. Should we include statements from officials in Cuba condemning the attack? Russia and Cuba have a long history, but it's not relevant to these events. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn Bingo. It should go without saying that a country like Brunei’s response to this is not relevant to the article and should not be held in equal weight to Ukraine or a NATO Country’s reaction or Afghanistan, where ISIS-K is based out of. PaulRKil (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dreameditsbrooklyn @PaulRKil I've added the UN reaction - let me know if that isn't important enough to be added as well (they simply "strongly condemned" the attack) Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think the U.N. reaction is significant enough to be added. Thank you for adding it. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

UN would be perfectly acceptable. As would NATO and the EU. PaulRKil (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Splitting sections

Would it be worth it to split 2024 Crocus City Hall attack#Attack into "Attack" and "Emergency response" or something similar? CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

ISIS claims responsibility

ISIS claims responsibility on Telegram account according to NRK [4]https://www.nrk.no/nyheter/is-hevdar-dei-star-bak-angrepet-i-moskva-1.16818428 Mikal N (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that independently verified? I've seen rumours that that ISIS claim was fake. Would be important to really be sure about that info. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That's why I attempted to remove it, I doubt the veracity of the claims and the original claim came from Twitter from what I understand. I'd rather hear it from a reliable source that doesn't boil down to a single sentence like the source from The Guardian. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

In a similar vein, this comes from the BBC live coverage "The report has not been independently verified. The group, also known as ISIS, has carried out attacks in a number of countries, however BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera notes that the group has at times in the past claimed responsibility for attacks that it had nothing to do with." We need to wait until this is properly verified. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Its fake according to Rybar. Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Rybar a russian Telegram channel? Doesn't seem too reliable to me. Arslan35 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if it is, it doesnt disprove it. No ISIS-affiliated groups in Telegram have actually claimed responsibility for the attack, and even if they did, it wouldnt mean much since ISIS has been fading into obscurity and has taken responsibility for other attacks in the past which they havent actually done. Also, the template that the screenshot of the message hasnt been used for several years by ISIS. Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That's original research, despite how fake it may seem we have to wait for sources. Arslan35 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

From everything I know now: all versions of ISIS involvement are based on ONE screenshot of a “message from ISIS” in Arabic, whose authenticity is unknown. I think that we need to find out more details before inserting ISIS into the infobox. PLATEL (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@PLATEL: Wrong. See source, it is CNN. Do not make hasty reverts please. Ecrusized (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I see the name of the source, but this source also relies on the same “message from ISIS”:"The terror group took responsibility for the attack in a short statement published by ISIS-affiliated news agency Amaq on Telegram on Friday. The group did not provide evidence to support the claim." I just want to see more evidence of ISIS involvement rather than taking the word of publishers based on unreliable sources. PLATEL (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Such is usually the case but that is not up for Wikipedia editors to determine. CNN and other MSM are considered reliable sources and we stick with that. Ecrusized (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Where is the telegram account in question? mentioned in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/mar/22/moscow-concert-attack-crocus-city-hall-shooting-russia-live-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-65fdfa8f8f08214a64619d2b#block-65fdfa8f8f08214a64619d2b Mikal N (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we know that it was specifically IS-Khorasan province? It seems weird that it'd be the branch from Afghanistan instead of IS-Caucasus which operates inside Russia. 2.212.191.150 (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

US officials have corroborated the report: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/world/europe/isis-moscow-attack-concert-hall.html?smid=url-share

Is that enough to include it in the infobox? @Dangeredwolf Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dangeredwolf - apologies, the ping did not go through Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction Apologies, I was not aware of this discussion existing before I made the change. It's good that at least there is more than 1 source corroborating this now, not sure what the standards are for including it in the infobox itself. At the time I removed it, I only saw CNN reporting it. dangered wolf (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

You're good, don't worry - I think I'll wait for more information before I re-add. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2024

I think the "2024" part of the title should be removed because an attack on Crocus Hall has never happened prior to today, and is not likely to happen again. Do you support or oppose my opinion? Quake1234 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see Talk:2024 Crocus City Hall attack#Move. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

They started a requested move, nothing wrong with that. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nope, not at all, I was more mentioning that a move had previously been reverted. I probably should've made that more clear in all fairness. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I propose Crocus City Hall Massacre in my opinion. RossoSPC (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a common name, and doesn't seem to be neutral. Arslan35 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't care if it is renamed, as both names suit the incident, this name change is not a big deal in my opinion. KeymasterOne (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I think we should focus on keeping up with the latest news and then we can discuss possible name changes once everything is more calmed down. OneMoron (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we can wait -- especially with naming it a "massacre", "attack", etc. We do not have enough information yet to determine how it should be classified. As for the year, I'm not sure if there's consensus. Sometimes, an event without a year will direct to an event with a year, such as Saint Petersburg Metro bombing redirecting to 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Add back mention of previously planned ISIS terror attack on synagogue

Russian FSB said they stopped a planned ISIS terror attack earlier this month. The background section used to mention it, but it got removed for some reason, given that they've taken take responsibility for the attack according to multiple reliable sources, it should be added back. 2403:580D:8038:0:30C3:69AA:FE8F:783F (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

done - thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

i removed it before due to no sources linking the two, and before the claimed responsibility. Thanks for re-adding it now that it's been mentioned in sources 👍️ RedAuburn (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Death count

Many news Telegrams have been reporting 120/130/145 deaths now, and from the videos there looks to be well more than 40 people trapped in the theater. Should we update the death count considering the Moscow Health Ministry recent put it at 145 and released the list of victims? PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 22:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@PalauanLibertarian: Do you have a reliable source that states those numbers? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's the Moscow Health Ministry report from the Guardian. Arslan35 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That is what 112 News is reporting at the moment, but I don't speak Russian and don't know if any English news sites have updated their death count PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@PalauanLibertarian: Please check what you're adding. That says 145 injuries, not fatalities. Ecrusized (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nice catch. Alexysun (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Can someone fix all the injury counts in the page? Some of them still show 100+ injured, and I don't know how to re-use citations in source mode. Arslan35 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

According to a Telegram Channel "Novosty Moskvy" (eng: Moscow News), the death count is currently more than 150 people. https://t.me/moscowmap ZalexSR (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The reported death count has been all over the place. Guardian was saying 143+ and a lot of other news sites were saying 133+ so now it seems the consensus is 133+. Alexysun (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2024 (2)

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: SNOW close against move to massacre, consensus to remove the year. (non-admin closure) Geardona (talk to me?) 06:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 Crocus City Hall attack → Crocus City Hall massacre – Remove year because no other attacks have happened at this location, include massacre in title because large amount of deaths and casualties from attack with multiple types of weapons. MountainDew20 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose renaming to massacre, as the incident was not only a massacre - there were also other activities, such as arson, involved. The arson can be classified as an attack, but not as a massacre. Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Terrorism, WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Current events, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject Russia have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Looking at the related List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State, the article titles either specify the type of attack (e.g., bombing) or simply say 'attack'. In this case, it was not a specific form of attack, as Staraction stated. Further, the articles tend to keep the year in the title regardless of whether a previous attack occurred. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose renaming to massacre: As mentioned other similar events are titled attack - 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, September 11 attacks. However unsure if 2024 in title is needed. Lacanic (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: It is unnecessary to make the distinction between mass murder/attack and massacre in this case AlmightyGoose (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The idea that this lurid title is being widely used needs to be reliably sourced. City of Silver 01:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose using term "massacre" per Staraction and AlmightyGoose; support removing "2024" per request. Luke10.27 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose proposed title, per above; weak support of the title ‘Crocus City Hall attack’ due to the issue with having the year in the title. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 01:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose removal of year doesn't qualify under WP:NOYEAR. No opinion on the other proposed change. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose renaming to massacre, but support removal of year. RPC7778 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: as others have stated, the vast majority of similar attacks are not labeled as "massacres." Spjag (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose usage of massacre per others, support removal of year as there has been no prior "Crocus City Hall attack" - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 02:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons mentioned above, but from what I understand most people would support the name Crocus City Hall Attack, but my only issue is that it might be hard to find in the future, as Crocus City is not really known by many. Just my opinion though. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Support removal of year per WP:NOYEAR, oppose "massacre" until sourced dominantly. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose renaming to massacre for the reasons other users have described above, support removing the year under WP:NOYEAR. Puhala,ny (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose both removing the year and changing the title to massacre per WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles. Pilaz (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose a move including the word "massacre." WP:NCENPOV has article title requirements for controversial topics. Per the policy, we should use 1) the common name for an event; 2) if not common name exists, a generally accepted word used when describing the event; or 3) if there is no generally accepted word, a descriptive title that avoids POV implications. Right now, sources are calling this an "attack." If sources broadly shift to using the term "massacre," we can reconsider a move. Weak oppose on removing the year; many editors are invoking WP:NOYEAR, but this only states that some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it (emphasis mine); it is not a requirement to remove the year from article titles if the year is unnecessary, as they can still be helpful. The page gives examples of other articles which do not require the year but nevertheless have it as a "useful identifier." ---Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 03:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose renaming to massacre but support removal of year. would keep the word 'attack' though, thus renamed "Crocus City Hall attack" 47.199.186.89 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose renaming to "massacre." Pages on other similar incidents include the word "attack," (e.g. November 2015 Paris attacks and Westgate shopping mall attack) while the word "massacre" is used on pages about mass execution-style incidents (e.g. Camp Speicher massacre and 2016 Mosul massacre). Christophervincent01 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose massacre since its tabloidy. Support removing year per non-frequency. Borgenland (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISIS...

I think we shouldn't be so quick to cement ISIS as the culprit of this.

Refraining from sounding like a tinfoil hat, why would ISIS attack a country that directly serves and enables the interests of other Muslim countries, specifially, a country that has been aggressively pro-palestine?

I think we should assess the entire situation considering the current political climate, instead of quickly taking sources as fact when they may have demonstrated otheriwse recently, otherwise we may get another "40 beheaded babies" hoax like situation. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The United States Government has stated that the attack was committed by ISIS-Khorasan. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/world/europe/isis-moscow-attack-concert-hall.html Just because the Russian Government has occasionally supported Muslim nations and movements doesn't exclude them from terrorist attacks, one could also point to Russia's actions in Chechnya and the Middle East as reason for ISIS to target them. Other than the US Government, multiple sources point towards either ISIS or lone-wolfs acting on behalf of ISIS to be the culprits such as the BBC, TASS, and CNN. Using all of the available information everything points to it being conducted by the Islamic State, and there should be no change on that being the official stance of the article unless new information is put forward. OneMoron (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The United States government is capable if lying to secure its interests.

It has done so numerous times these past three months alone.

We should say "The United states accuses [Nation] of..." and such. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am curious. Is there any primary source for the claim that the US has confirmed ISIS's responsibility, or is that just coming from an unsourced sentence in the Times? Brooklaika (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's probably coming from @Israel or @Mossad, which passes as a reliable source according to Wikipedia Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any credible source or any justifiable reason for claiming as such? Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any credible source or any justifiable reason for claiming arabs and muslim militant groups just bomb random people for the hell of it?

There's an MO and them targetting a country that allies itself with them makes absolutely no sense. We should be using our brains. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that. I'm wondering if you had anything that confirmed the intelligence coming from Israel or Mossad. Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like an American official told CBS news something similar: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shooting-music-venue-crocus-city-hall-moscow-picnic-concert/ Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

ISIS themselves have claimed responsibility for the attack (see various sources provided throughout article) Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think your point about waiting to cement ISIS as the culprit is well-placed, but I would like to refute some of what you have said in this post. ISIS is an extraordinarily extremist form of Islam (if it can even be considered as Islam), and almost always has concentrated its attacks in Muslim countries and frequently against Muslim governments (Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc.). Furthermore, ISIS has historically opposed groups like Hamas and views any nationalistic struggle as opposed to the true religious fight. And, of course, Russia bombed ISIS into the dirt in Syria and Iraq, killing thousands of ISIS fighters; that wouldn't be remembered fondly by the group. Brooklaika (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, to not sound like a tinfoil hat, there's reason to believe ISIS may be behaving to serve the interests of Mossad agents and such.

They were practically dormant until that military commander in Iran got rocket sniped and they show up out of nowhere claiming responsibility.

Like, why Iran? Wouldnt an extreme sect of Islam want to unironically enact a White Genocide? As revenge for oil grubbing wars and such? Why are they attacking the enemies of Israel and the United States?

But like I said, due to the nature of that information, it's unlikely any source wikipedia considers "Reliable" will admit this and remain in business. I was told to be bold, so I boldly say that we should not follow rules to the exact letter in something as serious as this if it prevents us from telling the truth or remaining neutral. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would cautiously say that Wikipedia includes things that are verifiable, not necessarily the truth: Wikipedia:TRUTH Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

To claim that ISIS has been dormant is quite strange. While their attacks on Western targets reduced significantly (notwithstanding the 13 US soldiers killed during the retreat from Kabul) ISIS cells outside of the Levant have continued their attacks, especially IS-KP and cells in East Asia and Africa. Regardless, you would need a reliable source to back that up. Brooklaika (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Why wouldn't anyone need a reliable source to back up what's being said already. It looks like some people feel the ISIS claim isn't even backed by a reliable source itself.

Regardless, we should all be interested in what Russia itself has to say about this. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

ISIS hasn't been "dormant" at all, they're still an active player in places like West Africa, Yemen, the Levant, and Afghanistan. They might not be as active as they used to be, but they are very much still a power in the region with many groups not directly tied to them working with them. I also don't see why you need to bring in the Mossad and other very politically charged wording that you're using here. What you're saying is bordering on conspiracy theories of ISIS being controlled by the Mossad and the US Government, and have no place in a discussion about the perpetrators of a terrorist attack. OneMoron (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Please, boldly offer some reliable sources Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

As others have stated, the claim that ISIS is dormant is odd considering the evidence found here: List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that stating in wiki voice that it was ISIS is incredibly premature, but more so because the actual men who perpetrated the attack have yet to even be identified. They claimed responsibility, and the US govt said that they'd been planning an attack in Moscow, and that's about it- to say that it was specifically ISIS-K when the attack happened less than 24 hours ago and information is still flooding in is very premature. "Claimed responsibility" should be appended to IS-K.

I dont agree with notions of Mossad and US. That makes zero sense and isn't borderline conspiracy theory, it crosses it - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 01:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think at this moment in time this discussion should be closed, all available sources and evidence point towards the Islamic State being the culprit, the original poster in the thread clearly has a political bias that goes against the neutral nature of wikipedia and is pushing conspiracy theories about state actors supporting ISIS. At this time unrelated political events in the Middle East should have no bearing on the articles position that the Islamic State was the sole perpetrator until any contrary evidence is put forward. OneMoron (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM for our own theories, speculation, and analysis. They are to make specific improvements to the page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Said comments should have been removed as WP:DENY in the first place. Borgenland (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You shouldn't call everyone proposing a change you disagree with a troll. That's unproductive.

Obviously it wont be happening. You shouldn't have to worry so much to scrub it away. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a boundary between making a legitimate concern and making a conspiracy theory as your record in this talk page shows. And if I were calling everyone I disagree with a troll, then I should have done so earlier when the nomination for name change was started. Borgenland (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I proposed an improvement by suggesting we shouldn't prematurely draw conclusions in a shooting that occured 12 hours ago. Especially using sources that are biased in favor of specific countries.

Like the person you replied to said, zero sources have even identified the shooters. Likely the first to do so will be a Russian source but for some reason people want to exclude all russian sources from this article? Vladimir Hunter (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't pass you off making unsubstantiated claims of Israeli involvement, making references to neo-Nazi and white supremacist talking points and making WP:OR claims of Russia is safe because they're pro-Palestinian, given the fact that Russians have been blown up in Sinai and are bombing Sunni extremists in Syria on behalf of Assad, which you neglected to consider. Borgenland (talk) 07:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I know that the theories about foreign involvement make little sense but all I'm saying is that it's premature to definitively say that it was IS-KP when they only claimed responsibility for the crime and the US said that IS-KP was planning an attack in Moscow at the time. The attack was a day ago and the Russian govt. itself has said little definitive stuff about the perpetrators - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 12:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Nvm this. Waiting for news articles to say this for a reliable source but Amaq released bodycam footage of the attack as I saw on Twitter - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 22:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Victim list published by Russia

The Ministry of Emergency Situations published on its website a list of 99 victims of the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall in the Moscow region. Should we update the death count to 99 or keep it at 60? PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 01:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The Article linked is a bit vague and only mentions the list of 99 victims in the title, I'd say we should wait until further sources can confirm a higher count before making the change out of caution. OneMoron (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The list is real however I think the website is down. The list has been posted on Telegram however PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is the list: https://mchs.gov.ru/deyatelnost/press-centr/novosti/5238780 PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think the page is down right now. I would say it might be possible to make a section pertaining to claimed losses again until more sources come out with a higher number. Maybe something like "64-99" however that would probably have to go through a vote. OneMoron (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Some claims of at least 70 deaths: https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/russia-moscow-concert-hall-terror-attack-death-toll-injuries-islamic-state-group-claims-responsibility-ukraine-zelenskyy-us-president-joe-biden-update-2024-03-23-922846 Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It is a list of wounded who are being treated in the hospitals. 93.81.37.232 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Undue theories

Under perpetrators section there is a theory citing a the Russian source Kommersant implying it was the Russian Volunteer Corps. Russian sources should not be used for this article, namely because the country lacks a proper free press. They are ranked 164 on the World Press Freedom Index and the deterioration of the free press in Russia is well documented. Therefore, since no reliable sources cite this, this theory is WP:UNDUE. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the Rossa Primavera source, which has some questionable ties, including their Twitter account which looks...questionable at best: https://twitter.com/NewsFromDonbass, and very obviously anti-Ukrainian coverage, such that extreme biases are evident: https://eu.eot.su/2024/02/23/liberation-of-avdeevka-why-is-this-victory-so-important/.

Kommersant is "generally reliable" according to Wikipedia:RSP; however I was unable to find them actually reporting on the issue.

Meduza is also an acceptable source, but the way their post is phrased implies that they are not getting the information from Kommersant directly either. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Found the line everyone was referencing https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6592262 - reads like speculation to be honest, but I am using browser translation so here goes nothing:

"Some sources - assumed that the terrorists could be members of the banned in Russia organization "Russian Volunteer Corps." Its participants periodically carry out attacks on settlements in the regions of Russia bordering Ukraine. Just on the eve of the terrorist attack, the FSB detained in Moscow a whole group of their supporters who were going to fight in Ukraine, and still committed small sabotage in Russia." Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That's such a weird request, why would we block russian sources on a russian mass shooting because they don't fit America's standards on a "Good press?" I can argue that the US doesn't have a free press considering how malicously it chose to slander BLM protests, Haiti, and Palestine, the latter two for decades. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 06:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if these may or may not be "generally" reliable, no one else is reporting this. WP:WEIGHT is determined by the quantity and quality of WP:RS. We have literally hundreds of articles in English speaking sources alone covering this event, and none of them mention this theory. In contrast, we may have a single source attributing to it. Secondly, it appears to be full on speculation with poor sourcing, and it does a disservice to our readers to put this on par with United States State Department analysis, like these two sources are on equal footing. Again, I'm citing WP:UNDUE which is designed specifically to not elevate speculative poorly sourced theories on par with quality reporting. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm just noting that the actual content of the articles is unreliable (probably) as well. I agree w/ you on the Wikipedia:UNDUE argument ... just waiting for others to input their opinions as well. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Reaper1945 this discussion may interest you Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

So the more that you look at this and the deeper you go, the worse it gets. So supposedly the source is some Pro-Russian propaganda twitter? And this is put on par with proper sources like the New York Times? This information has no place on Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There has been a denial from the RVC and the FRL. Borgenland (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This theory has some basis, albeit very small. It was reported just 10 hours before the attack that FSB has uncovered a RVC cell in Moscow and "7 young males who discussed attacks on soldiers, police officers and foreigners were arrested".

https://www.rbc.ru/politics/22/03/2024/65fd47419a79479f78021d2f 93.81.37.232 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Also added is the similarly undue post on Telegram. Both Ukraine and Russian sources should not be used in this article at all, and this is just another undue theory. This article should reflect the mainstream consensus of reliable sources and no one takes these claims seriously at this point. To even include them is undue. 08:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Picnic or Piknik?

Sources are conflictant. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:2A3:C7B3:3403:56F8 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd go with Picnic (band) since that is the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Change of language, more specificity in language.

"...masked gunmen in combat fatigues opened fire on the crowd using automatic rifles." in some footage it is shown they are using AKM rifles, or at least AK style rifles. I think it would be better to have that replace "automatic rifles", like so: "masked gunmen in combat fatigues opened fire on the crowd using AK-pattern rifles." 78.60.80.59 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the source uses "automatic rifles" so that is what I included in the article. Journalists are often quite clueless about the details on firearms, and don't know the difference between various AK and rifle platforms, so we'll have to wait until a media source specifically mentions this. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Did they ever find the Band member?

"The musicians of Picnic later posted on Instagram that they and their management were "alive and safe," though they later said that they were unable to contact one of the band members."

Did they ever find the band member? Mercer17 (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Information is likely out of date - they found them and it wasn't a big enough story to mention, or they did not. Either way dig into it. If the person was a victim it'll be mentioned in sources about the band. Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLD removed the info as no other reliable sources seem to carry it and even TASS, of all refs, reported them intact. Borgenland (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Пока не могут связаться https://regnum.ru/news/3876315 - на 9:31 MSK (6:31 UTC). Lesless (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

New lists

93 dead https://t.me/s/sledcom_press and a list of 37 people was published https://mz.mosreg.ru/download/document/16141416 Lesless (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

the guardian also says 93 dead, with 107 hospitalised: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/mar/23/moscow-concert-attack-crocus-city-hall-shooting-russia-live-updates?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-65fe91648f08214a64619f96#block-65fe91648f08214a64619f96 RedAuburn (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

New, 41 (identified): https://mz.mosreg.ru/download/document/16141517 Lesless (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

And the total number of deaths is already 115 https://t.me/s/sledcom_press Lesless (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

93 dead at least according to - I would need an AI to list all sources form the web. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.interfax.ru/russia/952083 Lesless (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to update ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Motive

It is widely reported on telegram channels that the motive was only for money; the accused themselves admit this. Incall (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

[5], [6], [7], [8] Incall (talk) 10:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Telegram isn't reliable. Arslan35 (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It was posted by RIA News, an official Russian mass inform telegram channel that the motive was to get paid. ZalexSR (talk) 11:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

RIA News doesn't have consensus over its reliability, I'd wait for other sources first. Arslan35 (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

'Money' would be most farcical and comical thing ever conceived to put in to the notice box. Let's wait a investigation (On the Manchester Arena attack page, it's just listed as 'Islamic terrorism').ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In a statement on social media the group describes how it sought to inflict as much damage as possible on a ‘large crowd of Christians’

Islamic State published a photo of the four attackers it said had “dealt a strong blow to Russia with a bloody attack” on Saturday, in a post detailing how it planned and conducted the assault on a Moscow concert hall that claimed more than 130 lives.

In the picture, which was released on Islamic State’s official news agency Amaq, the four men are wearing black baseball caps and face scarfs and are pointing to the sky with one finger.

The gesture has become associated with Islamic State and refers to the Muslim belief that there is only one god.

In the background is an Islamic State poster with the group’s name in black and white.

The men carried out “an intensive monitoring operation” before the attack, according to the statement.

They were armed with machine guns, knives and bombs and sought to inflict as much damage as possible on the “large crowd of Christians”.

Islamic State claimed that the attack killed or injured at least 300 people in total.

It said the motive was “the raging war between the Islamic State and countries fighting Islam”.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/23/why-did-isis-k-attack-a-moscow-theatre/ Human Transistor (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

now mentioned at source: https://ria.ru/20240323/terakt-1935263105.html RedAuburn (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

and per strana.ua → https://strana.today/news/460727-postavili-zadachu-ubit-ljudej-zaderzhannyj-rasskazal-detali-terakta.html --91.54.1.162 (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation Section

As with many events like this, misinformation has spread about this attack by people both inside and outside Russia. One significant example is Sky News reporting a secondary shooting occurring at a hospital in Moscow with 28 people injured which was a mistranslation of the hospital stating they were treating 28 victims of the attack.

Is it too early to include a misinformation section or should we begin to collect examples in order to create that section? PaulRKil (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Like with every terrorist attack there's a rain of information pouring from all sides with a lot of noise caused by mistranslations, press sources racing each other trying to be the first to add extra information, and the usual conspiracy theorists making noise in the background. So the first days can be chaotic on this article for sure. Pat2dv (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That is true. but my question is should we be making a section documenting these? PaulRKil (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It appears a Disinformation section was added already and I think it's appropriate given Putin's recent speech.PaulRKil (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 March 2024

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: not moved. There was unanimous consensus to not move the page to this title just twelve hours ago, so a new move discussion should not be opened up so soon. If you want to contest the previous closure, you can go to WP:MRV. (non-admin closure) Gödel2200 (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Crocus City Hall attack → Crocus City Hall massacre – Pretty much a better description of the attack FCBWanderer (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per reasoning at Talk:Crocus City Hall attack#Requested move 22 March 2024 (2) Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is propaganda in the infobox NPOV

The claim that Ukraine is in some way connected is widely described in reliable souces as Russian propaganda, whereas no reliable source backs it up. Russian officials and state media have a long history of lying through their teeth for years already to blame Ukraine for exactly everything. As a reminder, NPOV does not mean taking a middle ground between facts abd lies, but to report what reliable sources say. In a situation where all reliable sources point to IS (and IS itself confirms that), Russian propaganda to the contrary can and should be mentioned in the disinformation section, but does not belong in the infobox in any format. Jeppiz (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean Russian sources have put effort into trying to blame Ukraine, so yes, they are trying to 'claim' Ukraine supported or is connected to the attack. That doesn't mean they did, though. It is what it is: a claim, or accusation. Not a solid statement of fact. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is fine to have in the article, but putting it in the infobox seems too much. I'll make a bold removal. Ergzay (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Alphabetic order for country responses?

Would naming the country responses in alphabetic order be suitable? Ear-phone (talk) 14:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, would be a good idea I think Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, per standard. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Done - need sources for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Staraction. And supranational bodies, in alphabetic order too? Ear-phone (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably good idea as well Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Staraction I notice that the countries have been removed. Why? Who determines which individual country's response is more important than another's?

@User:Significa liberdade

Ear-phone (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

As stated above (see Country responses to incident), responses should only be included if they go beyond the general statement of "We're sorry this happened." If a country provides such a response, then the actual response should be provided, rather than simply including a long list of countries who tweeted condolences. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Significa liberdade. I am seeing International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting. This implies to me the list is relevant whether here or elsewhere especially given the current global geopolitics. You seem to have removed virtually all the countries, before consensus was reached. Any possibility of restoring the list, until consensus is reached? Ear-phone (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ear-phone: That is a separate article from the Charlie Hebdo shooting article, which does not name every country that reacted to the event but rather a few relevant statements. If you would like to create a International reactions to the Crocus City Hall attack, you may. I placed the list of nations in an invisible comment rather than delete the list, so they are still accessible. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Significa liberdade. I understood it is a different article, that is why I wrote, "here or elsewhere". If it is hidden, it is more challenging to 'crowd source' the countries/entities that have reacted, in addition to consensus not being reached. Ear-phone (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here you go: International reactions to the Crocus City Hall attack. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Significa liberdade. I would have forked it later, depending on consensus. At this stage many eye balls (main article) would more rapidly refine/distill the relevant statements you mention. Ear-phone (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Ear-phone: With it now separated, people can provide more in-depth details about the responses from each country rather than simply providing a long list of countries without much insight into what representatives from the country said. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I abide @Significa liberdade. Ear-phone (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Misinformation v. Disinformation distinction

Is there any way we can separate the two in the current Disinformation section? The Sky News error seems more misinformation yet is categorized under Disinformation. Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't like the vibe of that particular section at all, especially since someone put links to the War in Ukraine in a 'see also' note. We don't have a section on 'misinformation/disinformation' on the September 11 Attacks, for example, because it is vulnerable to POV-pushing. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I nuked those terms. It's all under the broader non-POV category "responsibility for the attack".

In such critical moments NEVER remove information especially not for pedantic motives. Synotia (moan) 16:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I was not the one to remove the information - believe that was rev. 1215169301 by @ASmallMapleLeaf. Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I was talking to everyone, not just you. Synotia (moan) 16:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Why is an attack, largely believed to be from IS-K (it's obvious), have a three continuous paragraph's about Russia framing Ukraine about it? WP:FRINGE applies here, and information about Ukraine being involved here (I'd argue it's an unnecessary melodramatic nothingburger propped up by the press) should be included in something like 'List of controversies about the 2024 Crocus City Hall Attack'. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree that WP:FRINGE applies to the Ukraine involvement allegations as there is no credible evidence whatsoever to support that, but I would go further and say that a "List of controversies about the 2024 Crocus City Hall Attack" article is WP:UNDUE and risks running up against WP:POVFORK. We can consider making such an article if there are numerous such controversies that have notable effects well after the attack, but for now, we should just apply WP:FRINGE in my opinion. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 17:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Russian President Putin linked the terrorist attack to Ukraine and will probably attempt to somehow use the attack in Moscow to escalate the war in Ukraine, so pointing out [9] that there is a disinformation campaign by the Russian government and state-controlled media does not strike me as WP:FRINGE. -- Tobby72 (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Note: I have hidden the content until we get a consensus with how to proceed here. Personally, I think the statements could snowball into something related to Ukraine but I am concerned about it taking the limelight of the article, unless something big related to Ukraine happens (it hasn't happened yet). ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think content should be hidden, and now it looks like you're waging an edit war against several users, so the consensus is against you. -- diff, diff, diff, diff -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

2 revisions per person. If your saying that reverting (2) users because they haven't noticed a discussion is 'edit warring', I am going to say I disagree and that everything should be talked out on talk page, not finding consensus based off 'more people reverted that opposed changing the section'. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Refrain from hiding the FSB's maskirovka attempts to the large public, spasiba. Synotia (moan) 18:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverted, discuss before doing that again. And certainly don't cross into the realm of 'Personal attacks' (hint:Strike your statement about me being from the FSB, which is... funny but false). ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Russian allegations against Ukraine, even if unfounded, have received widespread attention from reliable sources. This information should be kept. It's possible we can remove minor details such as the NTV deepfake incident. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have simplified the subsection. Hope this helps as talk page discussions continue. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

NTV Broadcast

Do not remove the information, I thought Kremlinbots had attacked the article. Whatever you do, do not remove it. Synotia (moan) 15:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not removed, just commented out for now per Talk:Crocus City Hall attack#Misinformation v. Disinformation distinction - feel free to add back if you deem necessary Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Identity of attacker confirmed?

This link in Dutch shows photos of the arrest of one of the attackers and identifies him as Muhammad Faisov, a member of ISIL-K.

https://www.hln.be/buitenland/is-eist-terreuraanval-moskou-op-en-deelt-fotos-van-vier-plegers~a724deea/

Apparently ISIS has video of the attackers getting ready before the attack, can anyone confirm?

If the Russians publish headshots of the arrested attackers and they match the ones published by ISIS, then we can say for sure it was ISIS and not Ukraine.Pat2dv (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

ISIS has already published a photo of the attackers before the attack in the same clothes seen in the Russian interrogation videos. Some elements made an ISIS less likely however. There was no suicide (which happens almost universally in ISIS attacks). Last Month, Victoria Nuland said this about Ukraine funding, "With this money, Ukraine will be able to fight back in the East and accelerate the asymmetric warfare that his been most effective on the battlefield. And as I said in Kyiv three weeks ago, this supplemental funding will ensure Putin faces some nasty surprises on the battlefield this year." We have yet to see what these nasty surprises are. Another interesting thing is that in interrogation, the attackers say they were hired by some guy on Telegram named "the preacher". The preacher sent them a half million rubles and provided them with weapons. Very interesting stuff PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Here is a better version of the ISIS image showing the attackers

https://ibb.co/vhJpWm6 PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 17:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the modus operandi and the target make it far more likely to be an ISIS attack than an Ukrainian one. Ukrainians would choose a more important target (police, military, weapon or fuel industry, war logistics) than families watching a concert, while concerts and bars have often been a target of ISIS in the past.

Suicide is not a necessary part of ISIS attacks, in past attacks they often just flee.

Add to that the fact that Russia announced a couple weeks ago the arrest of an ISIS cell that was about to hit in Russia, and this looks more like a replacement cell of that one. Pat2dv (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Victory Nuland was saying that in reference to the $60 billion dollar supplemental aid package.... which hasnt passed yet. I dont think people like you should be editing to be honest 2403:580D:8038:0:9045:E591:6228:BD9B (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You also bend Nuland's every word to fit your adventurous argument that others would simply say conspiracy theory. There have been numerous attacks by IS supporters in Europe in which the attackers survived. Many tried to flee or go into hiding. If the attack had happened in any country other than Russia, there would be no discussion here about who carried out the attack.

But thanks to the constant flood of fake news from Russian propaganda media and their representatives, which some here gratefully accept, serious attempts are being made here to blame Ukraine, even with the most adventurous "reasoning". It was clear that Russia would blame this on Ukraine, but you don't have to play the game here. Some people should think about whether their work here really serves to improve the article; objective and neutral does not mean that you have to include obvious conspiracy theories. The facts are becoming more and more dense, nothing points to Ukraine. Apparently the terrorists wanted to flee to Belarus (Belarusian ambassador), which is also much easier than through a war front with minefields, soldiers, secret service etc. Putin has probably been caught lying again, but some people don't care. 2A02:2454:999B:4400:50B3:4276:C4C0:765A (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Radio Free Ru has named two of the attackers, Muhammadsobir Fayzov and Shokhinjoni Sofolzoda. Lacanic (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"The suspects were named as Faizov Rivozhidin Zokirdzhonovich, Ismoilov Rivozhidin Islomovich, Faizov Muhammad-Sobir Zokirdzhonovich, Nasramailov Makhamadrasul Zarabidinovich Nasramailov, Safolzoda Shohinjon Abdugaforovich and Nazarov Rustam Isroilovich." - Newsweek (not deemed fully reliable wiki source) Lacanic (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.hln.be/buitenland/is-eist-terreuraanval-moskou-op-dit-weten-we-al-van-opgepakte-verdachten~a724deea/

More photos and video. Pat2dv (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There are cookie monster crumbles all over this terrorist act. The US is engaged in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine and has used ISIS and its predecessor groups to destabilize its enemies in the past. So nasty that creature from Foggy Bottom.--91.54.1.162 (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. We are here to discuss the Wikipedia article, not make up and discuss geopolitical theories. -- FPTI (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

we already know it was not Ukraine - please respect WP:FORUM 2603:6080:21F0:6140:9077:62D5:49D2:F19D (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Roof collapse time

I feel like this should just be removed or reworded as I can't find any sources confirming the time and the current source does not say 22:00 or even a time at all.

At 21:32, an explosion was reported, and a partial roof collapse followed at around 22:00.

Abandonee (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who added the time - there was a source originally there that mentioned 10:00, but that source was one of those live news sites and has since been updated & the time has been removed. Probably good idea to reword for now. Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Refs to Live source vs. Posts

Many of the refs in the article currently link to the continuously updated pages posted by The Guardian and BBC News. These news outlets release block posts whenever new information is available. Should we be referencing the full article, or is it best to reference the individual posts? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I replaced a whole bunch of the live sources with proper sources when I could last night, but it'd be good to get all of the live sources replaced sooner rather than later. CommissarDoggo^Talk? 17:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

BLP and Crime

Does the protocol on naming suspects apply here? Borgenland (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLPCRIME? I would say that both appear to apply at the moment. As long as they are living individuals who have not been convicted and are only notable in connection to this incident and the exclusion of their names doesn't cause major issues of context, then the criteria for both appears to be met. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

At least one of the attackers has confessed on a video published by Russia.

https://www.hln.be/buitenland/is-eist-terreuraanval-moskou-op-dit-weten-we-al-van-opgepakte-verdachten~a724deea/ Pat2dv (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Caught in 4K

Attempted removal of initial response by Russian officials and media Synotia (moan) 19:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of a "cover up", no personal attacks. In this revision, the subsection highlights the Russian assertion, the Ukrainian denial, the stance of the US, and denials from relevant militant groups. There is a talk page discussion above about needless details, which is what I was referring to. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the (third?) time this user has made a personal attack on this page. @Synotia We aren't all working for the Russian FSB just because we removed info because it detracts from the focus of the article. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Their attempt at framing this as being related to Ukraine is crucial to understanding this response, and your pretext of protecting readers from "disinformation" is absolutely laughable. Synotia (moan) 19:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Then learn to work normally through consensus instead of hiding or removing information because you don't like it. Synotia (moan) 20:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is against you. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

2 vs 1 is not a consensus Synotia (moan) 20:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Read the talk page discussion about it..... It's not 2v1 and only you are diehard about keeping the full thing in..... calm down. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

STOP trying to remove information about the Kremlin media coming up with prefab deepfakes right after this attack. Synotia (moan) 19:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am a stones throw away from going to ANI about you. Please. Get your senses calibrated. I don't want to, but I will. Cease edit warring and your personal attacks. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't say "learn to work normally", practice civility. The sentence Latvia-based Russian news outlet Meduza reported that pro-government and state-funded media in Russia were instructed by the Russian government to highlight possible "traces" of Ukrainian involvement is still in the article, which maintains the crucial information you want to keep. Let's go over what's being contested:

• NTV and Kommersant are not state media
• Dmitry Medvedev is not alleging Ukrainian involvement, he is just stating his opinion on if there's involvement.

These are irrelevant details and do not tie into Russia/Ukrainian state assertions. There is no cover up being done by editors. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no media freedom in Russia and NTV has long been referred to as a pro-Kremlin TV channel.[10] As for Kommersant, it cited anonymous government sources who tried to blame the attack on pro-Ukrainian Russian fighters before the actual Tajik attackers were arrested. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Read my edit summary Synotia (moan) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Synotia: Given that there are disagreements about whether the information should be included on the page, please discuss here before re-adding it as this could be considered edit-warring. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be the other way around, though? To not remove something unless there is consensus? I wonder if there's a rule regarding this. Synotia (moan) 20:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

At present, multiple editors believe the information is irrelevant and detracts from the article. The information has been placed in an invisible comment until a consensus can be found. In this case, not including the information is more neutral than including the information. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In the parts you commented out there was also information about ISIS's relationship towards Russia that had been lost in the "fog of editwar" Synotia (moan) 20:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to which information you're referring to? Nothing in the commented section discusses IS's relationship with Russia. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That whole part about the attack at that parade in Iran, along with the past bombardments of ISIS by Russia in Syria. Synotia (moan) 20:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that, and it's not in a hidden comment anywhere. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

there you go Synotia (moan) 20:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I propose keeping the subsection as it appears here. It covers Putin/FSB's allegations, Ukrainian rebuttal, US denial of involvement, militant denial of involvement, and notes that the Russia government is attempting to use state media to push the allegations. I am opposed to including comments by Dmitry Medvedev because they are not allegations. I oppose including the assertion from a Ukrainian politician that this is a Russian false flag because Telegram is not a reliable source, and such a heavy accusation requires coverage from reliable sources. I moved information about the NTV deepfake to the disinformation article as it is more relevant here. I don't find this detail notable but if we want to readd information about the perpetrators initially suspected of being Slavs, I would suggest adding it to the "Investigation" section. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you can guess :-) that I find my version the best.

Comments by Medvedev or the Ukrainian politician should remain appropriately paraphrased, of course. As a footnote it is worth noting that Telegram is merely a medium, it's like saying that television is not a reliable source. Organizations like Nexta primarily use Telegram. Synotia (moan) 20:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that the Telegram comments need coverage by reliable sources if they're to be used. Also, Medvedev made no allegations so why include what he said? Do you mind explaining what makes your version best rather than just linking to it? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Medvedev's statements don't need to be included at this time given that they're speculative (i.e., if Ukraine is involved...). This is very different from the claims made elsewhere that Russia is asserting that Ukraine is involved. However, I'm open to opinions about whether to include claims about Russia asserting that Ukraine was involved. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Russia's allegations that Ukraine is involved and Ukraine's denial should be included in the article in some capacity due to its widespread coverage by reliable sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Medvedev's comments are not that relevant in of themselves, they were merely swept with the rest in my copypasting.

What is relevant to note is the inconsistency in initial reporting about Slavs and the Russian legion in Ukraine, that later somehow culminated in some Azeri guy having his bloody ear shoved in his mouth.

And furthermore, there is the chef's piece: the deepfake with Oleksiy Danilov. That they right away had a deepfake ready for this, at the time the victims were not even counted yet alone put in body bags, says a lot about the motivation of the Russian media and the people pulling the strings behind them.

These paragraphs carry with them the entire clumsiness of the Russian security apparatus in pointing towards a culprit. And it is very important for readers to know this. People are smart enough to figure out what is sketchy and what is not, they are not children with fragile minds to protect from "misinformation", especially if paraphrased appropriately and not bluntly shown as the holy truth. (which we never did in the first place) Synotia (moan) 20:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying they right away had a deepfake ready for this, at the time the victims were not even counted yet alone put in body bags, says a lot about the motivation of the Russian media is speculation, editors aren't meant to speculate about motivations and pre-made deepfakes. If NTV was state media, I would maybe support its inclusion, but it is not. Editors can not make their own connections between the NTV deepfake, the investigatory inconsistencies, and the Russian state media campaign (WP:SYNTH). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 21:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have merely highlighted what I deem is important, not even posited my personal opinions on the events. And even if I did, I'm on the talk page, it does not matter. Synotia (moan) 21:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Nice4What's solution as is: Notes the topic of Ukraine being accused, but not making it the subject, which I find respectful and balanced compared to loading an article involving the devastation of hundreds of lives and livelihoods with multiple paragraphs that amounts of geopolitical finger pointing that lacks a direct connection to reality. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding respectful coverage, as a wise man once said, womp womp. There is zero room for emotion in (attempted) objective political analysis of our oh so complex mondo cane.

By the way, a while ago I watched the documentary Hypernormalisation, by Adam Curtis. He is a virtuoso in finding the right images and taking the viewer on an interesting journey through the mind-bending relationships between world leaders, epochs, tragic events,... that seem unconnected at glance. If you have time, it's worth it, in order to get you more of a picture of what I am trying to convey. Synotia (moan) 21:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

......What? Are you trying to attack me, insult me or something else? This article isn't about the war in Ukraine directly, if at all outside political chit-chat, it's about people from IS shooting up and subsequently firebombing a bunch of Russian citizens. Ukraine is barely relevant here, and something tells me it will stay mostly irrelevant outside of Nice4Whats paragraph and nothing notable will happen with Ukraine because of this. ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"editors aren't meant to speculate [...]"

I did not try to insult you in the slightest, and the fact that you even interpreted my friendly suggestion for your next popcorn sesh as an insult is a sign you might need to get off the computer and get some fresh air. Perhaps my brash way of working played a role in this, I'm sorry for that. Synotia (moan) 21:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry il rephrase for you: I cannot speak the language you are currently speaking. You jumped from saying 'womp womp' linking to a YouTube video(?) to saying I shouldn't care about the fact people died because I edit Wikipedia (are you quite litterly saying 'chicken meat is cheap'? Just because this is an encyclopedia doesn't mean we are all emotionless hills) to some English filmmaker talking about something (no I'm not checking because I couldn't care less what a stranger on the internet sends me). In your reply, you quote from somewhere (idk where), mention something about popcorn, move on to say I should log off my computer (Despite being a mobile editor), and then mention some sort of apology.

In Summary, what on earth are you trying to say to me? ASmallMapleLeaf (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You have a very rude tone, and you should stop with it. It's completely unnecessary, and so are your personal attacks. WP:RUDE, WP:PA. It is not difficult to be civil. Abandonee (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Nice4What's solution: As ASmallMapleLeaf stated, this article should focus on the tragedy with brief mentions of the allegations. I would also be OK with adding perhaps another sentence about the allegations, too. While it's relevant in geo-politics that Russia has allegedly tried to frame Ukraine, that does not need to be included here. However, it is relevant to the linked article relating to the war. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about Ukraine alleging that the attack was a false flag operation, as a counter-allegation against Russia. This was reported on by Mother Jones and Bloomberg, both considered reliable sources at WP:RSP. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, this is better as a separate section. As about the evidence of the Ukrainian involvement, I am sure they will find something, no matter who actually committed the attack.My very best wishes (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Anti Christian sentiment as motive?

The official IS statement from the "Amaq news agency" explicitly mentions that they attacked a "large crowd of christians". Multiple sources mention this.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/gunmen-combat-fatigues-open-fire-moscow-concert-hall-108395835

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shooting-music-venue-crocus-city-hall-moscow-picnic-concert/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/03/23/why-did-isis-k-attack-a-moscow-theatre/

https://abcnews.go.com/International/shooting-reported-concert-hall-moscow/story?id=108396308 2403:580D:8038:0:9045:E591:6228:BD9B (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

anti-Christian sentiment is a tenet of Islamic extremism, so it could be redundant Synotia (moan) 20:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Video of the rescue and cleanup efforts

https://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20240323_95273781

Damage to the building is much greater than I expected. Pat2dv (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

BBC Russia reports 2 perpetrators have been killed before 4 others were arrested

BBC live online

One of them was killed in the Crocus City Hall itself and the other one in Bryansk region (shot in their car). It means there were 6 attackers in all. 93.81.37.232 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Russia produced a deepfake video of a Ukrainian official trying to implicate Ukraine?

Can anyone confirm this? https://twitter.com/Shayan86/status/1771527050328699201 141.239.252.245 (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

yes, see Talk:Crocus city hall attack#Caught in 4K for more information about what is currently being discussed. The information you're referencing was previously included, then removed...etc. Not going to get into it personally but that's where the discussion is hosted now. Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

ISIS publishes video of the attack filmed by the attackers themselves

The 4 attackers are seen yelling Allah Akbar on video themselves filmed during the attack:

https://www.hln.be/nieuws/live-aanslag-moskou-dodentol-opgelopen-tot-133-is-kanaal-verspreidt-beelden-aanslag~a86318bf/

I think this pretty much puts the discusion to rest about who did it. Pat2dv (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)