Talk:2010 Chechen Parliament attack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The article never states that the attackers were Islamic militants, but the infobox does. As such this is uncourced information -- fix? QMarion II (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

- Okay, seems fixed now QMarion II (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

um, it wasnt fixed or sourced. But ive found a source that allegedly claims it. sp... DoneLihaas (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not unsourced. Just look at the headlines: At least three killed in Islamist attack on Chechnya parliament, Islamists Stage Suicide Attack on Chechen Parliament. Also, the decision to change it from "Islamists" to "Caucasian muhajideen" was a very poor one, since 1) it's sourced to Islamist propaganda website Kavkazcenter, 2) even Kavkazcenter doesn't say who is taking responsibility (they have just substituted the word "Islamist" used in international press with their own word "Caucasian muhajideen"). Offliner (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Islamists is a vague term for a group that exists, it also says "suspected" instead of affirming anything yet. If it hasnt been claimed,then one cant say its "Islamists" either.Lihaas (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We should not use Kavkazcenter as a source[edit]

I believe we should not use the Islamist website Kavkazcenter as a source in the article. It is basically a terrorist propaganda website and thus extremely unreliable. It is comparable to the Al-Qaida websites which the United States has declared illegal and keeps closing down around the world. We probably would never use them as a source anywhere in WP. Kavkazcenter is known for outrageously racist stuff like "Zionists enjoy torturing Palestinians" [1] and "Israel imported 25,000 Ukrainian children to harvest their organs" [2] (I hope I don't need to continue...) Perhaps the only thing Kavkazcenter is good for is as a reference for statements by the Islamists. Offliner (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe I used it as a source to reference the statement, by the Islamists themselves, showing the split between Zakayev and the Emirate. Why is there a problem with that?--Yalens (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Kavkax center firstly, is not illegal like if you msut the al qaeda websites are. Neither is al manar if you must use that comparison. And they are used on various pages of Wikipedia. Using that logic we should use israeli/palestinian sources on pages concerning attack by either? BUt that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
Secondly, as mentioned the link is used to hear "fromt he horse's mouth." The other links are duly sourced if you read the article, if you dont want to read it then thats not an excuse for removal.
And there doesnt seem to consensus that kavkax center is not a valid cite, neither here nor on wikipedia in general.Lihaas (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
No. Kavkazcenter is not a RS. If you insist on inserting material from it, it up to you to demonstrate it is reliable. If the information you inserted from is correct, then it should be easy for you to find an accepted RS which says exactly the same info. For example, can you find a confirmation that "Caucasian Muhajideen" took responsibility for the blast? No, you cannot. Can you find confirmation for "European Parliamentary President Jerzy Buzek said an extraordinary session of the parliament would meet two days later and would criticise Russian policy in the Caucasus"? No, you cannot. Where did Buzek say that? Kavkazcenter is propaganda and simply must not go anywhere near a WP article. Frankly, I belive your actions here are disruptive. Offliner (talk) 07:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The consensus in these WP:RSN discussions is that Kavkazcenter is not a WP:RS: [3][4]. Offliner (talk) 07:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If it is not an RS, why is it listed on wikipedia, why isnt it banned anywhere other than russia? Why do you list anything with only 1 source? everythign needs to be double-cited then? As the other editor said above it IS is citable for matters pertaining at least to ther issue.
As said before, it is cited on wikipedia, other editors have not had a problem, especially when its cited in the context of caveats and WP:Consensus can change. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means if you have a problem here, you can get consensus, this page duly mentions by 2 editors vs. 1 that the source is okay. Your whim and edits/sources citing status quo terrorist media is not the only one that stands.Lihaas (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus, and common sense, clearly indicate that it can only be considered reliable in citing something that is specifically given as an attributed direct quotation, such as "Kavkax says..." not to cite something that is given purely as fact. This is now I read it, so I have reverted the change but feel free to add relevant information provided it is attributed to the Kavkaz as their own take on the situation. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it hasnt been given as such. There are 2 editors here who have sourced, your revert on the contrary came without discussion here and gaining consensus. If you feel as such discuss it. If you dont want to gain consensus then you dotn have the right, i have restored the info with due caveat. Its not based on the whim that "this is not how i read it, its based on consensus and you clearly havent gotten one, let alone tried to.
For the second time you gave no reason for you reverts and have blindly reverted everything even that which is not sourced to kavakz center without due discussion. Furthermore, you ahve removed the cite for phrase that was sourced from the source you removed, that then is WP:OR, WP:Synthesis and thus flagrantly WP:POV.
Another edit that you removed already has your own caveat "kavkaz says..." and NOT citing anything as gospel. Tell me which edit is cited as gospel truth?Lihaas (talk) 08:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Only the analysis section was attributed as I described. I don't believe the earlier RS consensus would be countermanded if the three other changes were attributed in that way. S.G.(GH) ping! 08:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

the phrase in the "attack" is linked to kavkaz, the infobox ref stayed in without the source too, the responsibility goes with due caveat, and the analysis is sourced and cited with caveat as to who said what (read the source and you will see). the only possible doubt you may have is the euro parliament reaction, which is not tagged as "dubious" pending either consensus or another source. not pending censorship!.Lihaas (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Also the "background" is jsut that, for cotnext, if the sources are amiss, then oen can click on the relevant wikilinks which are duly sourced and not WP:OR, i do think however there is more context that is needed, hence an "expand" tag which could incldue things like themoscow metro attack this year, spate of attacks in the region, and other such stuff you or anyone else finds relevant/npov. Also a requisite fact tag (which exists for that reason), is better than removal.
Im just looking for jerzy's source, and have temporarily aded a "dubious tag".Lihaas (talk) 09:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
btw- there was a source that gave credit to splti off from Umarov's group, but as you say kavkaz center is nto RS, then neither would a russian-governmetn source be.Lihaas (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It seems the euro parliamentary quote was slightly out of context as that was reaction to earlier arrests not the bombing itself, but there is another reaction [5], in which he condemns it and adds "utmost importance for the Russian authorities to show their full commitment to enhancing the rule of law and to ensure that it is properly and equally applied." So the original source was given due citation, and was thus plausible. (Poland has also historically been friendly to the caucausus so for jerzy to say that is not unbelievable)Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
per a talk page discussion with sggh: "ill add then the new source on jerzy's comment, and add the russian "investigation" perhaps into a new section?"Lihaas (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems like we solved the issues, the responsibility/analysis section is given caveat and the reaction section adds another source while removing the contentious "criticise" part. Only I think the background may be left, but ive given my view above and think it can be added to.Lihaas (talk) 09:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I thanks Lihaas of providing the original sources as provided and linked by the Kavkaz Center article.

The section however still suffers from a very serious neurtality problem. As a collection of quotes originally compiled by the Department of Monitoring of the Kavkaz Center it follow its source almost to the point of a copyright violation. It thus reflects only a narrow Islamist point-of-view. I have marked the section with a {{POV-section}} tag. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

copyvio? no, i dont think that.
pov? possibly because of the original source. well, let's keep looking for other sources to npov it. im sure there will be a few later, although carnegie moscow and yeltsin foundation dont seem offbase.
The RSN discussion on kavkaz center were far from conclusive to say this is not a RS. it has its bias? sure, jsut the same as official state media like RT, CNN, BBC, FOX, Press TV, etc have (see their list of onctroversies on those pages). Its hardly right to say one is npov and the other is not.Lihaas (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Now that sggh, yalens and me have worked through the caveat and addition, offliner has gone back and inserted his pov (as if RT is the only RS) and removed [6] [7] (which was again removed without discussion, where i have mentioned here the reasons thereof) [8] (which per WP:LEAD reflects the article) [9] (which added sourced info from a russian website and detailed the criticism of european countries was only at the 2 mentioned. (per the removal of template and the "aftermath", i think that was warranted and even said to "feel free to remove if inappropriate"))Lihaas (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Theres another source added now, can we take off the tag or do we need more?Lihaas (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The Chechen Rebels of the "Udugov Faction" and Islamism[edit]

I wanted to clear this up.

Yes, all the news sources- mainly Russian news and American news which gets its info from the latter- call them Islamist. This is not exactly 100% incorrect. The Udugov-Umarov faction (the so-called "Caucasus Emirate") itself states that its legitimacy is derived from the Islamic religion. But that the "Caucasian Emirate" is purely Islamist or even mainly Islamist is not the truth simply because both they and Russia would like the world to think so.

It does not take a genius to see that if the rebels were only Islamist, they would no longer be fighting. The Islamic religion is actually not repressed in pro-Russian-Kadyrovite Chechnya at all, whatever Umarov or Udugov may insist. They insist that it is mainly to gain support from militant Islamists, their only lifeline besides the Chechen diaspora, but even that is now divided after the split of the Chechen government.

Under Kadyrov's rule, exactly what Umarov and Udugov claimed they were fighting for has actually occured, albeit with Russian endorsement. Kadyrov is, after all, the son of a mufti. He has overseen the construction of Europe's largest functioning mosque on his territory. He has overseen the introduction of a mandate of religious education and instruction in public schools. As well as the general "shariatization" of public life. Had Udugov and Umarov been only authentic Islamists, they would have welcomed these developments. They have not (and neither have the majority of Chechen people, regardless of their political orientations within Chechendom). That they haven't reveals the real reason they continue to resist Russia and its proxy puppet (Kadyrov): that in reality, while they can't admit it, the independence of Chechnya from Russia is actually more important to them than the Shariatification of Chechnya.

I am not saying that Umarov and Udugov necessarily run a conscious policy of deception (well, Udugov maybe, Zakayev's allegation that he is an agent provacateur may not be far from the mark). There is obviously a strong belief in their cause, which implies that they also assume that God is on their side. It is not impossible that they have grown fond of the rhetoric of the Islamists who have been their main source of support during a time in which the West, the actual governments of the Islamic world (although not their people) and the rest of the world willfully ignored Chechnya. But in the very least could you put "Separatists and Islamists" for their description. Because it is in reality Chechnya, and not God(in English)/Deila(in Chechen)/Allah (or in Arabic; whatever you want to call him) that they fight for (and the same is true of all Chechen rebels). I could elaborate more on the finer points of this issue among Chechens, but really, I think you get the idea. They are not, making them unlike Al-Qaeda for example, only Islamists. --Yalens (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

But even calling them Islamists at all is not 100% correct, really. Because their "Islamism", although (debatably) present, is not the reason why they fight at all. And the other Chechen faction, the parliament and the government-in-exile associated with Zakayev, they are not really Islamist at all (yes, they are Muslims; but they are only as Islamist as the Poles are "Catholic-ist", and believe they Islam is 100% compatible with Western-styled Democracy). The reason why any Chechen rebel fights is the hope that Chechnya may one day be independent, not Islam, or any other reason...--Yalens (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

background section's relevance[edit]

the context for the background is now even more relevant because the russian-backed chechnyan interior ministry (ie- "official voice"), has mentioned the breakway factions as responsible.Lihaas (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

"Caucasian Muhajideen"[edit]

Lihaas changed perpetrators from "Islamists" to "Caucasian Muhajideen." As I've tried to explain above (although the explanations seems to have been ignored) this is a bad decision due to three things:

  • 1) Kavkazcenter is not a reliable source. It's only useful for sourcing statements where the Islamists directly say something, like that they are responsible for the attack
  • 2) Kavkazcenter is not saying that any "muhajideen" are taking responsibility. Their article says: "Occupation sources report that a small squad of Mujahideen burst into the puppets "parliament""
  • 3) What Kavkazcenter has done here is simply to replace the word "Islamists" used in international press with their POV word "Muhajideen"

Lihaas also inserted the text "Kavkaz Center reported that the Caucasian Mujahadeen attacked the parliament". This is simply not true. They did not report it, they were just quoting other sources.

I strongly think that we should use Kavkazcenter at all in this article, unless they broadcast a message where some group takes responsibility. Offliner (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And they did say that, there is now also another source that says that.
First you said to use the caveat that it came from kavkaz center (as others have also said that its good for citing the worse fromt he horse's mouth), then something else. Change the wording if you want, i dont know what to: "kavkaz center said/quoted/alleged/whathaveyou..."Lihaas (talk) 09:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you seem to be confused. First you said to use the caveat that it came from kavkaz center - no, I did not say this. I said the site can be used as a source only if they publish a statement from the Islamists. This has not happened here. And they did say that, there is now also another source that says that. They did not. Where is the "another source"? You should self-revert. I'm not going to make any edits since I'm near 3RR. Offliner (talk) 10:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
It was somewhere in the melee up above.
the other source is now added on the page, 1 from kavkaz and 1 from the govt. seems npov?
how do you think it should be worded. 3rr doesnt count for reverting your own, so ill change it to waht we agree to.
btw- What is Johkar? Grozny in Chechnyan or the name of the parliament building?Lihaas (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
@Lihaas: It's neither. Jokhar is a case of bad spelling, by either Russians or Westerners who think they can spell Anglicized Chechen but can't- it should be Dzhokkar (not actually a zh but an accented z). It's been used off-and-on by the rebels to refer to Groznyi, but it is not a translation, it is the name of the first Chechen separatist president, Dzhokkar Dudayev of the (then-secular) Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, who was assassinated by a Russian missile (aimed on target by using the identification of his voice in a phone conversation). Grozny/Groznyi/Grozni/Gruozni/etc is derived from the Russian word for "terrible" and it was originally a fort built on the site of a burned Chechen village by General Aleksei Yermolov. Unsurprisingly, Chechens aren't fond of the name Grozny, but save for "Dzhokkar" (and even the rebels occasionally still call it Grozny), there's not really much attempt to rename it. There much bigger problems than the city's name. --Yalens (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, is it on the Grozny page? I looked at the lead for alternative but it wasnt there.Lihaas (talk) 03:53, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Islamist militants is oversimplification[edit]

Caucasian Muhajideen is the better of the two. And no, the Moscow Times is not adequate source to use the title "Islamist militants" rather than "Caucasian Muhajideen", simply because the Times chooses to call it the former. Wikipedia should not simplify things like the media does. --Yalens (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Reuters also calls them "Islamist rebels".[10] Why would "Caucasian Muhajideen" be better? IMHO, it is a POV term. We should use whatever expression is most widely used in international press, not what is used by the Islamist propaganda website Kavkazcenter. Offliner (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, KavkazCenter does quite want the world to believe that the rebel movement is Islamist in nature in fact. That belief fuels the bulk of their income. As for Reuters, there are two problems:
1. The quality of Western (or "global") reporting of Chechnya is pretty low considering that they don't actually have any journalists there and get their info mainly from Russian news. There are a large number of reasons for this (not in the least because journalists fear sharing the fate of those like Anna Politkovskaya; though there are some, like the Frenchwoman Anna Nivat, who managed to disguise themselves as Chechens, only to be discovered and deported by Kadyrov/Russia afterwards), but case in point being that Western news, although less biased on the topic than Russian news, is still little better in points like these.
As a side note on this point, I would like to add that Serbian news intentionally promoted the view around the world that the Bosniaks and Albanians were Islamist in nature- and had they not recieved Western assistance, they may have indeed adopted Islamist rhetoric and encouraged the view themselves. The difference is that Serbia wouldn't dare threaten reporters from other countries, whereas Russia has that leisure with its own journalists and with those around the world, simply because of its much greater status.
2. Reuters is public media as well. As such, it is also prone to the drastic simplification that media is well known for
One more point: I cannot possibly see how "Caucasian Muhajideen" is more POV than "Islamist militants". Caucasian Muhajideen itself is in a way POV, but at least it is (at least nominally) correct (or we assume it is them who did it, and not just some Chechen lads acting completely independently). --Yalens (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. Perhaps "Caucasian Muhajideen" is acceptable after all, although I'd still prefer Islamist militants. Can you revert it back to "Caucasian Muhajideen", please? Btw, my belief is that Western media coverage of the Caucasus is biased, because America (which has a huge influence on the worldwide press) will not accept the fact that attacks like this in the Caucasus are part of a worldwide terrorism and jihad, similar to what is happening in Afganistan.[11] Offliner (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty hard for me to think that Western news service is biased, especially biased against Russia. And especially not "because of the US", when both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly voiced their solidarity with Russia on the issue (mistakenly or not), when Obama held joint military exercises with Russia even right after Russia was caught spying, and so on. American public opinion is, if anything, more pro-Russia than that of Britain, largely due to that (1) America is like 2-3% Russian, (2) although there are no doubt many Americans that sympathize(d) with the Chechen side, I would say America is more inclined to label the Chechens as Islamist terrorists (after the hysterical post-9/11 attitude in that country) and even more anti-Chechen/Ichkerian (Zakayev and the Ichkerian gov't have lived in Poland, Denmark, UK, etc... but not the US, where Bush refered to the Chechen separatists as bloody terrorists), (3) US news takes its sources directly from Moscow (this is not the case with, for example, Turkish news, Czech news, or Swedish news). So, no, I don't think Western media is biased on this issue, at least not biased towards "not accepting the fact that [these] attacks..... are part of a worldwide terrorism and jihad" (which is not universally accepted internationally to begin with).--Yalens (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
And yes, I read the link you gave me. I am not persuaded at all, as it is a typical type of Western article complaining about the unfairness Russia is treated with by the media(and greatly exaggerating this at that). It is a mix of Islamophobic conservatism, Russophilia, and a sort of paranoia towards Muslim peoples (not actually that much unlike the Cold War view of communism). It is quite notable that they criticize Russian liberals too. But the main problem is that the person probably doesn't even know anything about Chechens besides that they are mostly Muslim.--Yalens (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The Islamist reference was duly added in the lead by me, if thats what you wanted. just tag on your islamist reference to that.
Anti-kadyrov insurgetns is far more vague/un-encyclopaedic. particularly when the lead also mention the Caucasian group,Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with "Anti-Kadyrov" being vague; I will change that. I would readd Caucasian Emirate, but one thing first: we need a source actually attributing the attack to the Emirate. While its generally been assumed, I have not seen (yet; it may be out), the Emirate take responsibility or anything like that. We don't actually know for sure that it was the Emirate that did it at all. It could have been a couple of Chechens working independently of the Emirate. Kadyrov blamed Zakayev, though Kadyrov can hardly be called a reliable source. Zakayev condemned the attack (I will add that link momentarily to "Reactions"), and seems to think the Emirate did it - but he didn't state it explicitly.
The one interesting accusation I have seen was one against Gakayev, one of the men of what people believe to be Vadalov's faction. --Yalens (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind about the Emirate not taking responsibility for it; I see it now. I will readd "Caucasus Emirate" (for now at least).--Yalens (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I added his renunciation of responsibility to the responbility section.
But per the Emirate/Mujahadeen, both Kavkaz center (and if they are not a RS, then their view about who did it cant be far off the mark) and the government said it was at least a faction of the group. Granted theres no official claim, but there is then a "suspected" part in the infobox until official affirmation comes. just read your last commentLihaas (talk) 07:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it can be far off the mark, BUT, I never protested attributing it to the Cuacasus Emirate (although it may have been independent, at least right now it seems to be the Emirate). What I protest is the "Islamist" label being applied haphazardly. --Yalens (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. remove/alter it where you see fit.
Also, i added a "faction" caveat, alter that too if you see fit.Lihaas (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Offliner's original reasons for the POV tag[edit]

They were that it was "The section is a collection of quotes compiled by the Department of Monitoring of the Kavkaz Center, it thus reflects only a narrow POV."... that is emphatically incorrect as we got it from many sources, and it is certainly NOT a "compilation of quotes from.... the Kavkaz Center". As such, I will now, reremove it. --Yalens (talk) 13:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

My original reason was that someone else [legitmately] added the pov tag, and i hence discussed the query in order to remove it but it went unresponded for almost 2 weeks without response. as per wikipedia convention, no one wants to discuss and gain consensus but simpyl revert.Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I did not add this tag, but it is there because the collection of the quotes is taken directly from the Islamist propaganda website Kavkazcenter:
Alexei Malashenko, an analyst at the Carnegie Centre..
Yevgeny Volk, a political analyst...
Laurence Lee, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Moscow...
All those quotes were taken from the Kavkazcenter article [12]. It is not the quotes themselves, but the way they have been selected. Kavkazcenter has selected them to promote their agenda and POV, which is why Wikipedia should not reproduce this POV collection. Wikipedia must remain neutral and not used as a mouthpiece for Islamist propaganda. Offliner (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I wasnt opposed to the addition of the tag (see above), and even asked how to remove it. Then added something else, and asked again. But in over 2 weeks not one person replied until suddenly the tag was removed and everyone wants it back even though they were not willing to discuss it. for that reason i removed the tag where consensus cant wait forever, now the onus is on those who want to add it back to get consensus for it. After all we cant sit and wait for everyone to agree even when they dotn try to.Lihaas (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't originally discuss this tag I believe... in any case, that Kavkaz Center has selected them has nothing to do with the fact that they ARE legit sources (and I don't know if hte person actually put them in that way, considering that none of the three were me). I seriously fail to see how the Carnegie Center, Yevgeny Volk and Al Jazeera are "Islamist propaganda" simply because the Kavkaz Center notes them on its site. --Yalens (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

So i made an article about Hussein Gakayev[edit]

Copy edit badly needed because of my quite horrible grammar. --Asperchu (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a peek when I get a moment. --Yalens (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


The 2nd part about the post-event suggestion for United Russia is added into the reaction section (as its not background, but post-event). And the first part was pov-pushing even if sourced. The composition of the checnyan parliament is not as relevant here (where allegations of it being a sham should be on the echecnyan election pages). "mostly composed of staunch loyalists" while still a little pov, it "completely filled with." although perhaps a majority of Kadyrov loyalsits is better.Lihaas (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well can we at least say that "some people say" so-and-so, and if there's a dispute over its legitimacy, then make a nod to it? Because there is the view that the composition of the parliament is one of the major reasons for the attack. --Yalens (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Chechen Parliament attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 Chechen Parliament attack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)