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

Hoax discussion[edit]

According to the information provided on the last external link before the map, this publication has detailed information backing up the existence of this system. Note that it is published by the Department of Defense.

TITLE: Military forces in transition.
PUBLISHED: 1991- Washington, D.C. : Dept. of Defense : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O.,
 1991- v., ill. (some col.) ; 28 cm. + map 1991-
ISSN: 1062-6557
SUPT OF DOCS #: D 1.74:
OTHER SYSTEM #: (OCoLC)25013229
CARD NUMBER: sn91-23807

Also from the Library of Congress

LC Control No.:    92600057
Type of Material:  Book (Print, Microform, Electronic, etc.)
Main Title:        Military forces in transition.
Published/Created: Washington, D.C. : Dept. of Defense : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., [1991-
Related Names:     United States. Dept. of Defense.
Description:       v. : ill. (some col.) ; 28 cm. + map
Notes:             Title from cover.
                   Item 306-A-5
Subjects:          Soviet Union--Armed Forces.
LC Classification: UA770 .M55 1991
Government Document No.: D 1.74:
Geographic Area Code: e-ur---

See if you can find this book -;jsessionid=70F3DA1CDD0C15CB57512F57663DB583.two?tab=holdings lensovet 03:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If such large underground system really existed, there'd probably be much more sources to rely on. Maybe there were plans to build a secret underground network, but that it actually was built and no information leaked out seems totally implausible.  Grue  08:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Well that presentely all information that does exist is based on rumours for exactly that reason. Nevertheless the speculation is open to everybody. --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 11:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Considering the fact that this is supposed to be a secret network used solely for government purposes by the KGB, etc, I'm not sure how exactly there are supposed to be more sources. Ever hear of the secret service? lensovet 21:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
But Wikipedia articles must have sources. All this article contains is rumors, and there are no sourced facts. The very existance of the topic cannot be proven, yet the article tells the reader that Metro 2 exists as a fact. At the very least the article must make clear that the whole thing is a rumor.  Grue  22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a rumour that is based on speculation, yet there are separate sourced pieces of "suggesting" evidence, which is indeed sourced. I shall have a more closer look into this article at a latter date. --Kuban Cossack Romanov Flag.svg 23:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
If you look on the main article page, you can follow a link that contains scans from the CIA docs. Decide for yourself as to how valid that intelligence info is. —lensovettalk – 01:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added a source to the diggers bit on the article. Authough im new at this refrenceing to books lark so if anyone can add any info ive missed out that would be cool.--Talkshowbob (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Metro-2 is surely an urban legend, that must be mentioned in article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Current Russian article[edit]

Current article in Russian contains virtually all the information leaked to public to date. It's more that enough not only to say that system does exist - there are at least six such systems in Moscow itself and it's vicinity, and three are described in details. We just currently don't have anyone who would translate all that. All these speculations about existence of the system are because the public (not government ;) outside of Russia is not informed well. It's not the only military megaproject anyway - remember S-25 --Varnav (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to translate it? I could manage to do that. Anyways, russian article is full of (russian) source, as well as witness' statements, and therefore it is not an urban legend. (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
It's hearsay from the first letter to the last. Just as this article itself is. Danvolodar (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Popular Culture[edit]

I think it would be wise to put the use of this "line" as a big plot element on the Russian serie of novels Metro 2033. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

this needs to be deleted, don't you agree?[edit]

>In 1994, the leader of an urban exploration group, the Diggers of the Underground Planet, claimed to have found an entrance to this underground system.[4] The Metro-2 rumors have been dismissed by one source as "a parody excursion by public transport into the murky world of 'intelligence'".[5] This source describes virtually all available information as "speculative, unsupported by documentation such as photographs. There are narratives told by people who said they helped build Metro-2, and urban spelunkers claim to have 'seen' Metro-2, but there are no explicit 'firsthand' accounts."[5] (talk) 22:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The first part is fine, since it's actually reliably sourced, but the second portion was sourced to a blog and, therefore, not reliable. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Metro-2. 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) 02:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)