Talk:2005 raid on Nalchik

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title of article POV[edit]

Calling the event a "terrorist" attack is POV and factually unsupported. Although Chechnyan separatists certainly have engaged in terroristic activities, the Nalchik event was a planned, conventionally military attack upon government security forces, not civilians or civilian infrastructure (hospitals, schools, etc).

Therefore I'm tagging this article as non-neutral until the title is changed, perhaps simply to "October 2005 Nalchik attack". --Bk0 21:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would also avoid using term terrorist for the attack. On the other hand a brother of my father in law happens to live in Nalchik. He described that the bandits (as he called them), were driving in the city, randomly shooting civilians on the street and shooting to the windows of the appartment blocks (including his appartment block); on the street near his house were lying three dead bodies of people who appears just were walking by; his own parked car was damage by a gun shot. He lives in an absolutely ordinary appartment, there were no military targets, nor security forces in the area. It looks like terrorist actions to me abakharev 23:43, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Ah, but where's the evidence for your relatives' statement?

I tend to agree, that until we get a better idea of what exactly happened, that calling this a terrorist act is needlessly POV. I'm all for calling a spade a spade, but I want to be damn sure that I'm right when I do. Bibigon 02:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically a 'terrorist attack' is an act of violence carried out for political reasons, which this seems to be. Of course the perception of terrorism is different to the definition.

That's a muddy and unserviceable definition, since just about any violent act by any state has some political aspect to it. The US NCTC definition is: "[an act that is] premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." (emphasis added) --Bk0 13:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So, was the aerial attack against the Pentagon building on September 11, 2001, a 'terrorist attack'? Was the Pentagon a 'combatant' target or a 'non-combatant' one? 217.114.151.228 15:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant to the question at hand. The Nalchik event is much more obviously a non-terrorist action (according to the information currently available). Let's not go off on a tangent here. --Bk0 15:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the analogy with Pentagon is very close. Although the targets are military in essence, the attacks are not military. Dividing targets into combatant and non-combatant ones makes sense when there is a combat. The militants in Nalchik did not act as military combatants. They did not wear military uniforms with due insignia, they did not carry a battle flag. They acted in civilian clothes, they even took hostages. Actions of this kind could not be looked at as a legal warfare. 217.114.151.228 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the tag, because the attackers took civilian hostages which is certainly a terrorist act and not a "conventionally military attack" Voyevoda 15:19, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate that the action—according to the information we have to date—more closely resembles a conventional guerilla attack upon government forces, rather than a terrorist action upon civilians. Just because some civilians were killed/injured doesn't automatically make it terrorism; death of civilians has to be the primary objective. --Bk0 15:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Taking civilian hostages is a criminal act and can not be classified as "conventionally military attack". During the Beslan crisis and hostage taking in the Moscow theatre there was also primarily an intention to achieve political goals rather than to simply kill all the civilians. Nevertheless nobody can claim, those two events weren't acts of terrorism. It's just not the regular warfare. --Voyevoda 15:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Attacking police forces is not the quite the same as attacking military targets. There were plenty of military bases in the region, why did they choose prison HQ and police stations then? It is parallel to Iraqi rebels attacking their own police stations (with some civilian casualties as collateral damage), does this constitute a terrorist attack or combat? Same can be said about some actions of the IRA and many other terrorist organizations. Remember policemen are not soldiers, they are enforcers of the law.(Igny 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

All of these arguments amount to original research about the nature of the conflict. The key question is how the conflict is being described in our primary and secondary sources - in this case, that's mostly news reports. My poking around mostly finds the attackers usually described as "rebels" or "militants". There are exceptions - Pravda's English-language stories sometimes call them "terrorists" - but that's the definite minority. The current "October 2005 Nalchik terrorist attack" title thus represents a minority, POV view on the nature of the conflict. I'd suggest October 2005 Nalchik conflict as an accurate, neutral title. Any other ideas? CDC (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You would not call 9/11 attack or Beslan attack "9/11 conflict" or "2004 Beslan conflict", would you? This attack was masterminded by Basayev, and you can't say that Russian government and US State Department are "definite minority" which are calling Basayev terrorist. So that is a terrorist attack same as attacks in Beslan, Nazran, Budennovsk, Moscow before that. (Igny 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

- I would definitely agree with calling this a terrorist attack. The September 11/2001 attack on the Pentagon is the perfect analogy. Referring to that as a "terrorist act" and to the attack on Nalchik as a "conflict" would amount to hypocrisy. Altec-biol 05:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not only is the use of the word "terrorist" being increasingly discouraged on Wikipedia, but this was hardly a terrorist attack. From all reports, it was a rebel military operation aimed at the state, even if hostages were later taken. I agree with CdC: October 2005 Nalchik conflict would be more appropriate. Ambi 05:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As the only object of this attack was to cause terror it is a terrorist attack. If the the object was to attack the police station to release prisoners then it would be a raid, if the attack was to destroy an army unit that was about to be deployed against them then it would be a pre-emptive strike. However as the only objective of this attack was to cause terror they are indeed terrorists and should be called terrorists.

Brinlarr

This was an attack on a city, carried out by armed rebelious muslim groups. They carried heavy weapons ILLEGALY, they do not exist as a legal army force, but only as a group of outlaws, who claim to have political motives. Their main goal, as stated in their website is to kill as many Russians and collaborators as possible, They weren't trying to negotiate, free prisoners, or something else, they were on a mission to cause chaos and terror among civilians and security forces nationwide, by KILLING as many people as possible. This does make them TERRORISTS. Oh yeah, and in my oppinion, Pentagon too was a terrorist attack, but not due to the nature of the target, but due to the fact that they kidnapped a civilian aircraft, and crashlanded it. Dejan 10:55 19.10.2005. (CET)

As the title has been changed to "October 2005 Nalchik conflict", I'm removing the NPOV tag. If anybody has any outstanding neutrality issues they can add it back in. --Bk0 12:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can successfully rebut this argument, I will move the article back to terrorist attack. Also google search for nalchik+terrorist and nalchik+conflict gave 110 and 50 thousand hits correspondingly. Nalchik is a Russian city and the name "Nalchik conflict" hints at some (nonexistent) conflicts of Russians with Kabardino-Balkaria, which actually may be one of the goals of the Chechen separatists.(Igny 15:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I have moved the article back to terrorist attack. Reason: there were no conflicts in Kabardino-Balkaria in 2005. The Nalchik incident was masterminded and conducted by the Chechen terrorists with a goal to widen the Chechen conflict to whole Caucasus region. Terrorist attacks in Budennovsk, Nazran, Beslan (all conducted by Basayev) in the past had the same goal. Basayev had promised more terrorist attacks inside Russia and he was also responsible for attacks in Moscow. (Igny 16:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Let's go with October 2005 Nalchik attack. While I did suggest "conflict" above, on reflection I think "attack" is better - "conflict" to me implies a longer-running issue, while "attack" is a more tightly bounded event (clearly, of course, the Nalchik attack is part of a conflict). This naming is also parallel with September 11, 2001 attacks. In fact, that event was far more widely described as "terrorism," and yet you'll notice we don't have that term in the title either. CDC (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that October 2005 Nalchik attack is a good compromise between "terrorist attack" and "conflict". I would like to reiterate that using "conflict" is not suitable for this, compare "Nalchik conflict" to "NYC conflict" or "Moscow conflict".(Igny 18:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

After counting the votes of those in the discussion who consider it to be a terrorist act and those who don't, I renamed it to October 2005 Nalchik terrorist attack.(Voyevoda 23:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I haven't seen any voting going on here - just discussion. Anyway, I hope listing this on the RFC page (see below) might help us reach a consensus. CDC (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am casting my vote strongly against the use of the word terrorist. I feel that this word is inherently NPOV, but even disregarding this argument I have not seen any strong evidence that this act was solely to inspire terror and not for strategic military purposes. As for the comparison to the attack on the Pentagon, I agree with Dejan that the reason this might be categorized as a terrorist attack is that a commercial airliner was hijacked, intentionally killing a large number of civilians. Canthony 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely ridiculous how the major news organizations (and now Wikipedia it seems) shy away from the use of the term "terrorist". These and similar attacks are terrorist, and carried out by terrorists, until these "militants" start wearing uniforms and fighting as armies have for hundreds upon hundreds of years. It's just as ridiculous as how Palestinian terrorists and their acts aren't decried as such. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. GreatGatsby 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so the Nalchik airport is now a military installation? *unsigned*

Wikipedia policy is that articles should be named as concisely as possible without creating ambiguity. Since there are no other attacks on Nalchik in October 2005, the character of this attack should not be an issue. As Cdc noted, the deadliest terrorist attack in history doesn't even have the word in the article title. --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I won't even bother to discuss this topic. It's been obvious for quite some time now that the West somehow considers the Chechen dudes with guns "freedom fighters", but the armed guys in the Basque Country are considered "terrorists", even though they often try to warn the authorities of imminent bomb threats to avoid civilian casualties. KNewman 03:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite obvious that this is a terrorist attack. These people are trained by the same people as al-qaeda, and part of the same worldwide movement. If the identical attack happened in the UK, US, Indonesia or even Turkey, it would be called a terrorist attack. It is just residual anti-Russianism that suddenly transforms these people into "militants". A militant is someone who goes on demonstrations and supports labour strikes, not someone who goes around trying to cause anarchy and kill as many people as possible!

I suppose the attacks on the Russian theatre and the school at Beslan, were "military installations" too?

Jumping in -- it sure doesn't look like terrorism to me. Attacks on government targets are not terrorism, and the fact that allies of these people have in fact been terrorists isn't relevant. Allies of the USA have been terrorists, too, after all.CarlFink 19:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Convincing someone to attack other nation's territory is considered terrorism by G.W.Bush. On that same ground Saddam Husein was attacked after September 11, 2001. Was Saddam a "separatist", "militant", "rebellion" or what?

Dual-standard is not NPOV, Nuff said. -- Goldie (tell me) 21:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by a single person are POV by definition (especially by such a polarizing figure as GWB). You're going to have to come up with a better argument than that for the totallydisputed tag. Removing. --Bk0 23:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I am personally for calling a cat cat, not a domestic feline, and terrorists by the t-word, not by an euphemism. But look what we we have in Wikipedia: 7 July 2005 London bombings, September 11, 2001 attacks, 2002 Bali bombing, 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings all the articles are carefully written so to avoid using the word terrorism or terrorist. It would be strange if all those articles would be attacks and Nalchick would be terrorism. Assuming we cannot change the names of all the mentioned articles, I would be against changing the name of the single Nalchik article to terrorism. With both variants of the name of the article, I am strongly against the NPOV label based only on the name of the article. abakharev 05:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment filed[edit]

I think some input from the broader community would be useful on this naming conflict - I've listed this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The fundamental issue, as shown in the section above is whether the phrase "terrorist attack" should appear in the title, or whether using that term is inaccurate or POV. A few alternatives, such as "conflict" or simply "attack," have been proposed, but possibly another name is better? CDC (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV or NPOV[edit]

First of all, of course I do have POV (point of view, right)! If I did not had any I should not have commented or edited.

The question is whether all editors (including but not limited to me) have NPOV. I would say ... not exactly.

"... anybody has any outstanding neutrality issues they can add it back in ..." -- Bk0

Yes, I do! After I've put it back and stated my motives on the Talk page. Same user removed it! Reason: Statements by a single person are POV by definition. Probably also statements of all holders of the opposite opinions are single, and all bearers of "right"opinions are united? Look, the bloody Cold War is over. It is not so hard to comprehend.

Is this article neutral or biased, that is the question! And I used Totally disputed tag due to disagreement with the neutrality of the language used. The factual accuracy is better but disputed tag warns only about facts.

Local discussion results[edit]

Let count only the opinions here:

  • for "terrorist" title and/or description:
    • 217.114.151.228 (Izhevsk, Russia [1])
    • Voyevoda (Russo-Ukrainian origin)
    • Igny (Russian is native language) - 4 times
    • Altec-biol (no clear nationality)
    • Brinlarr, 139.130.36.190 (no clear nationality [2])
    • Dejan, 212.200.197.109 (Beograd, Serbia [3])
    • KNewman (Russian, in USA)
    • Bggoldie (Bulgarian) - keep the title as it is but use the "t-word" (terrorist) in the text. -- Goldie (tell me) 12:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • GreatGatsby (USA, Boston) - the word should be used in the article, title should stay the same
    • User:SergeiXXX (Canada)
  • against "terrorist" definition:
    • Bk0 (no clear nationality) - 3 times
    • Cdc (English speaking inhabitant of Cascadia peacefully pleading secession)
    • Ambi (Australian)
    • Canthony (no clear nationality)
    • CarlFink (USA, New York)
    • Renata3 (from Lithuania, now in New York)
  • uncertain/neutral:


It is alarming to see too many Slavs in first camp, and that English-speakers are in the opposite camp. Hopefully the RfC will produce more statistics data.

Information authencity and validation of sources[edit]

Now the other round of questions:

  • How far are you from the place of the crime (yes, crime against humanity)?
  • Have you been in any Caucasian state or at least a neighbour one?
  • ... and finally have you verified YOUR sources?

My sources:

  • [Play on words with a political subtitle] 1
  • the (U.S.) movie Wag the Dog: "It was shown on the TV, it has to be true!"
  • personal perception from several conversations with Varna citizens about their fears developed by atempts of Chechen mafia to take control over city's underground. Personal opinion based on other people's stories but well linked with some murders.

1 for those who do not comprehend Russian: it is talking about U.S. and Western European media (namely NYT, BBC, Reuters) naming the subjects of discussion "rebels", "insurgents" and "fighters" in their English texts, and ... just "terrorists" in their Russian editorials (if they have any). To my surprise, unknown to me Bloomberg (I do not invest in U.S.) used that improper word - "terrorists". And all the same stuff was written about Beslan, and about Moscow theather ...

Please do not tell me stories about "highly respected" sources like CNN, BBC, Reuters. Show some real research, with list of sources and double-check analysis of their credibility related to this topic.

The quality of the arguments[edit]

It would not help to resolve the dispute with questions like "Ah, but where's the evidence for your relatives' statement?"

Onsite but not online. Hiding on the Dark Side of the Moon to avoid being interrogated in Abu Ghraib prison or Guantanamo Bay.

Silly answer to a silly question, isn't it. Flame me for it, please.

Closer to the reality:

  • a fact was brought on the table, and was questioned - "... lying three dead bodies of people who appears just were walking by ..."
    vote Convincing. unverifyable by the moment but does not look as FUD. Somewhat credible but needs some proof or correlation with another fact. Retelling other people's story should only be used as a hint what we may look for. -- Goldie (tell me) 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Igny's argument U.S. Designates Chechen Rebel Leader as Terrorist
    • clearly shows official U.S. position - these people are terrorists
    • it is not about single person, be it GWB or not, it is a statement made on behalf of 297,400,000 people according to Wikipedia
    • there was no comment on it, which ought to mean that readers more or less agree (with the definition)
    • last trip of U.S. Rice of State to Moskva was not that successful, so the rebuttal may come from a rather unexpected source
    vote Fully agree, terrorists. -- Goldie (tell me) 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assault was not done by citizens of Kabardino-Balkaria, and was imported from outside. It is also of utmost interest from where come the money for such carefully planed campaign.
    vote Credible. Though many sources say so, they may use the same person or cite each other. -- Goldie (tell me) 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... <what else>? (please feel to add right here, in the middle of my post. It is Wikipedia on the end)

"... being increasingly discouraged on Wikipedia" contradicts with "calling the spade a spade", and is having rather clear definition. Sorry for the words, I haven't wrote that one.

Personal POV[edit]

Yes, I am passionate, aggressive, furious, and am biased in my comment. I am anything another biased reader can accuse me in. "When the facts speak even the gods stay silent". Show here some facts and less bias.

I am not going to develop editorial war but will "add it (the tag) back in"! Last time I've updated the article and put the comments here afterwards, now I am describing my reasons first and then the update is coming.

Later tonight (today is a working day in S.A.) I will try to pull the text itself to more neutral harbour by adding the other position. -- Goldie (tell me) 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted the revert and dropped a note at Ambi's Talk page, asking for opinion or other information.
Please comment here and edit instead of reverting. Even your reasons for controvercy are valuable. -- Goldie (tell me) 08:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The opinion of the US government isn't relevant in the way Wikipedia describes an incident; what matters is that we be neutral. Stating that the people who attacked Nalchik were terrorists is by definition not neutral, as it is taking a clear stance. It is important to mention American views in a "response" section, just as with the Russian views, however. Whether you or I agree or disagree is also beside the point. There is no consensus in the community that they were terrorists, and a lot of their methods were hardly terrorist (i.e. as it would have been if they had, for instance, bombed a civilian airliner). There is no consensus for this bold claim here either, for that matter - the votes are practically even when invalid anonymous IPs are removed, and that's even before the vote was advertised anywhere. Moreover, when there is no mention of terrorist in the article on the September 11 bombings, it is ridiculous to include it here. Ambi 11:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not against the title of the article without the word "terrorist" in it, it's fine by me and is more neutral, really. What I'm worried about is that the text of the article won't even have any references to the word "terrorist" because Wikipedia is somewhat Americentric and leaning more towards the West, and you have to admit that. The editors will use every possible word to avoid using this one, because it's somehow "politically incorrect". They'll be called "freedom fighters", "separatists", "militants", "federal opposition" and other words. Whatever you do, Wikipedia will never be an impartial encyclopedia, but it won't stop me from contributing anyway. So choose your words wisely, my friends. KNewman 13:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly okay to make clear that the Russian and American governments have called them terrorists. That would be the neutral way of covering this. Ambi 00:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Very well said, I concur with the words of KNewman. Yes, I am certainly missing the POV! Saying "by definition" (which one?) also is a POV. I see two definitions in Wikipedia - in articles Terrorist and Terrorism. The former is very brief, while the latter is more formal. So the evaluation is done against the more scientific one:
  • Violence - clearly a violent act. It is not a war (because lacks declaration from a government), riot (lacking the crowds), or a single assault. Whether it is organized crime is questionable as according to part of the definitions terrorism and crimes against humanity are also criminal acts.
  • Target - clearly a civilian target. Police stations are not military structures and provide security to the civil society. Using same definition, it is irrelevant whether attempt to spare civilians' life is made or not.
  • Objective - For East-Europeans it is obvious aim to "cause public shock, outrage, and fear". Whether it is so obvious across all English-speaking countries I can not know.
  • Motive - political goal are clear, religious one can be seen from the declaration text following the link.
  • Perpetrator - no actual definition, and just samples. So we have to guess based on "this-is-" and "this-isn't-", leaving some room for personal bias.
  • Legitimacy - is it lawful to attack law enforcement structure?
If some of my conclusions above are incorrect or imprecise, please voice your opinion and let us to weight your argumens. Otherwise it seems to be a quarrel instead of dispute. Brushing away the U.S. Department of State just because their position does not match yours? Anonymous IP addresses not to be counted as their opinion is undervalued. Who is going to be the next? This is called segregation. Or maybe because "they" are not Wikipedians? There is no abstract divine Wikipedia! We are Wikipedia, it is you and me, and the girl next door, plus the guy across the globe.
The reason for the dispute seems to be the perception of "normal". The social inertia in the English-speaking parts of the globe drives the media to use what we call "dual-standart" - armed groups closer to home like Basque ETA, or IRA are traditionally tagged as "terrorists", while similar formations in former Eastern Bloc are still considered as fighting against an oppresive regime. This contradicts with the statements that all former "communist" (we used the word socialist, you know) are now more or less democratic. Methods of Mr. Putin aren't more suspicious than the ones of Mr. Bush, and especially not solely on the ground he is Russian. It might be alarming indeed for a non-European to see too many Slavs in one camp, and the English-speakers in the opposite camp. The interesting part is the opinion of Europeans with no geopolitical interests there and of the people from neighbouring Asian countries. Otherwise it is U.S./Commonwealth position only.
"There is no consensus in the community that they were terrorists" is imprecise. There are two rather polarized positions, and the rift seems to widen. Puting a "rebel" tag on a terrorist also is not neutral. I would reiterate the example with Twin Towers - is Osama bin Laden a rebel willing to see his Saudi Arabia homeland free of U.S. presence, or he is a terrorist because he is using terror in order to succeed. I guess citizens of U.S.A. will be offended and will consider someone tagging bin Laden as rebel far from neutral. Put your verdict and try to replace bin Laden with Basaev, Saudi Arabia with Chechnya, and Nalchik with New York. If there is no ground for comparison, state it.
Please stop blind reverting, the article is far from perfect. Protecting the imperfect status quo instead of edits and enhancements is not a peer review. AFAIK revert is meant to prevent vandalism, and not to inhibit edits. If your peer is wrong or biased - point it out.
Putting the "totally disputed" tag back until the discussion here proves solid consensus.
The fact of complete disagreement by itself is the ultimate reason for having it!

Goldie (tell me) 01:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your extraordinarily verbose arguments that the events were/are terrorism are totally irrelevant to the totallydisputed tag! No one here is stopping you from adding in all these arguments to the article (as Alex Bakharev just did). Your silly headings below the tag don't help your argument any ("Do not remove the tag above and this warning text before consensus is reached!").
Please cite specific disputed facts and lack of neutrality within the body of the article. That is what the totally disputed tag is for. It seems you don't understand this. Removing again. --Bk0 02:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've started with a short notice assuming it is expressive enough. I've been proven wrong. So went with summary of opinions over a single fact ("terrorist" or not) in attempt to define what is the majority ove the alleged minority.
Here comes what is biased in the article itself beyond editors' opinions

Disputed contents[edit]

  1. "Terrorists" or "rebels"
    The discussion clearly showed disagreement over the noun used to designate attackers. One group have been formed around the term "terrorists"
    "Terrorist" is a more loaded and POV term than "rebel". In should be noted, however, that they are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps "attacker" is a better, more neutral term. --Bk0 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    While there might be many meanings for any given word in the wild, Wikipedia strives to cover them all and to explain the differences on the disambiguification pages. Terrorism is well defined in Wikipedia and I've stuck to that particilar meaning. We should not restrain ourselves of using it and make some sort of sacred cow. Otherwise we have to edit 9/11, Beirut Barracks ('83), etc. That was the reason behind the analogy with the Pentagon, IRA and others above. -- Goldie (tell me) 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The style of the text is disputed
    Parts of the text are put as a participant POV with numerous citations and voicing the attackers' propaganda. Example: "... Kafirs and Munafiqs ..."
    I'm not sure I understand. Why is this POV on behalf of the attackers? --Bk0 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this particular context these are used as badly offensive word. Less loaded meaning of kafir is "not from a/the proper religion)" but was also used to point people of no importance which can or even must be slaughtered. It is even worse than the one used in the past for afro-americans. Bulgarians in particular are very sensitive to Turkish form "gavur" (so am I).
    • One can see in Wiki "Qur'an orders Muslims to kill munafiq hardly wherever they find them". One meaning, not overloaded.
    • There is no difference between using both terms and just general "people" which justifies their separate use. We may describe attackers as "cowards and bastards" but are striving for neutrality. -- Goldie (tell me) 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a direct citation, that is so exceptionally stupid, that obviously works against the attackers and for my POV. I am against removing it abakharev 05:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • if it was about my personal disgust, and showing to the public what "liberators" they are actually - yes. But trying to be neutral I would vote to have it removed. -- Goldie (tell me) 12:55, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The sources present only one position
    Sources used are only the English-speaking media (MSNBC, LA Times, Reuters, BBC), and from a single political alliance (US-UK, even other NATO countries are not voiced).
    Given that this is the English Wikipedia, this is perhaps understandable. Certainly more direct sources are welcome, the problem is that, eg, Russian language references are not verifiable by the vast majority of en's readership, making their utility negligible. --Bk0 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed understandable. However the general practice is that other sources' information is translated and references are shown. Even Wikipedia is based on that principle. Russians have a very good site (www.inosmi.ru) where news and analyses from all over the world are translated, and for example it gave me access to Spanish-speaking newspapers. Sadly I haven't found such one in English (or at least openly accessible without huge payments). -- Goldie (tell me) 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    What sort of things are you looking for? As a university student, I've got free access to some fairly comprehensive databases of these things, and I'd be happy to help out to broaden the perspective of this article. Ambi 14:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    For such controversial problem I would prefer to have first account information. Yes, it is a dream as I neither have been there, nor know any Caucasian language. However the information we are getting is third account at minimum:
    • police officers → their supreme officers → state PR (where info has to be polished) → information agencies
    • witnesses → (<somebody retelling the story> →) journalist(s) → newspaper/news agency
    • attacker → a leader or vocal supporter → statement publisher → newspaper/news agency
    Both sides are using mass media as a weapon in their war. -- Goldie (tell me) 22:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you appear to be relatively unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy. You can't use first account information in Wikipedia - it is banned under the policy of no original research. I agree entirely that both sides are using mass media as a weapon, but this is all the more reason why we shouldn't take one particular side, as you're asking us to do. Ambi 00:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Not relatively but completely ignorant to Wiki-policies. Just because my English is bad does not mean I am stupid. How many words do you know in Bulgarian? You may also glide over "Primary and secondary sources" in addition to Systemic Bias of Wikipedia and Anglo-American focus.
    What I was trying was to access prinary sources in place of secondary wherever possible. For example below I used newspaper Izvestia instead of the portal Strana.ru, which just uses the former as a source. Thus you can reveal (avoid) omissions and POV of the secondary source. -- Goldie (tell me) 03:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, that's exactly what I was offering to help with when you made that ramble about "primary sources". Ambi 05:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be nice if you can help me to assemble the whole picture from the raw facts below. I am trying to translate the facts from Russian sources which have correspondents there. Peer review can better verify the facts, and native English-speaker to polish the style. -- Goldie (tell me)
  4. Facts are lost in translation of misrepresented
    Russia does not have Attorney General as its legal structure is different. The closest equivalent to Russian "Генеральный прокурор" (Generalniy Prokuror) is French Procureur de la République.
    According to same article of Gazeta newspaper Rasul Kudaev pretends being at home at the time of the incident, which can be witnessed (according to his brother) by relatives, neighbours, journalists, and his lawyer.
    Agreed. This should be fixed or removed. --Bk0 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately I've spent a lot of time failing to communicate reasons for dispute. Now will focus on real update. -- Goldie (tell me) 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Information is not from direct sources, sources cannot be tracked further and verified
    Reuters is just retelling Interfax information.
    Information on site lenta.ru is actually from Russian newspaper Gazeta. The later is available on Internet and can easily be searched by a researcher (Google search on www.gazeta.ru using "Rasul Kudaev")
    Define "direct". Reuters is generally considered to be a reliable primary source over the rest of en.wikipedia.org. Again, better sources are always welcome. --Bk0 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Reuters is having good network of correspondents across Western Europe, (continental) U.S.A./Canada and few hotspots. That's why it is perceived as trustworty in these regions. For example in Bulgaria Reuters does not have good coverage and relies on other agencies to buy the news feed. Similarly our agencies are not having more than one correspondent for the whole U.S.A. and are buying the news. It is like airlines codesharing.
    Same reasons apply to AP (used by MSNBC) and LA Times is not present. BBC is having much better coverage in Europe (obviously). Back to reliability - in our area agencies with no local presense are not that reliable as information is passed through too many routers. -- Goldie (tell me) 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sources are volatile and not verifiable
    Link to LA Times is already broken (10 days after the incident)
    Agreed. Link needs to be fixed or dropped. --Bk0 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the reasons stated above I claim that the article is not neutral, misrepresents the facts, and in parts even offensive.

Because there is no ready banner template I going to put back the additional description what is disputed in the article. The banner itself will be put back as de facto standard in Wikipedia to clearly indicate to the reader non-conformity of the article to Wikipedia standarts for content quality. -- Goldie (tell me) 03:22, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above is reasonable justification for the tag. I'm removing the warning text below it, however, since that is what this talk page is for (explaining the reasoning behind the dispute). I hope the dispute can be addressed to the satisfaction of everybody. --Bk0 03:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments added inline -- Goldie (tell me) 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely what is the problem now? Comments here please. Ambi 00:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the attack[edit]

I have expressed strong support for the name "terrorist attack" above. However I am not so sure now. Below is my comments on the situation, and I apologize for not citing the sources.

The official version of Russian government (one of their versions anyway) was as follows. Several (~10) groups of armed men (up to 300) attacked several targets in Nalchik. They shot some civilians and took hostages. Some of the targets were local prison HQ, a local office of the Interior Ministry, a store(??). After 2-3 days of firefight there were about 20 civilian casualties, about 35 killed were from police and security forces, some 100+ wounded (mostly police). About 90 attackers were killed and several dozen captured or detained. It looked like a successful operation by the Russian security (compared to their mishaps in the past).

After reading different sources I think now that there is something fishy in this version. Some reputable Russian media (in particular, gzt.ru) have accumulated enough reports for opinions which differ from the official version. The following points may need some attention.

  • Corruption level in Nalchik is high even by the Russian standards. A significant part of Nalchik and surrounding areas is at or below the poverty line. The crime level is high as well.
  • The Northern Caucasus region is notorious for its drug trafficking. The Nalchik area has been a battlefield between the drug lords and the security forces. At some point the gangs even attacked the local office of anti-drug enforcement agency [5] [6].
  • As one of the consequences, there is always significant presence of police and security forces in Nalchik. There were reports of police brutality there in the Russian media.
  • Significant part of the local population is Muslim (not as radical as the Chechens though). While I can say that mostly Russians are tolerant to the religion (there are a lot of predominantly Muslim republics in the Russian Federation), the situation in the Northern Caucasus may be different, and the police may be especially brutal to the Muslims.
  • Shortly before the attack there were anti-terror excersises in the area. Security forces in Nalchik were significantly beefed up, and when attack began a significant number of troops moved in. Some have contributed this to a leak about the coming attack. However there is an opinion that the Russian were preparing for a serious anti-drug operation. There is also an opinion that the whole attack was staged by the security forces and it just went out of control, but I find that unlikely.
  • Among 90 killed rebels there were a significant number of locals whose relatives claim that they have been framed [7] (Source: most of the attackers are Kabardians and Balkars [8]). There is an opinion that a number of armed civilians tried to defend their property and were killed by the security forces. They became part of this terrorist attack later in the official version.
  • Basayev claimed responsibility for the attack. This claim is not proof, may be he claims responsibility for everything from traffic accidents to the hurricane Katrina. Several reports pointed at witnesses who said that they did not see any Chechens present, and some recognized the attackers as locals. Personally, I think it is important, the Wikipedia article says that it was a mixture of the Chechens and locals and says nothing about the ratio. How many Chechens were actually there?
  • Some reports pointed at the poor organization of the attackers (compared to the previous Chechen attacks). There is an opinion that someone (likely the Chechens) fooled the locals using psychology and radical rhetoric. The goal of the tactics was to enlist the locals for this attack and aimed primarily at the local criminals as well as the discontent people [9]. This may explain the possible leak, but this also means that the Russian security largely failed in Nalchik.

This is my summary of conspiracy theories. This is extrapolation of information from lenta.ru, gazeta.ru, and some others, as well as personal accounts of friends and Russian TV news. (Igny 20:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Good point. My suspicion already got ignited. We have to consider that Caucasus is a hot place and is crossroad of many interests. Could you add source links to help us follow all those aspects. -- Goldie (tell me) 22:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information for research[edit]

I intend to pile here all I have found. Contributions and peer review are welcome.

"Izvestia" newspaper shows how many family bondages exist in that small republic - two cousins fought on both sides. [10]. Hamzat Mollaev was a police officer. He was killed after the raid, next to the police post he served in. Murat Atoev was shot during the attack in other part of the city.

Few points worth noting:

  • the phrase "Подался в религию" (went into religion) by general in the republic means one: someone is challenging the authorities because law enforcing agencies track such people as untrustworthy. However searching for religious guidance yound men fall easy under Wahhabits influence and become brain-washed in few months.
  • despite living close to the city's main mosk Atoev considered it built with dirty money from the authorities. Having 3 more men among the attackers from the same block can even be interpreted as lack of confidence in the government.
  • journalist met by accident an anti-terrorist officer who commented in his fury that attackers' bodies were intentionally left on the street to rotten in public; grieving victims relatives demand bodies of attackers to be burned (thus desacrated).

Article of "Izvestia" titled "Basaev decided to become a bin Laden": [11]:

Before the attack police have arrested a man close to Kabardino-Balkar terrorist leader Anzor Astemirov, seizing flash-card with pictures of city's police stations and other security buildings, and detailed map of the airport. Deputy security officer of Nalchik airport was arrested few days before the attack, who admitted collaboration with terrorists and surrender of the airport map. As early as June security services obtained a videotape from Basaev's archive taping avioshow in Moscow airport Domodedovo, showing interest in techincal features of military transport aircrafts, small airplanes and helicopters. On October 9th security forces discovered 500 kg of explosives hidden in the yard of a concrete components factory. Secority tightening of the airport is confirmed by the taxi drivers as early as October 10th, claiming that BTR APCs were put on every crossroad.

This comes as confirmation of the theory of Izvestia's columnist and editor of "Chechen society" newspaper Timur Aliev, who citing unnamed FSB source suggested Basaev will attempt to capture a military aircraft with friend or foe system in order to fill it with explosives and head towards Moscow.

Basaev admitted in Monday the attackers suffered big losses due to information leakage (I've seen this in more than one media).

"The attackers were locals who passed military training in Chechnia" [12].

"The security forces have blocked the city and are checking every apartment. A participant in Friday's attack refused identification and attempted to use Kalashnikov. Security forces reacted and the bandit (rem. article wording) was down" [13].

"In December last year armed people attacked the building of Federal service for drug control (FSDC, counterpart of U.S. DEA) and set fire on it. Aftermath revealed four FSDC officers on duty murdered in the basement, and over 250 pistols and guns missing. Responsibility was claimed by "Yarmuk" group." [14] Another analysis results can be found there.

More can be found and needs filtering, analysis, structuring, etc. I am tired now, it is 6:40 in the morning and I need some sleep. -- Goldie (tell me) 03:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

eXile article[edit]

http://www.exile.ru/2005-November-04/felgenhauer-gate_moscow_times_editor_drops_the_censored_stamp_on_its_own_russian_dissident.html might be useful

exhaustive list of news media sources (please add more)[edit]

sort by date. try also this link: Google news search for Nalchik there should be lots and lots, russian, english, fox news, indymedia, whatever, put it all in Dsol 00:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

list of unsourced facts in article (please add more)[edit]

on such a controvertial issue, every statement needs one or more sources. it's ok to use a source many times. when one of these gets sourced, strike it out like this, don't delete. 2005 Paris Suburb Riots provides a pretty good example. After I do some research of my own, I'm going to start taking out unsourced facts, but not before 24 hours have passed unless I find a well-sourced contradictory claim.Dsol 00:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a large group of militants" how big, says who?
  • "A number of buildings associated with the Russian security forces were targeted"
  • "At least 136 people were reported killed" reported by whom?
  • "The attackers were said to be a mixture of rebels... from nearby Chechnya" kavkaz center report doesn't mention chechnya, only "units from other sectors of the Caucasian Front".
  • "The rebels/terrorists attacked a wide range of targets in the city, reportedly including three police stations, Nalchik airport, the regional headquarters of the Interior Ministry and Federal Security Service, the regional headquarters of the Russian penitentiary system and a border guards' office. Civilians were targeted as well: there were also bystanders shot in the street and hostages taken at a souvenir shop. The fighting lasted for about four hours with heavy weapons and explosives being used by both sides. A few of the rebels/terrorists survived the initial fighting by taking refuge in city centre buildings and taking hostages, but were killed by Russian forces the following day." totally unsourced. seems to be taken from the kavkaz center report
  • "The Russian government sent 1,500 regular troops and 500 Special Forces troops to Nalchik to regain government control of the city."
  • "Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev subsequently claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement posted on Kavkaz Center...Basaeyev claimed that Russian security forces had been tipped off some 5 days before the attack, which resulted in increased security in Nalchik."
  • Paragraph: "The Russian government and ... civilians in the city."
  • Paragraph: "There was also an uncertainty ... set of targets."

Needs work[edit]

Ok, clearly this article is severely lacking a comprehensive inclusion of different viewpoints on what happened. I will try to improve it. I will leave the userbox alone for now, but obviously not everyone would call these guys terrorists and even if the userbox does so, the issue must be describe in more depth in this article. Dsol 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UN security council officially recognises Shamil Basayev and his followers as terrorists. --Kuban Cossack 20:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that should be noted in the article. It should not be the only view represented, however. Even in the Russian press there is a lot of contradictory stuff to sort out about what happened and who was involved. I'm still trying to piece it together myself... Dsol 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop pushing Russian Nationalist POV[edit]

Insurgents is neutral world - terrorists is negative and catch-all for the enemies of the Russian government, as well as "bandits" ("freedom fighters" would be positive). Militants or fighters is also neutral and used worldwide.

This is international, English language encyclopedy, not the Russian one (I think there's a Russian national one, so you can present the official version there).

One example of the international POV (with an example of the Russian nationalist one - "To Russian officials, her husband is a terrorist who tried to overthrow secular rule."): [15] (Reuters via mosnews.com)

It's not website of "Russian officials". And, as I wrote, dead bodies were classified "terrorists" and desacrated in accordance to the Russian laws, and "international terrorism" was accused of organisation of attacks.

I agree with you, but let's improve this sorely lacking article in other ways before we start edit warring over one word. Dsol 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Dsol[edit]

Suvenoir shop wasn't attacked, just 2 wounded rebels took refugee there (they were wounded while AFAIR attacking FSB building across just the street). Some more (3?) were surroundered killed in the nearby park soon after, as witnessed by the militants and their hostages (some were released in exchange of a battle of water and told about it - remaing 2 were knocked out by the gas pumped in during storming, but survived).

There's no need for lots of links in Russian (actually anyone can google for news reports and analysys). OMON not "OMOH", it's English page.

feel free to change OMOH to OMON. I'm having a hard time finding anything specific in English, but if you can find the same facts with english sources, then please replace mine. I would like to put the info you know in (about the shop etc.) but this means we need a media source for it. On a personal level, though, I'm very interested and curious about what happened in Nalchik and would love to hear any stories you know on my talk page etc. Dsol 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

taking a break[edit]

Ok, I need a breather...if anyone else wants to work on this for a while, try the sources above, or search on itar-tass or rian (english is possible too). If you speak Russian (hopefully better than mine) try Нападение на Нальчик, which is the best source I've found, along with a detailed chronology. Where possible, though it's better to cite other stuff since it's probably less reliable than izvestia, mk, cnn, etc. The next major thing that needs work will probably be details of the hostage situation in the shop. Till later, Dsol 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INTERNATIONAL terminology - for the very last time![edit]

From the very sources used by the contributers in the References section of this article (and not a single mine addition):

  • (NBC) rebel rebels militants rebel rebel rebels militants resisters Militants militants militants
  • (BBC) militant rebel attackers militants militants fighters rebels militants
  • (RL) militants separatist militants militants separatist separatist militant militant
  • (Guardian) uprising militants militants militants militants militants militants militants
  • (CNN) resistance militants militants militants militants militants militants militants

See? Only "terrorists" (and sometimes "bandits") is when quoting Russian officials, and it's NOT a Russian official website, so ADJUST OR LEAVE (or, if you continue your vandalism, I'll report you). This regarding the other Wiki articles, too.

Actually the russia news sources don't generally call them terrorists either. The most common is боевики, or fighters. However I think this concern is immaterial compared to how much else is lacking in the article and I wish you would both stop edit warring. Dsol 21:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fighters/boyeviki is leaning towards rebel POV (that's how they call themselves); internationally, it's now mostly "militants". As for the article, everything it needs now is at least shortly about history of Yarmuk's radicalisation (including previous skirmishes, like the drug agency raid - also causes, like closure of all mosques but official one and a police brutality) and also post-uprising reprisals (reported mass arrests/torture/deaths and dissapearances). Other than that it's fine (as far as the fighting alone goes), especially considering dozens of other comparable or bigger battles of the conflict has no article altogether, even the battles of Grozny with their massive military and civilian casaulties. As for a more recent developments, there was for example this weird incident in Dagestan, where 8 fighters confronted thousands of federals with aircraft and artillery for 3 days, inflicted casaulties greater than their own number, and fled without losing a man. So if you want, you can try and start covering some other incident than Nalchik. I don't know, maybe a general account of the insurgency in Dagestan, from the 1998 rebellion in capital to the today's "hunt for cops"? Or about the rest of the Russian North Caucasus (like a list of these house sieges, practically always ending with a building destroyed with a flamethrowers and tank fire). Unless your interest ends in the Nalchik, that is. --Kocoum 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will settle on militants.--Kuban Cossack 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not all. One of the other issues is counting casaulties - you can't take one side's figures only. Mine are minimum for the both sides engaged, with "at least" stated as these may be higher, but certainly can't be lower than that (with more numbers in the actual article).

Also, as for the leaders of the Islamic Resistance Movement, they openly declare they fight not just for the independence but to "destroy" the state of Israel - while the leader Basayev declared he wants Chechnya to stay in CIS and a rouble zone, and to cooperate with Moscow against influence "of the third force" (one can guess it's NATO, being estabilished as close as in Georgia), and even adressed Putin as "excellency" in this letter. So much about "not burning all bridges" in a negotiations with the terrorists (officially stated reason of the Hamas' Kremlin invitation). Of course, Palestinians have everything easy by default (unlike any other "national liberation struggle" in the world), but still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs)

Basaev has been listed as a terrorist. There is a category here, called "Chechen terrorists". Whatever you may read in his letters to Putin, Basaev's aim has never been an independent Chechnya, but a new caliphate in the Caucasus. He does not even deserve the title Chechen "insurgent" or "rebel". I am reverting that to "terrorist". Even though I am sure he would be the first to applaud. Pan Gerwazy. --pgp 02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good analysys in some broader context[edit]

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369822, someone may use it (also some things I heard before, but I think are unmentioned - like that Russians knew well in advance, and that there were clashes before the main attack too). --HanzoHattori (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

"It was reported that the militants may have planned to overrun the city’s airport and use the aircraft there in suicide attacks similar to the September 11 attacks.[19] However, this seems unlikely since the attack was not concentrated at the airport. The target of the airport attack was more likely the army unit stationed there."

The two last sentences constitute a prime example of original research. The Guardian text also speculates about the plan with the airport, but mentions a possible hijack attempt and a possiblity that the target was Rostov-on-the-Don, Moscow being too far to rach without being shot down by the airforce. These two mast sentences must be edited to reflect this, or deleted.

Under "arrests" there is also something strange going on: "Those who died in the pre-trial prison were added to the number of those killed in the streets." where is that from? Not from the article quoted before. This is again claimed in the chapter on the bodies. It needs a good source. And an RS saying "witnesses say that" or "X.Y. claims that" should be quoted that way. Furthermore, under the same heading there is also a link to Kommersant, but not to the article where the text quoted comes from...

I also think that with all the speculation at the end of the article, it is necessary to at least try to follow the real recent events as well. We seem to follow the trial but the fact that Odizhev (and Tengizov) were killed one year later while resisting arrest should also be in the article. The guy was an ex-Guantanamo man, like Kudayev. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/10/13/4146.shtml
    Triggered by \bkavkazcenter\.com\b on the local blacklist
  • http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/10/17/4156.shtml
    Triggered by \bkavkazcenter\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2005 Nalchik raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2005_raid_on_Nalchik&oldid=1218625528"