Talk:2010 Moscow Metro bombings

Name

Shouldn't this article be named 2010 Moscow Metro bombings, now that it's apparent that this was a terrorist bombing and not just some random explosions? --Tocino 06:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

that is possible, I just made 2010 Moscow Metro Bombings and redirected here in case anyone wanted to use it in the future. --Hourick (talk) 07:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

2010 Moscow Metro bombings should be the title, please move it ASAP.--1j1z2 (talk) 10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

as per wikipedia rules WP:Terrorist the title should be as above. i have thus moved "2010 Moscow Metro terrorist bombings" to "2010 Moscow Metro bombings" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

References not matching statements in article

While I'll admit that using Google translate to work out exactly what a Russian news report says, it's pretty clear that none of the reference sources being used in this article seem to be talking about shopping bags or garbage strewn on the tracks. Risker (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is the section I am talking about: "The explosions are thought to be suicide bombings involving self-fabricated TNT explosive masses previously thrown under the rails as apparent litter in plastic bags. The explosives were then likely initiated by two terrorist women who, disguised as passengers, have each placed a mobile phone call while standing approximately over the mass inside the train upon its arrival.[13] The time of attack was chosen to reflect the maximum passenger capacity of the subway during a workday morning rush.".....the reference source used here does NOT say anything about the construction of the bombs. Neither, as far as I can tell, does any other linked source. Risker (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I confirm, there's nothing about the construction of the bombs. I'll make it "citation needed" until someone cites the correct source VZakharov (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, I presume it's just not true; reports say the bombs were attached to the bombers' bodies, because the manner in which their body parts are scattered is typical for that case. Unfortunately I don't have neither time nor skills to find and insert the correct reference, so I just remove the paragraph about the "plastic bags on tracks" until someone inserts the correct citing. VZakharov (talk) 11:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Terrorism"

As per WP:Terrorist; let's avoid using words like "Terrorism" or "Terrorist" in this article, as it was littered with such terms a few minutes ago. Feel free to use it in direct cited quotes; but otherwise try and interchange "Terrorist" ect. with less loaded and more factual words like "suicide bomber". 92.30.49.49 (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Terrorism" and "Terrorist" are words that should be avoided except in direct, cited quotations, per WP:Avoid. Obviously the background section has been cleaned up and reverted at least once. This needs to be discussed and corrected. Revcasy (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

September 11 attacks. 21 July 2005 London bombings. 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. Operation Vigilant Eagle. 2007 John F. Kennedy International Airport attack plot. Just a few randomly selected articles with a wording you may find incorrect. Please pay attention to them too. FeelSunny (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the list. I will do my best. Revcasy (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

All these sorts of POV have been reversed (quite rightly so) on Wiki now. Terrorism is terrorism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.16.144 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference title

Though not per any Wikipedia policy nor guideline, I feel that translating the title of Russian source to English would be a great help for readers/editors to identify the references more efficiently. There's no need to translate the whole source, just the title is more than enough. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

stupid "Reactions" section

Can we please stop with these silly "Reactions" sections that take up a hugely disproportionate amount of article space of each and every major event? The flags of the countries are very pretty, but the same templated reponses issued by each county is just not that informative. If any county comes out in favor of the bombing, then include it in the article. But please stop with all the "condemnations" and "condolences". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not a view shared by consensus.--RM (Be my friend) 15:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what consensus you refer to. Perhaps I'll spinoff the section to Reactions to 2010 Moscow Metro bombings. That way we wont have an article about a bombing in which 75% of the content consist of templated condolences and condemnations.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what Reenem might have referred to is that most of the articles of this nature do contain the Reactions page; in other words, it's a part of those articles as much as the intro, history, perpetrators sections, etc. You're right. It does take quite a lot of space but I think readers might be looking for reactions from certain states or entities now and in the future. You never know. I'm positive that the rest of the article will grow as long as the investigation continues and new info is available. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not much a consensus. From what I'm discerning, these sections are usually done by one or two editors who have a like towards wiki-table format and flag colors. These editors rarely edit the main article about the actual incident. Similarly, the editors working on the main article typically ignore the Reactions section. The section is also generally ignored by readers (unless they like the flag pics, of course). I can't imagine any intelligent reader reading through the entire list of templated responses issued for each event. Nor will any reader check if Colombia issued condolences or if the guy in charge of reissuing the condolences template was on vacation that week. These lists are ignored by editors and readers and just stay in the article because nobody likes throwing out the trash.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

:))You're right about flags and excessive formatting. Some users might be particularly interested in the reactions of specific administrations. For instance, if it were a terrorist act in Iran, in the wake of US-Iran tense relations, someone, say, from Germany could be interested in the reaction from US administration. I personally don't look for reactions and like you said largely ignored it in this article as well. But there might be people looking specifically for that. One thing is clear and you were right about that - the section is quite overdone. What Black Falcon proposed below is a good solution. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The "reaction" is almost always the same, whether they are in a contentious relationship or not. Take for example the reaction of Georgia (country). Russia and Georgia are brutal enemies, but there is nothing to distinguish the Georgia's reaction and Colombia's reaction. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

While I don't think that we should exclude templated condemnations and condolences, I do think that the current presentation (a bulleted list of flags) is inefficient. Rather than stating separately that "the President of {Country 1} sent his condolences", "the President of {Country 2} sent his condolences", "the President of {Country 3} sent his condolences", and "the President of {Country 4} sent his condolences", we could instead state: "The Presidents of {Country 1}, {Country 2}, {Country 3}, and {Country 4} sent their condolences." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea and will solve the problem. Tuscumbia (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That makes a great deal of sense, and only expand upon "reaction" if a country takes the opposing view or makes something that is simply outrageous that is against the norm. Maybe bring it up for the Village Pump for Wiki-consensus?--Hourick (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree to the extent that reactions are only inclusion-worthy if they are against the norm.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to convert the list to prose and cut the quotations of generic expressions of condolence and condemnation, resulting in this version. I grouped statements by presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers under the general heading of "governments" (presumably they are expressing condolences on behalf of their government or country...), but kept separate the unique reactions by the National Assembly of Serbia (a moment of silence) and by the Mayor of Belgrade (a letter of condolence addressed specifically to the Mayor of Moscow). Any thoughts? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, f there is support for this format, the "Domestic" and "Other entities" reactions can also be converted to prose as appropriate, so there will be no inconsistency within the "Reactions" section in how information is presented. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. That would save space.Tuscumbia (talk) 19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

All reactions are superfluous, but this is a clear improvement. Even better if everything were converted to prose. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggest That this be the standard for future articles with this section. I propose that it be brought to the village pump. Great work, Falcon. --Hourick (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Hourick; something had to be done. Ericoides (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Hourick. I realize that additional cleanup of the reactions is still needed (to remove duplication, improve quality of prose, and so on), but all of that should become easier with time (i.e., once all of the notable reactions have been issued and documented). I would supporting having a style standard for the "Reactions" sections in many of Wikipedia's articles. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I took the initiative and proposed it at The Village Pump, although, in hindsight, I should have put it in Policy instead of Miscellaneous section. But those that wish to support this standard, please visit the section.--Hourick (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it to policy at Village Pump; hope that's OK. Ericoides (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. Hopefully this will lead to a policy change that will probably save a few gigs of server space for Wikipedia. LOL.--Hourick (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is established across wikipedia for years now. because some people think its stupid and that no sensible reader will be interested in HIS opinion doesnt make it the sole valid point. If you want to cahnge this ACROSS wikipedia then go an debate policy elsewhere so others can be involved in this debate. at anyr ate, consensus doesnt follow through 1 article and a few minutes. consensus is gathered through sustained and open dialogue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

Which is why I have brought up the proposal at the Village Pump, article 22 at the bottom. Please feel free to put your input there. I'm hoping to prevent future edit wars. --Hourick (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There never was a generalized discussion about these sections, so there was no consensus in support of them. There was only apathy. Besides, there's a clear consensus right here and right now. If you don't like it, get a consensus to your position. Edit-warring is not going to resolve anything.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless nothing has been decided here. there was a challenge to the consensus and thus the change was unwarranted until a decision is reached.

How about the old accepted practice of creating a new reactions page? Now if no one wants to read that, then find dont go to the page. is someone does he can go there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas (talk • contribs)

As brewcrewer has already pointed out, "there never was a generalized discussion about these sections, so there was no consensus in support of them" being formatted as bulleted lists. The "consensus" to which you refer never existed.

As for the suggestion of creating a new 'Reactions' article: I am strongly opposed! The way to handle redundant content is not to move it to another article, but to edit it in order to remove the redunancies. If someone wants to read all of the actual quotes by particular heads of state or government, he or she is more than welcome to visit the cited sources and read the quotes there. Wikipedia, however, is not a repository for quotations which all essentially say the same thing. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Silly", "Stupid" section...not at all Mr. Brewcrewer. Your views are not shared by consensus, these sections exist in too many articles for you to change it in a whim. Sorry. And there is no need for "a generalized discussion" for something that exists consistently all over Wikipedia. We never had "a generalized discussion" on including photos of facial portraits of people instead of their back in infoboxes either, yet we don't see anyone going and changing that. If you want, you can only make a discussion to change the current state but I doubt you will manage to reach needed consensus. Don't be afraid of wasting virtual paper, it can't be done.--Avala (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Avala. Said better than me.

Nevertheless, i can understand some acrimony about page laod times, etc. So i've gone and done the fair thing (and still consistently with wikipedia) and moved the whole part to a new section. Now no one who doesnt want to read is forced to see the "wonderful coloured flags".

Actually, that's not true. Many of the formats that you see are the results of a consensus that is generally discussed or agreed upon that eventually comes a standard. While in the past it has happened as a friendly agreement among editors, to be able to discuss this in a civil way is a good way to set standards.--Hourick (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking for a RS

So, apparently this is the 10 year anniversary of the 2000 Zhani-Vedeno ambush, but I haven't seen any reliable sources mention it, so I don't know whether it's relevant. Has anyone seen any sourcing one way or the other? -- Bfigura ^(talk) 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless any Russian officials or (if any) terrorist organization claims that, it's best to avoid it in the prose. But I think it's appropriate to add it in the "see also" section without saying anything unneccessary. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should we add an article lacking RS into "see also" section of a highly popular article? FeelSunny (talk) 13:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

What does the Medvedev photo indicate?

The photo File:Medvedev - 2010 Moscow Metro bombings.jpg shows Medvedev in a meeting, all apparently paying their respects for something. Is this specifically related to the 2010 metro bombings? I can't tell as I don't know Russian so can't understand the Russian captions. (If it's not related to these incidents, then the photo is pointless.) Can someone clarify? --86.41.217.206 (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's a meeting on the situation related to 2010 metro bombings. Tuscumbia (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Two photos of Medvedev? I disagree with that. If you are so keen on photos of politicians lets see Putin or mayor of Moscow. I think need photo of the Muslim guy who admitted to ordering the bombing. Meishern (talk) 17:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a picture of the guy who ordered it. Someone has deleted it, I added it again. Please help in keeping it here. FeelSunny (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

New links

• Explosion on Lubyanka was recorded by video cams built in the train (in Russian).
• "New terror" wave (in Russian).

ellol (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A hoax or a false alarm?

"Another hoax occurred about an hour after the second explosion at the Ulitsa Podbelskogo station when passengers noticed a Muslim woman entering the train" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.238.235 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

if its sourced then add a reference to it. perhaps and "aftermath" section.

You are missing the point. The above statement is a quote from the main article and there is a big difference between a hoax and a false alarm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.238.235 (talk) 18:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Call to self"

There's something very weird about the description of the bombs as activated by the women with a "call to self" on a mobile phone. After all, it would seem much simpler and less traceable to make the bomb with a simple battery switch. It makes me wonder whether the phones were, or could have been, activated by a call from someone else. And if someone else even could have activated the phones, wouldn't it mean he would have had to have been watching, or set a deadline, or perhaps even put the bombs on the women as unwilling participants and told them that the phones would go off unless they did such-and-such made-up task and then !surprise!. The "someone else" wouldn't even have to be Chechen. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Most "suicide bombers" usually have a mechanism that they trigger manually, it's usually the easiest way to do it. For the larger number of bombers, such as 2004 Madrid train bombings a phone's alarm mode is what triggered the explosions to be synchronized. --Hourick (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Easier is a relative thing I guess. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'a simple battery switch' but anything which involves the women fumbling around or using some funny switch sticking out of their belt is an obvious risk since it's likely to be seen as suspicious. Presuming this 'call to self' required an active network, then that's also risky since the network could have been shut down but it could have been seen as less risky. A person using a mobile phone on a train is obviously not going to be seen as particularly suspicious. P.S. I think I have seen suggestions of organisers using the ability of a remote party to denote the device to discourage bombers from 'chickening out' however these are usually primarily speculation IIRC. Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We all sound naive, guys. They could have used cell phones, or a switch that was hidden under their clothes, or whatever. I beleive it's of no use to discuss it now until we hear an additional information. However, I would like to tell you something you obviously didn't hear: both trains were exploded when they just arrived at the station, and people standing there on a station were coming closer to get into their car. That definitely could not have been a time bomb. That also could not have been done by a remote person calling these women.FeelSunny (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Photos and videos

Since the videos show an action and images are just "screenshots" from those actions (Special meeting and Medvedev attending Lubyanka), do you think we should either delete the photos or the videos? Or at least place the videos down at the bottom? Otherwise it looks messy and blocks some text. Tuscumbia (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

external links OR a gallery at the bottom sounds better. far too cluttered as ti is.

Who is this? Please sign your posts.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Historical information

Why was my addition extracted? It is important to know, that this belongs to the series of terrorism by this group. It has history, and background: it is not an isolated occurrence. VictimsWife (talk) 03:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not NPOV, it also needs to be sourced. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now added a source, as is asked by you. [1] Many sources sources tell the same. VictimsWife (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that section is they sounds like representing Wikipedia's viewpoint. This is not acceptable because Wikipedia only collects different POV/opinion from different parties. Rather it should be clearly indicated as other party's viewpoint. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The other problem with Terrorism section is that it represents "most" media's POV. However, you can hardly have a reliable source directly saying "this is a common opinion shared by most media". If you simply bring out more media sources to support the "Terrorism backfire" POV, there will come to another concern: Wikipedia:Synthesis. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I must agree. When did they become only known as terrorists? They are affiliated and trained by the Taliban, who used to be yesterday's Freedom Fighters. They are fighting the same enemies. PartyJoe (talk) 04:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The source cited is extremely biased, and even admits that it differs from "western consensus" (a term it seems to use with disdain). I have made a first pass at establishing a NPOV in the background section, but it is still full of loaded terms, and the account is fundamentally biased in that it lumps Chechen separatism, Muslim extremism, mujahideen (literally "strugglers"), and suicide bombers together, as though to suggest they are all one and the same. This may or may not be the case, but it is our job to simply report what has happened, not to editorialize on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revcasy (talk • contribs) 19:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, first of all, we all understand that people who have commited these acts are terrorists. Second is, Umarov implicitly calls himself a terrorist in his video. Third is, leaders of so many world powers together, calling them terrorists, definitely form some kind of a RS. I do not insist on calling these "freedom fighters" terrorist in every article, but at least in this one could you please be a little bit less fierce in protecting them from being called the bad guys? Let me remind that there exists, for example, the WikiProject Terrorism, and articles like Islamic Terrorism, where people who are terrorists are explicitly named so. It's no wrong to call a killer that kills for terror, a terrorist.FeelSunny (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not fiercely defending the perpetrators of these acts. If I am "fiercely" defending anything it is NPOV. I do not think it is necessary or desirable for me to justify this policy to you. As for the specific term and why it may be objectionable or problematic see Definition of terrorism. It is practically meaningless save as a pejorative. As a thought experiment, if the people who did this had a wiki, would they not refer to the Russians as "occupiers", "invaders", "infidels", or some such. They would refer to themselves as "freedom fighters" (as you so rightly pointed out), and to the West or Westerners as "crusaders", "anti-islamist" or "western imperialist". The point is that I would expect people who would blow up trains full of civilians to use such loaded, propagandistic words, but I would hope that we could avoid it on Wikipedia.Revcasy (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to follow your thought experiment, these people of course do have their own "wikipedias" of a kind, and all non-muslims are called infidels there. Easy to find out by googling. Of course, we are not them, and we are not going to use POV words here. And, of course, we are not going to open a new chapter in this argument over t-word in this discussion. And this is the last message I'm going to post abt this matter. However, let me remind, that no matter how charged the t-word may seem, it has one meaning: someone frightens a nation to make it do what it does not want to. And that was a pure act of terrorism.

Let me propose another thought experiment: I urge you to open September 11 attacks article, and find out how many times it menions the word "terrorist". Including, in the lead. Then maybe try to mend the wording in a more important article first, which would be a logical way of doing thigs. Or try to meditate on the meaning of the words "double standards", instead of the word "pejorative".

PS. I am sorry, if my words seem rude. The reason is this continuing bashing of people calling terrorists like they should be called is ridiculous. It's not about being PC. It's simply denying common sence, and all human and God's laws.

PPS. You would be really surprised, would you compare the leads of the articles about non-West related terrorist acts and about those which happened in NATO countries on English WP. Please do, if you have 10 minutes to spare. You'll find out yourself, if there are double standards in NPOV communities influenced by POVed sources. Kind regards, FeelSunny (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sure there is a double standard. I will attempt to address it, at least gradually. I am not nearly enough of an activist about any issue, much less this one, to devote a great deal of time every day to it. You make an excellent point that it would be better to deal with those higher-profile articles first. The controversy with those edits I am sure will be pleasant to deal with.

PS I take no offense at heated debate. There was no Ad Hominem on your part, and I hope none on mine. Best wishes. Revcasy (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

chechen reaction

In the article, it says "Additionally, Ramzan Kadyrov, President of the Chechen Republic was quick to comment on the attacks." However, the statement doesn't really say what his reaction was and what he said. I used the his reaction from Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings article and added a small part of it to this article. RG104 (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

this was jsut a synopsis, the main page for reactions was on the Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings. in fact, the current synopsis can be made shorter too.

Suggestion

If someone knows how to make the text wrap around the casualty list, so we do not have that big blank white space in the middle of the article, that would be great.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The blank space is caused by the "wikitable" class for the table. There's nothing we can do to avoid it unless we don't use that table class. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Tx. Now that it is aligned to the right, the problem seems to have gone away.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Picture section

Does anyone else think that it is overkill to have a picture gallery at the bottom of the article? I mean, how many pictures of flowers do we need? Currently the article has 7 different files (6 pictures and 1 video) of the memorials. It also has 4 pictures of walls that are hard to tell what's exactly wrong with them. Thoughts? --Tocino 04:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, as an interim step, how about moving them below the See Also section, if that is allowed?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is unneccesary. The {{commonscat}} has already provided the link to the category of all media in Wikimedia Commons. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So ... delete them, rather than move to the bottom? I'm fine w/either.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete. --Tocino 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

as long as there is some access to it. many pages (though inconsistently) do have this. you say these pics are in the commons, if so then it sounds fair to remove it as long as the link is on the page (i see it is)

Who is this? Please sign your posts.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Failed attempts at Begovaya and Komsomolskaya stations

The primarily source[2] of hoaxs only mentions Prospekt Mira and Ulitsa Podbelskogo stations in the article but not Begovaya. After googling by the keywords "Беговая Терроризм", I've found 1 source [3] reporting (roughly translated by Babelfish.yahoo) Begovaya and Komsomolskaya stations were planted with bombs but never explodes. I want to know if it was being widely reported by other media so we can put it into the "Suicide bombings" section. Thx. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

if you have a source thats reputable (it seems so) then by all means put it on the list as a failed bombing. perhaps in the "details" sections

Who is this? Please sign your posts.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Islamist reference

The following [4] says he restored refernced info, but simply b/c he found a reference that links the claimants to being islamists doesnt mean its for this. there is a page that talks about the Caucasus Emirate/Doku Umarov, and thence that is the place to link the Islamists tag. Sure, before claims were made the speculation was fine, but now thats its already CLAIMED it can go on the respective wikipedia page which is already links to.

furthermore an islamist reference to the perpetrators is already in the ivnestigation section, so it is redundant to keep mentioning it each and every time.

DISCUSS before re-adding (ie- consensus). i posted this on removal and you refused to discuss it before adding back.

Who is this? Please sign your posts.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea who the anonymous editor is above. But an editor has been deleting the phrase Islamist, with RS references that discuss the bombing, from the lede. There is no justification for that, and none indicate here. The lead should summarize the content in the body -- reference to the fact that the bombers were Islamists in the investigation section does not by any stretch of the imagination suggest it should be deleted from the lead.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Second bombing scenario

The current edition says "[...]caused by another female, who at the time of the first explosion was riding another train from Sokolniki station in the same direction. At the time of first explosion, the second train stopped between Frunzenskaya and Park Kultury stations.[...]" How could this be possible becuase Sokolniki is beyond Lubyanka and Park Kultury at the far north-east. Who can verify this statement and clarify the trip of the 2nd bomber? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

They could have stopped all trains on the line, not just those behind the bombing, whether due to damage or for security control reasons.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Perpetrators identities

I have seen several medias that say they were identified. Perhaps other Russian editors would add this to the article, as I have no time to do this just yet. Here are some links: (Echo Moskvy), (Kavkaz Knot), (Trud). FeelSunny (talk) 12:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

some edit issues

[5] this edit is contradicted by the SAME person here [6]. why the difference? +[7] doesnt explain the relevance of linking every single attack ont he metro. there is a respective page listed for other attacks on the metro and it can all go their instead of adding to clutter. as in the "list of terrorist incidence, YEARXXXX" even failed attacks can be logged in that 1 place instead of having see also to the same palces on every page. + [8] why is so much text removed w/o explanation. it certainly doesnt constitute a "copy-edit"

Who is this? Please sign your posts.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

• 1) As to the first issue, please familiarize yourself with the wikipedia policies re the use of "claimed" vs. "said" -- said is preferred, except in specific circumstances such as a court case, as being less POV.
• 2) As to the use of inlining for Dagestan, please familiarize yourself with the wikipedia policies re inlining.
• 3) As to the change of 2 to two, please familiarize yourself with the wikipedia manual of style regarding numbers.
• 4) As to the mention of the attempted bombing of the NYC subway in the See Also section, it is another recent Islamist bombing attempt in one of the world' largest cities -- a classic appropriate use of the see also section, and that has been explained repeatedly in edit summaries.
• 5) The "removed" text was clearly simply moved to another section of its own, as you can see in that edit along with the edit that followed that one.
• 6) Please stop your removal of the phrase Islamist from the lede. It is relevant, cited to more than one RS, and appropriate. Please note that vandalism includes, among other things, removal of appropriate material.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost WP:Consensus "If your changes have been edited or removed, you may wish to try to improve on them. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with other editors' ideas, and make an edit." your edit was challenged, discuss it out and get consensus before reverts.

3. if thats the rule i have no beef with it, as long as its consistent. i pointed an incident of contradiction.

4.(i typed something out but then i i lost it, so i forgot some of my original argument, but ill try again) i see your point as to the link to other like article with subway attacks. but as per a previosu edit with the listing of EVERY metro attack in the world that was way overlink. the relevant "List of terrorist incidents involving railway systems" can include the attack there, perhaps under a "failed/attempted attacks" section. and that page is relevantly linked from here. adding one sets precedent for adding hordes of others, collated in one place also prevents redundancies for adding this elsewhere. (london, paris, tokyo, mumbai, etc)

6. The term Islamist/Islamist appears FOUR times in the article and two of them link to the same place. (WP:Overlink by any stretch of the imagination) Islamic terrorism is in the see also, why not add Islamism there if you think it needs prominence. Furthermore as an adjective to the group itself it seems to be adding words for the sake of it because the group ought to have that info. on its site if it doesnt already, and surely your same source would suffice. (i just found it is not there, but it very well could/should be). As i said before i understand the need for this word before someone claimed it, but now that we know who did it (and it was who would be "islamists" it seems like taking Coals to Newcastle).

7.[9] i edited this not to add in "intent" but to take out "timeS of attack" perhaps something like "attackers sought to inflict maximum damage..." at any rate, its subjective to call it a fact. not all bombings of trains have happened at peak hours and it could be coincidence (not affirming that is so). Also the "workday" link is overlink.

ps- nice to talk here. ive also refrained from edits until consensus (except 2 minor ones as discussed above)

consensus I have come to talk pages to discuss and you have refused to follow through on this discussion to agreement. Therefore debate and get consensus, there are issues i agreed with you and other issues im still encouraged by debate for. as per wikipedia, one cant wait for eer for consensus, i have waited a few days and you didnt reply. then i edited it adn immiedately you claim it is "unlawful" Lihaas (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have trouble understanding much of the above. But as to the NY Subway attack attempt of just a few months ago, its another attack (albeit attempted) in the recent past by Islamists on a major city. Its not covered in the actual attacks template, nor would it belong there, as it is an attempted attack. No cogent reason has been advanced for its deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

If you dont understand it then question what you dont. you have consistently refused to discuss it before the addition. challenging somethign controversial requires discussion.

as for the najibullah zazi link it can go to the list of islamist metro attacks just as "list of terrorist incidents" can carry failed attacks too. furthermore, if it can't go in the list it can go into the "see also" on the page. as it is the see also here is rather large.

(anyhoo, i have left it on the page till this debate is sorted)Lihaas (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've responded to all of the points made here by the editor who did not sign his posts--not sure why, following my detailed post in this string, as well as my posts on your talk page and that of another editor who has edit warred on this topic, you would say that I have refused to discuss. That's simply incorrect, as you well know. As to Zazi, its not in any other section on the page -- and unless the section were re-named, would not belong there IMHO. In any event, I agree w/you that it is fine in the see also section.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

you said you have "trouble understanding the above" what did you have trouble about so i can calrify? so we agreed that its better to move Zazi to the list of attacks on the trains page? more appropriate, there is a link to the trains page from here.

the only other thing is the islamist part you didnt give your POV about. I dont believe it should not added, but just that its added four times (now three i think) we can certainly remove at least 1 if not 2 more. the lead part already includes the name of the group who carries it out which is categorised as islamist on its page (if its not it should be). The lead that had Islamist at the beginning of the attack (before claim) was appropriate because speculation said that. However, to update it weeks on makes it redundant to include both.

[10] theres another subway plotter here, can add him to wikipedia too. then the list of the trains page of attacks can grow and doesnt look POV. Lihaas (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming back to this article as it is still on my watchlist. I see absolutely no basis for the Najibullah Zazi See also link and support its removal. In my view its inclusion is an attempt to conflate these attacks (which were perpetrated by different people in different regions for different reasons) for the purposes of bringing Islam into disrepute. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

@ܥܝܪܐܩ: Well, they have little to do w/Islam. But a lot to do with Islamist attacks/planned attacks on subways within the recent past in major metropolitan subway systems. Confusing Islam and Islamism is hopefully something people are way, way past these days. @L -- other than the Zazi issue, do you see any extant ones? I don't think the Zazi matter belongs on the train page, as it is an attempted attack not an actual one, but if if it were on that page and the name of the template were changed I would not have a problem w/the deletion of the line item if we keep the template. As to the phrase Islamist, I think it belongs in the lede, which is summary of the text. Which of the other references in the text do you suggest be deleted? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

in the sense that the List of terrorist incidents, XXXX also features failed attacks, i see no reason why the train page shouldn't. if the page title needs to suit that then it should be done.

But why do you think the Islamist belongs in the lead. I've shown why i think it shouldn't because of the repetition nature of saying "Islamist Caucasus Mujahadin." Either one should go (doesn't matter which), but I think not that we know who it is that should be in the lead for quick readin. as said before, surely the link to the Caucasus Mujahadeen covers the islamist angle. Also, the "Islamist" reference in the first section covers that for the article because if gives a background of the conflict. And then again it comes in investigation which may or may not be appropriate, but it deals with the initial suspects before the claim was made.Lihaas (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Well, it's not in the template, so that issue is moot at this point in time. 2) I think that Islamist belong in the lede and the body because it is highly relevant. If you think mujahadin should come out, I don't have an issue w/that (though others might).--Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Add to that template, because its not the there doesnt mean it should be.

Im not questioning that is relevant by itself, but not to the article. To coem to agreement then, let's keep in in the lead and remove it from the article sections. All the necessary info is available here and elsewhere, not point repeating everything again.

Seems like both issues should not be done, pending your confirmation we can change the 2.Lihaas (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

1) I'm not 100 per cent sure I understand your comments, but let's see if this works for you. I'm not sure the template as it is worded allows for Zazi to be added. But if you can convince the people at the template page to change the name accordingly, and add Zazi, and Zazi is actually added to the template, then I would have no problem with the removal of Zazi as an EL here. 2) As the lede summarizes the body, I think the phrase should be used at least once in the body, but I gather from what you are saying that you feel that there may be 3 or 4 refs in the body -- if that is the case, and you think some beyond 1 are not needed, or that mujahadin is not needed, I don't have an issue with that (though others might).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Im working on adding Zazi (and other failed attackers too?)

For the Islamist part i've just done a new update, see that and if you disagree we'll come back ehre.Lihaas (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How much of the info that is in the See Also can you put in the template? People won't know the name. Also - Where is the phrase Islamist in the body? It should appear at least once, as the lede summarizes the body. I think it used to be in the body three times, but I don't see it at all now.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

We can certainly add more to the templates (for different years of the attacks). I tried out one and seems to work out fine. Go ahead and add more if you feel its needed. there is a template with Zazi (although tht wouldn't fit in this article)

I though we said it was redundant. We've already drawn the parallels connecting Islamist and the mujahadeen (there were 2 + the lead)(Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Bogged down rt now, but will look when I can. I'm uncomfortable -- though if it is just one linke (Zazi) here, I can probably live w/it -- as a general matter replacing ELs that have explanations w/templates that don't. At least for the most relevant ELs, I think it is best to have the description/EL as well as the template. But here, I won't make a federal case of it at this point. I feel more strongly at the Zazi and Times Square pages, for example (though only about those ELs w/descriptions). Not everyone knows what mujahdeen means -- more are likely to understand Islamist (though you would be surprised how many don't). I think we need at bare min one ref to Islamist in the body ... probably in the reference to the commander.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough on this. Add the one where you see appropriate. On issues at Times Square, etc we'll discuss it there. (was it you addition? i remember checking some a day or 2 ago?)Lihaas (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

media reaction section

[11] in reaction the to the above comment about the new reactions page i moved this to the other reactions page for 2 reasons. 1. it was in line with other attack reaction pages where the media action was listed with the reactions. 2. it was a reaction to the attack (even criticism of such actions) 2.a. it decreases the size of this immediate page as per discussed earlier for people with slow connections.

Who is this? Please sign your posts.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Cats and template

I've added the Category:Railway accidents in 2010 and Category:Railway accidents in Russia to the article, I've also added {{2010 railway accidents}}. I fully appreciate that these events are not "accidents" in the true sense of the word, but as they involve a railway, the addition should be valid. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Unless consensus is voiced against it, I suggest all strings made up of posts greater than 30 days old be archived.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You may make your request to User:MiszaBot for automatic archiving. Though I don't see it's truly necessary to archive the old topics right now. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That is what I had in mind using. Over 20 separate posting seem like a lot.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange article

Why is Shariat Jamaat not even mentioned? The both girls were Dagestani and one of them was even the wife (widow) of the SJ leader Umalat Magomedov and the attacks has been allegedly directed by his would-be succesor Vagabov. All of this is basically ignored, instead there's something about "A mujahideen group" (sic) and how "over 5,000 were killed or wounded since 2002" in the North Caucasus (really tens of thousands), about "al Qaeda", Sufis and what not, I tried to read it but my head just hurts. --Asperchu (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Doku Umarov2.jpg

The image File:Doku Umarov2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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/2010/04/05/11793.shtml

  Triggered by \bkavkazcenter\.com\b on the local blacklist

• http://www.nowpublic.com/world/2-suicide-bombs-moscow-lubyanka-park-kultury-metros-41-killed

  Triggered by \bnowpublic\.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 ^Notify_Online 20:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 Moscow Metro bombings. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100515055502/http://rt.com:80/Top_News/2010-05-13/moscow-bombing-organizers-killed.html to http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-05-13/moscow-bombing-organizers-killed.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100405221131/http://www.osw.waw.pl:80/en/publikacje/eastweek/2010-03-31/attacks-moscow-metro to http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/eastweek/2010-03-31/attacks-moscow-metro

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2010 Moscow Metro bombings. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prime-tass.com/news/show.asp?topicid=50&id=475779
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512034401/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=122117&sectionid=351020602 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=122117&sectionid=351020602
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402121100/http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=122191&sectionid=351020602 to http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=122191&sectionid=351020602
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401100530/http://top.rbc.ru/special/metro/29/03/2010/385823.shtml to http://top.rbc.ru/special/metro/29/03/2010/385823.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110512171648/http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=154730 to http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=154730
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-moscow-blast29-2010mar29%2C0%2C4320559.story
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/eastweek/2010-03-31/attacks-moscow-metro

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 18 June 2017 (UTC)