Talk:Beslan school siege

General copy editing

I know there is a lot here regarding NPOV, but I have picked up some grammatical errors etc. and will just do a clean-up of those. --Soulparadox 16:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV has inevitably come into it. --Soulparadox 17:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Dead video link

This link is dead for me, can someone please confirm this and remove it. Russian TV shows school siege terror, BBC News, 8 September, 2004 (See the video) nutterguy (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Still "dead" since the link in the article is a 404. 173.164.86.190 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

More pictures?

Just remember, media stuff is not free. But the Aushev tape is free (both fragments) and so are a public domain photos. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Few people are interested in this "High-importance" article. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In related articles

I believe I finished Kizlyar-Pervomayskoye hostage crisis, but it needs some copyedit.

Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis and Moscow theater hostage crisis are pretty good but need sources. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the lovely article

I've still haven't seen a barnstar for an article and in too many cases only the negatives of the article are focused on. Thank you to the community for compiling such a comprehensive article on a controversial topic. I learned a lot about this tragic and rather complicated event. I see some pegging this article as long and perhaps overly referenced but I found (as an outsider) that the volume of references removed questions as to statement neutrality and reliability. Thanks, folks! Ogre lawless (talk) 09:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I too agree that article is good and provides a lot of detail, thanks to many good wikipedians who contributed here! As a critical comment, I do not understand this phrase in introduction: "On the third day of the standoff, a series of explosions shook the school, followed by a fire which engulfed the building and a chaotic gunbattle between the hostage-takers and Russian security forces". Actually, a majority of people were killed by direct tank gunfire and with flamethrowers used by Russian security forces, as can see from the character of their wounds and other materials. This has been discussed at the talk page above. Is not it? If so, this should be more clearly stated.Biophys (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC) BTW see Prosecution of Beslan activists.Biophys (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the introduction the way it was tbh (concerning the voice of beslan paragraph), otherwise it gets a bit too big. BTW it's pretty hard to define the "biggest terrorist attack since september 11", because for example the 2007 Yazidi communities bombings had twice the amount of casualties as Beslan, so maybe it's best to exclude that. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too much of pushing the point. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right about "the biggest terrorist attack", but you simply deleted all my edits. "Too big" is not an argument. Please explain what is wrong and let others to reply and discuss.Biophys (talk) 04:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that. I meant the part about the voice of beslan group, there are many organisations who demanded a new investigation etc, not just that group. Maybe the best would be to say something like "many organisations demanded an independent investigation but were charged by the federal government". "most were burned alive", are we sure about that? I used to believe that most simply died in blasts. That's hard to investigate but judging from the few grizzly images ive seen many bodies didn't have (much) burn marks. Also on a side-note you often place the dot _after_ a reference, best is before I think, which most people do. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Now I understand what you mean. Two comments. You wrote that Basyev blamed Putin. This is not clear. What does it mean? Second, I think it is important to tell something about Mothers of Beslan in the end of introduction. Perhaps previous version was not good. Let's try something better.Biophys (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well even though Basayev was largely responsible for the outcome, he didn't claim responsibility for the outcome, only the hostage taking, that's a difference. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but this fine distinction is not clear in introduction.Biophys (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed polls and links that push an anti-Russian POV. Litivenko is a self-described turncoat who sold his country to a foreign power -- not a credible source.--193.194.63.129 (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ruslan Khuchbarov / Ali

I think we're dealing with the same person here. "Ali" in BBC's documentary is the person who spoke with the woman and Aushev and was captured on tape. According to this article [1] they are the same person. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

---

Can someone who understands Russian help out on this:

Here's a new list of alleged hostage takers.[2] Most of them aren't present on the list of this wiki page.

I can't find any information on them on english language sites when I try to translate their names. But I'd like to know their name in English as well as where they are from. - PietervHuis (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Aushev

[3] Way to thank the only hero of the day... - PietervHuis (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Aushev was hounded by many in Russia for (gasp!) daring to negotiate and actually entering te school. He became a terrorist sympathiser or even an accomplice. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 09:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So, why is it not even a good article?

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm nominating this for GA, assuming 84.234.60.154 doesn't object. Gimmetrow 06:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not a GA for many reasons. It is biased - parts of it are just a point of view, it lacks both Ossetian and Russian (as a whole) references, its use of word 'rebels' to describe people that take scoolchildren as hostages and then kill them is just a joke. Just compare to the 9/11 article to know what I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.202.113.34 (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of the word "terrorist"

Please note that the use of the word "terrorist" throughout the article violates a Wikipedia guideline. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter. The 3 uses in quotations can be kept, but the other 21 should be replaced with a neutral term that does not imply a moral judgment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple of other things to mention: there is no fair use rationale for Image:Vladimir Khodov.jpg, and the references are missing important information. At minimum, they should include a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a publication date and/or author is listed, this information should be included as well. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} template. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

gah. Not that discussion again. Please see archive for previous discussions before opening it again. Rune X2 (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but consensus can change. I would vote in favor of GaryColemanFan suggestion as consistent with WP rules. Although I personally believe these people were terrorists, the WP rules are more important.Biophys (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm Danish, so rules aren't so important to me and I generally think there is entirely too much petty bureaucratizing going on at Wikipedia as is. Anyway I notice that the 9/11 article is not shy of using the words terrorism and terrorists. I'd find it somewhat suspect that this would pass just because there are more US editors than Russian editors. Also I believe that it is ok to for instance to designate a person a murder if he has been found guilty of murder. Pretty much the whole world agrees that this was terrorism (it's also categorized under Terrorism in Russia - how can something be a terrorist act without being perpetrated by terrorists?). The UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called it terrorism "the brutal and senseless slaughter"of children only served to emphasise the need for the world community to come together in confronting terrorism". The EU called it terrorism. The US called it terrorism. France, Germany, Italy. Nelson Mandela. The Pope. The Mufti of Chechnya. A host of newspapers. And the terrorists themselves called themselves terrorists. There is a world consensus that this was an act of terrorism, which it would not be NPOV to ignore or fly against. That would be a statement in itself.

And if the consensus should shift of the victim list, it has been preserved in the Danish wiki: http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ofre_for_terrorangrebet_i_Beslan Rune X2 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So, they kept the list. This is a good argument in favor of Danish wiki. We have more "partisans" here. Ironically, the list of Beslan victims has been deleted by users from Ireland because they had a dispute about a similar list related to the The troubles. Biophys (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 07:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

...this is a joke, right? Some sort of attempt at social commentary (done in bad taste) aimed at exposing the ridiculousness of some Wikipedia policies, right? Calling the taking of a school full of children as hostages not a terrorist attack, and the perpetrators not terrorists, is actually being considered here? A deliberate and planned attack on children, innocent civilians outside of a war zone, isn't terrorism? If this cannot be called terrorism, then what can? I'm really at a loss of words here. Wikipedia has become a joke.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GaryColemanFan correctly cites WP policies. The precise word ("rebel", "terrorist", "murderer", "monster", etc.) does not really matter as long as we describe what these people have done. It is better practice to use neutral words rather than use slander.Biophys (talk) 02:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with the policy, and I'm glad it is being implemented in articles. But let's use a little discretion here: clearly there are exceptions to every rule, and taking children hostage is pretty much the most perfect example of terrorism that one can think of. So are we banning the word from Wikipedia altogether because it inherently supports a view-point? The policy says this word should be avoided, not banned, and if it's going to be used anywhere, this is one article I would think people would have no qualms about its usage. Everyone can agree this was terrorism other than a few nutty radicals, but a few nutty radicals also insist the world is flat. No one's going to avoid using the word "spherical" to describe the planet to accommodate certain persons' delusions.--71.112.145.102 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Anyway, if policy does prohibit the word here, it is POLICY that should be amended, not the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.72.1.232 (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know how there is an argument about this in the first place. Their goal does not justify their actions. There were REAL Chechen freedom fighters. These guys were not one of them. They killed INNOCENT children; that's terrorism. Not freedom fighting.

GA1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Beslan_school_hostage_crisis/GA1

The "354 hostages" thing. This is discussed later in the article, but http://www.google.com/search?q=354+hostages+beslan&btnG=Search&hl=en&sa=2 and choose any of over 3,000 - "for some reason", because they didn't explain why they chose this number (and when the locals knew there were more and were angered by this). Are we going to guess their reason? If you searched the article for "354" you would find it explained (even who was spreading this over into the press and Russian TV). "For an unknown reason"? "For no apparent reason"?

• How about just removing the 'for an unknown reason'?

How about if you did then instead of asking me now? Hard much? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Chas being POV" - that they dumped there large numbers of armed people from various formations but had no preparations for fire-fighting (as in putting down any blaze) or dealing with a large number of casualties, for over two days, and did not even cordon the area properly, is not a "chaotic"?

• Is there a cite for the cordon being 'disorganized'? Why was the chaos worsened because of the militiamen being present?

Because of, I don't know, WHOLE CROWDS OF ARMED PEOPLE WHO WERE UNDER NO ONE'S COMMAND roaming all over the place inside of the so-called "security cordon"? This is what you'd call a well-organized cordon? One of the versions is even that it was them who opened fire/didn't stop firing.

If you just try and google "beslan" "cordon": "Otherwise it would have to be admitted that the cordon surrounding the school was purely symbolic and of no use at all. But from what I saw, not even in one’s wildest dreams could the cordon in Beslan be called secure. Breaking through the “ring” was elementary."[4] "Anarchy ruled. The federal government sent in their finest special forces to fight, but did not use their plentiful conscripts to erect a protective cordon for their operation."[5] "An insecure cordon was also made around the school - in places within range of the terrorist's grenade-launchers - and it broke down during the last battle, which the survivors say allowed some terrorists to escape."[6] And so on and on. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Russian government defended the use of tanks and other heavy weaponry, arguing that it was used after surviving hostages escaped from the school. However, this contradicts the eyewitness accounts (including by reporters, photographers and videographers[227]), as many hostages were seriously wounded and could not possibly escape by themselves, while others were kept by the militants as human shields and moved through the building." no cite for this" - there's "cite for this" right there ([227]), but anyway, for example:

Then one of the terrorists told me: ‘Get of here; the roof is on fire, you can die.' We ran to the cafeteria; the situation was the same there, and there the militants told us to run out: ‘Now this part of the building will be fired on; get out of here.' Then they forced the hostages to stand on the windowsills, to tear down the drapery and to wave it, to shout [at them] not to shoot. I myself saw how they were shooting from the streets. I sat with the children on the floor, but in one moment I looked and saw a mountain of corpses on the windowsills. Then, an APC [armored personnel carrier] pulled up, three [soldiers] jumped out and point blank began to shoot those hostages who continued to stand on the windowsills. At that moment I was absolutely not scared of the militants; they were not firing at us. The only thing I feared was that they were going to kill them [the terrorists] and then come in the school and shoot all of us."[7]

• Cite 227 only appeared to be verifying the content within parentheses, my apologies.

"I'm going to stop writing a detailed review as such here" Pfff.

• I'd offer to review the rest but my review thus far is clearly less than capable :)

The rest is more or less valid. But I don't get "wtf vote". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• 'wtf votes' (I assume you're referring to the template?) just mean that I'm not sure (and am therefore unable to say yes/no) and probably need clarification from whoever's writing it before I can decide

And I just noticed: "original research"? And failing because of "too many commas"? WHAT? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 10:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I;n sure which criteria "stating information that is not backed up by the sources" falls into, but 'original research' seemed most fitting. And no, it was not failed because of "too many commas", as you note, it was failed because of my "more or less valid" concerns.

Yeah? What exactly "nformation that is not backed up by the sources"? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, "not focused"? On what exactly it should be focused and why it isn't? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

'Pfff', how did I know I'd be complained at for this? :) Responses to each concern above; feel free to ask for a re-review or whatever, although I did check with another reviewer to see if my concerns were fail-worthy. Naerii 17:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This was not answer for my question (regarding "focusing"). As of re-reviewing, I don't even know how and I don't care anymore. People like you will always find reasons, no matter if stupid or non-existing. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If my opinion matters, this article is indeed very good except it perhaps provides too many details and therefore too big. A great resource for anyone who would like to learn about this subject. Thanks, Captain!Biophys (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Leonid Roshal, a renowned pediatrician"

• http://www.geocities.com/svetlana.gubareva/other/140.html

Also:

The fact that Roshal contradicted the official explanation for the mystery illness is particularly interesting in light of the fact that the Chechen separatists view him with suspicion. Indeed, some observers expressed surprise that the terrorists in the September 2004 Beslan hostage-taking incident asked for him as chief negotiator, given that during the October 2002 Dubrovka hostage crisis he had helped evacuate children from Dubrovka theater but had also given advice to the Russian security services as they prepared to storm the theater—for which he received a medal from the Russian government. In addition, Roshal later publicly backed the Kremlin’s line that the narcotic gas that the security services used during the storming of the Dubrovka Theater, which killed as many as 200 of the hostages, was harmless (see Chechnya Weekly, September 8, 2004).[8]

He was made Hero of Russia, not just "medal". --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Kurs8.jpg

The image Image:Kurs8.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. --05:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The terrorists had been allegedly controlled by the FSB

This is partly described in the article, but almost all the terrorists have been previously arrested on the terrorism and other serious crime charges and then ...freed, just before the attack, according to the criminal case documents - see this article by Ella Kesaeva, the chairwomen of the Voice of Beslan [9].Biophys (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah – this reeeeeally needs to be added to the article, and perhaps deserves a mention in the intro paragraph. Also, here's an English-language translation of the Kesayeva article by someone at La Russophobe [10] Ssmith619 (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The article already noticed this ("Majority of the suspects, aged 20-35, were identified as the Ingush people or residents of Ingushetia. At least five of the suspected attackers were declared being dead by Russian authorities before the seizure, while eight were known of being previously arrested and then released, in some cases shortly before the Beslan attack."). --RamboKadyrov (talk) 15:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this different from the 60 Guantanamo inmates that have returned to terrorism? How in the world is this "evidence" of a false flag operation? If the Russian authorities were to hold these men without evidence, we would have you complaining about the lack of Human Rights in Russia.--Jackkalpakian (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What a bunch of bull! Just because some newspaper claims that it was an "inside job", doesn't mean it was! Where is the evidence? Are you going to put "9/11 was an inside job" paragraph in the official 9/11 wiki too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.230.97 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV absent in the piece as it currently stands

Edit wars are a worthless waste of time. Instead, I believe that the talk section here can be used to inject some balance by problematizing and raising some serious challenges to the propaganda narrative being fed on the main page. Please note that the section discussing criticism of the Russian government contains the following serious problems:

-The use of an avowed political opponent of the Russian state, Litivenko, as an authority. The man defected to Britain, betraying his country's trust and his role as a member of its secret service.

-The use of polls from Russia, a culture with every reason in the world to suspect and doubt its government.

In fact the very presence of the section is an attempt to deflect responsibility for the outcome away from the killers to the Russian government. The inclusion of unsubstantiated and very serious charges of a false flag operation, without any evidence whatsoever, is another indication of some serious lack of balance and a Russophobic agenda at play.

These problems need to be addressed urgently, along with the need for a clear motives and intentions section for the killers in this case.----Jackkalpakian (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of fringe theories myself Jackkal, but the reason to exclude Litvinenko's words solely because he's a "defector" is wrong. Litvinenko did not betray his country, instead he fought for it. In his view and that of his readers, it's the Post-Soviet Russian leaders that defected Russia and turned it into a country full of human rights abuse. There's other reasons to exclude or marginalize that section, such as it being a fringe theory. Grey Fox (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jackkalpakian. I came to the talk page to note that the article is way in the direction of giving undue weight to criticism of the Russian government, special forces, and military. I mean, holy crap, they're not the ones who wired up explosives to kill the children. Tempshill (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

"exclude Litvinenko's words solely because he's a "defector" is wrong" straw man argument. Jackkalpakian isn't advocating excluding Litvinenko because he's a defector, he's advocating excluding him because he's a propagandist and quoting simply makes wikipedia a mouthpiece for propaganda. surely you share his concern?

"In his view and that of his readers, it's the Post-Soviet Russian leaders that defected Russia and turned it into a country full of human rights abuse." you've got to be kidding right? You think human rights abuses are WORSE in the post soviet era than during the soviet era? You're suggesting that people want to return to the soviet era because it had better human rights? You're out of your mind.

There's a pro-terrorist agenda being pursued by many contributors to wikipedia. They're motivated by 'my enemies enemy is my friend'. They hate governments, western power and america so much that they do everything they can to lend ideological support to terrorists. Once you understand their agenda all their actions become incredibly transparent. For example, getting the name of this article changed from Beslan Massacre (as it was widely reported) to Beslan School Hostage Crisis as a major propaganda victory for the pro-terrorists. The better they can make the terrorists look, the worse they make governments look. It's sad that wikipedia is manipulated in this way and that it is so widespread. Nearly every current affairs, historical and political article is affected by this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.244.75 (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

the best way to counter this biased closely controlled wp is to ignore it. Do not click on google links to WP or do not cite WP anywhere. Ignorance of WP is death for WP.

Article title change

After someone moved this from Beslan school hostage crisis to current name, the talk archives seem to be now in old addresses (Beslan school hostage crisis/Archive #). I'm not going to push any undo buttons, especially as I don't exactly know what it performs in this case. --J. Sketter (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, you are absolutely right. Whoever did this, did it without any discussion and consensus. There is only one Beslan school hostage crisis. Why 2004? Should be renamed back.Biophys (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up

But no idea how to fix the "Template:Cite web date=December 23, 2006" thing. --83.13.135.170 (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Btw, the talk page is for "2004 Beslan school hostage crisis". --83.13.135.170 (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this "Kamel Rabat Bouralha" is even a real person

See Talk:Kamel Rabat Bouralha. I just tried to research him and couldn't find anything else. I'm saying this very seriously. --83.13.135.170 (talk) 10:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have to be on the internet to be a real person, you may have to try researching him in real life. Second of all OR is not allowed on wikipedia so if someone did find him they couldn't report it here. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Article rename

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crisis

obviously 'beslan massacre' is a much more suitable name for this article than 'Beslan school hostage crisis'. can we please have some common sense and finally change the article name? 217.37.247.77 (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Mr. Stein (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, change the title to Beslan massacre. That is what it is most commonly called, and is a better description of what was a mass murder. The current title implies that it was only a hostage-taking event and that all the hostages were released. People being taken hostage was not the worst part of this event, the murders were. Jim Michael (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I would file a move request first. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

96.251.10.186 (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)finally some common sense on the discussion board of this article. I'm glad people are waking up finally to the fact that 'massacre' is a far more accurate and appropriate name for this article. unfortunately a contributor named Sherurcij was able to manipulate and get the article heading listed as 'crisis' in pursuit of a personal agenda, but can we now change this article to its proper name 'Beslan school massacre'? Thanks guys!

Mother of Korean victim

This talks about Marina Park (Марины Пак, also writetn as "Pak"), the mother of Svetlana Sergeevna "Sveta" Tsoy (also written as "Choi") (Светлана Сергеевна Цой - Света / 스베틀라나 초이), the only Korean victim, and her efforts to try to find the true details of the incident:

• Kim, Ki-hyun. "Mother of Korean Beslan Massacre Victim Leading Investigation Push." (Archive) Dong-a Ilbo. 29 August 2005.
  • The word koreyenka (unstressed it would be "kareyenka") is written in Russian as "кореянка"

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The victim's friends were Emma "Emmochka" Khaeva (Эмма Хаева, Эммочка) and Aida "Aza" Gumetsova (Аида Киримбековна, Аза)

• This livejournal site has one set of photos: http://maxialla.livejournal.com/99338.html
• Another set of photos http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR6LI53YwrRM68qHnZFwOo3HVVhcuGTcurxLp6WswJlI4wu7Q7Vv5_nh9x4cA (original page was http://politkovskaya.novayagazeta.ru/pub/2004/2004-106.shtml )

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Other sources

• http://web.archive.org/web/20040919024526/http://www.beslan.ru/
• Focus: When hell came calling at Beslan's School No 1, The Guardian, September 5, 2004
• Timeline: the Beslan school siege, The Guardian, September 6, 2004
• Russian press review. English overview of Russian press reaction, The Guardian, September 6, 2004.
• Vlasova, Irina. "Beslan aftermath." Pravda. 27 September 2004.
• Franchetti, Mark. "The aftermath of the Beslan school massacre." The Sunday Times. August 9, 2009.
  • It said that of all the terrorist attacks in history, it killed more children (186) than any other
  • It talks about the community infighting that occurred post-Beslan
• "Life after the horror of Beslan." The Independent. Tuesday 30 March 2006
  • About the British efforts to help traumatized children mainstream into society
• "Osetia Mourned Beslan." Kommersant. September 5, 2005.
  • Russian version: "Осетия оплакала Беслан." Kommersant. September 5, 2005. Info in Russian: Газета "Коммерсантъ", №165/П (3249), 05.09.2005
• "Greek Teacher among Beslan Terror Victims." Novoinite. Monday September 6, 2004.
  • Says that Yanis Kanidis and a Turkish girl were the two non-Russian students identified as victims. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• http://web.archive.org/web/20070714135318/http://politkovskaya.novayagazeta.ru/pub/2004/2004-106.shtml - Something in Russian related to Anna Politovskaya
• "Bitterness haunts Beslan." The Standard. Thursday August 31, 2006.
• Laughland, John. "The Chechens' American friends." The Guardian. Wednesday 8 September 2004.
  • Argues that the criticism of Putin in regards to Beslan comes from a neoliberal group of Russians and a pro-Chechnya American thinktank
• WhisperToMe (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

And photos of victims:

• http://www.beslan.ru/index.php/remember_cat_sltd/category/svetlaya_pamyat/
• http://materibeslana.com/ru/my_pomnim/d1

An editorial:

• Satter, David. "Remembering Beslan." Forbes. 1 October 2009.
  • Satter believes that the Russian forces purposefully wanted the death toll to be high
• http://www.columbine-angels.com/Angels%20of%20Beslan.pdf - Also has a list of deceased, in English

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Aushev tape

The article currently has 2 stills it claims come from the Aushev tape. There appears to be some confusion here, as earlier the article claimed the tape that 48 Hours obtained was the Aushev tape. I changed this [11]. If you read the sources, neither of them say this is the Aushev tape. If you read the description given by 48 Hours, it seems unlikely this is the Aushev tape unless the Russian authorities decided to take the tape with them during the seige, then leave it lying around after they left which frankly is a silly suggestion. It's possible this is simply a duplicate of the Aushev tape, but since the tape acquired by 48 Hours evidentally included footage of Aushev, this would imply they not only decided to duplicate the tape (and had stuff to duplicate the tape) but somehow managed to do it (or complete it) after Aushev visited them which is possible, but again seems a bit far-fetched. Far more likely this is another tape the hostake takers made (it seems likely they had multiple cameras taken from parents or possibly the one camera they did have had another tape) and not the Aushev tape, unless sources can be provided which suggest otherwise (of course it would be equally wrong for us to say this is definitely another tape). So are these stills from the Aushev tape, or are they from 48 Hours? I'm guessing it's the later. The article should be clarified in any case. Nil Einne (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's worse then that. The first source doesn't say the fragment that was shown on Russian NTV not long after was the Aushev tape either [12]. In fact it sounds like it wasn't clear at the time how NTV got hold of it or where it came from other then the fact it was shot by the hostage takers. Did NTV ever actually identify this tape as the Aushev tape? Is there any other info to suggest it was the Aushev tape? From the info I've seen so far, it seems easily possible that this was another tape either another one the hostage takers made that was left behind in the ruble by the Russian authorities or that was taken by the authorities after the seige and then somehow leaked to the media. In other words, from what I've seen so far, there isn't clear evidence that the first tape wasn't in fact blank (which could have been accidential). To be fair, there's enough of a question mark that I don't think we can really take the Russian authorities at their word either but nor is the fragment of tape NTV acquired clear evidence they were lying unless there is clear evidence this was in fact the Aushev tape. Nil Einne (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, the video link at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3636196.stm seems to be expired. Nil Einne, for the particular tape described in the BBC link, do you know if there are hosted copies of the entire tape elsewhere? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources about attitudes towards Beslan and Dubrovka

I found:

• Macgilchrist, Felicitas. Journalism and the Political: Discursive Tensions in News Coverage of Russia. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2011. ISBN 9027206317, 9789027206312.

Pages 94-100 discuss Beslan and Dubrovka. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is as far from neutral as it can be without actually putting a "Made in Chechnya" label on it. Each and every statement describing the actions of Russian special forces is inevitably followed by "but |name of source| says that..." and it goes on bashing them.

NOWHERE in this aricle I see any note that this was a UNIQUE situation. 1000 children held by separatist maniacs (oh yes, I'm choosing my words carefully) in a school building in a remote town in one of the "hottest" regions in the middle of a WAR - this never happened before and I do hope it'll never happen again. Yet, there's a definite surplus of criticism, richly spiced by anti-Russian propaganda.

I strongly believe this article needs a tone down and a major one! Nomad (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is very biased pro-terrorist propaganda. Good god who wrote this stuff? It is a disgrace to Wikipedia. It would be better if there were no article at all. Even the name is biased and NPOV. No one would stand for this kind of indoctrinated revisionist history getting into the 9/11 article, why is it OK here? Because it's just Russians and they don't matter? I thought Wiki editors were better than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.166.88.158 (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You thought wrong.Bobinisrael (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

On psychological impact on Beslan

• Bullough, Oliver. "Russian town still feels pain of losing children." The Age. 24 August 2005.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A great new summary of the most important facts/theories from the European Court of Human Rights

TAGAYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA, App. No 26562/07

Some highlights:

• The initial shootout killed at least 2 local men, the militants had 2 wounded but 0 dead. It's still unclear if it was armed residents or police shooting. Not "up to 50" but about 100 people fled, plus 15 hid.

• The male militant who was killed by the exploding woman was actually one of the Arabs. Also some hostages said it was due to "an attack from the outside".

• There were 2 militants (not just 1) who were standing on the supposed "dead man switch" detonators and both of them were among those killed by the first 2 explosions - due to the "fire ball"/"wall of fire" in the roof-space and the wall blast 22 seconds later. Nevertheless after that "the IEDs remained intact" (which is well known) but eventually one large IED exploded in "the most powerful of the three explosions", apparently after it had caught fire.

• Following the explosions not just "scores" but "over 300" hostages were moved to the southern wing to the cafeteria ("the canteen and the kitchen"), and still some more were taken to the meeting room above the cafeteria. Over 100 of them then died there (in the southern wing).

• There were 2 Mi-24s circling over the school (more precisse than "at least one") and they might have fired at least 1 rocket at the roof. Similarily, 2 BTR-80s ("APC-80") fired "their large-calibre machine guns", not just 1.

I might update the article some time later (right now I didn't even finish reading through even half of it). --Niemti (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• I replaced the link with a direct one, if you do not mind. I see that you interpreted the paragraph 42 that referred to "several accounts" none of which explained militant women deaths as suicides.--ilgiz (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I think most everyone always accepted it was not actually a suicide bombing, but usually it's said it was done with a remote control. But here there is something new, or at least to me: "Some of the surviving hostages testified that there had been an attack from the outside, as a result of which the explosive belt had detonated and killed the woman bomber, the Arab terrorist and several hostages." (I understand that "an attack from the outside" in this context would mean a shot through a window.) --Niemti (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

misc section

Removed per WP:TRIVIA and WP:POV. LokiiT (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? Cite the directly relevant parts. --Niemti (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA - Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information [...] Trivia sections should be avoided. - Self explanatory. And if you can find a better place to put the removed information feel free to do so. I could not, as it all seemed trivial.

WP:POV - Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. - Given that the section was heavily weighted towards the point of view of a "coverup" and "conspiracy", it did not meet these requirements. LokiiT (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I just fixed it. The usual way of dealing with "trivia" is not removal of the information, but reusing it in other parts of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! LokiiT (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Article title

Why does this article have as its title what seems to be the least popular name for the event (Google ngram). 'Beslan school siege' seems the obvious title. 'Crisis' is vague, 'Massacre' is specific, but 'Siege' seems the commonest term. Remember also that because 'Beslan School Hostage Crisis' is the title used in wikipedia, that itself will be boosting its score in Google ngram as the wikipedia article is cited elsewhere in addition to being included itself. Even with that inflation, it is still clearly the least popular term for this event.--Flexdream (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2013 (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 necessaryily 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/2004/09/18/3209.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 ^Notify_Online 17:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Background

Background is simply disgrace to Wikipedia, in other words you can not call these manipulations. I am far from being a supporter of Putin's policies, but rather a principled opponent on most issues (but now it's not about that), but this is the basis to try to disguise the obvious religious terrorism? ... Simply, we can compare, for example, the background article on the Boston Marathon bombings and this article:

Boston Marathon bombings article background: "According to FBI interrogators, Dzhokhar and his brother were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs..." (indicated in the beginning)

This article background: "According to media reports, SNO was one of several buildings in which the Ossetian militants had held hundreds of Ingush hostages, many of them women and children. The hostages were all kept in the same gymnasium and were deprived of food and water; at least one newborn and several dozen male hostages were executed.[23][24][25][26] Beslan was also the site of an airfield used by the Russian Air Force for combat operations in Chechnya since 1994."

It is objective? Nothing is said about the ideology of the terrorists (they are called simply the rebels, although in Ingushetia many consider them Wahhabis and try to distance themselves from them). In this case, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev may be just the rebels, who chose the place to attack is Boston, because there is secret service of the CIA and the airport where the US military went to participate to wars in Middle East. I apologize for such insinuations ... but blatant ignorance of the Caucasus realities.

Islamism

Why do we have to wait until the text of the terrorists' demands in the "Motives and Demands" subsection to learn that the perpetrators of this atrocity were Islamists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.173.193.2 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer is simple. Because the laws and conventions of wikipedia make it very easy for pro-terrorist contributors (of which there are many) to whitewash any article. It totally ridiculous what goes on here.

A Pro-terrorist managing to get the title of this article changed from 'Beslan Massacre' to 'Beslan School Hostage Crisis'. His pro-terrorist goal is to make the actions of the terrorists less shocking and repugnant because he supports them. I mean, seriously, 186 school children deliberately killed and you can't call it a massacre. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.244.75 (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the name of this article is disgusting this was a Massacre purposely against Children.♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally have no objections to rename. Just keep in mind that no one supports terrorists here, and we have a bunch of articles about this - see Category:Beslan school hostage crisis. Propose renaming, justify, and wait what others tell.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that "no one supports terrorists here" is nothing more than your opinion that I strongly doubt you can prove. Just how many extremist sites are out there, why do you think that nobody affiliated with them has ever touched Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.69.19.42 (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Consider that many other events are referred to as massacres on Wikipedia, so the choice of title for these events is entirely political and the product of those who intend to obfuscate the reality of Islamist-terrorism. This is typical of Wikipedia. --Bobinisrael (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Naming this article 'crisis' instead of 'massacre' is political. It sympathetic to the terrorists because the word 'crisis' makes their actions less repugnant. Obviously killing 186 schoolchildren is a massacre. Anyone with common sense knows that, but once again, the pro-terrorist sympathizers hijack Wikipedia as their own personal PR vehicle. Very sad to see Wiki manipulated in this way time and time again. 2605:E000:F102:6300:31F4:FE90:62C8:E83A (talk) 10:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

WP:EUPHEMISM encourages precise plain language such as mass murder or genocide instead of dispute. I guess this article got "hostage crisis" in its name after it became clear that special forces triggered and aggravated the loss of lives that were already threatened by the terrorists. --ilgiz (talk) 07:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Theory of FSB involvement

• here. This sourced information was in the page for a long time, and no one objected. Why? There are many publications about this, but the factual basis has been well described here. Perhaps this part should be slightly rewritten, yes, that might be something agreeable, but not the outright removal. My very best wishes (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

This article needs unbiased editors

At this moment, this article is a big load of bull***t, from top to bottom. It's full of so many mistakes that it is not even funny. Even in the first sentence there is a ridiculous statement about "385 (?!) people who died in the attack". The web page of the Beslan city administration states clearly that the actual number was 333 (including rescuers and the FSB Special Forces members) http://www.beslan.ru/index.php/remember_cat_sltd/category/o_sobytiyah/ and provides photos of all the people who died in the attack http://www.beslan.ru/index.php/remember_cat_sltd/category/svetlaya_pamyat/ In the "Hostage-takers" section one can find names of the militants who had been killed 6 months (!) before the hostage taking itself (I'm talking about Benalia and Larussi: http://www.newsru.com/arch/russia/09mar2004/naemniki.html ) There is also a mysterious 45-year-old "Khaula Nazirova", whose existence is unknown to both the Russian investigators and Shamil Basayev. Again, there is already a list of confirmed identities of the terrorists who participated in the attack with the photographs of their corpses (http://www.caucasica.org/download/files/terrorist_list.pdf), and there are none of these three names there. Furthermore, the names of the FSB Special Forces units which participated in the counter-terrorist operation were "Alpha" and "Vympel", not "Alpha" and "Vega". "Vega" was a previous name of the "Vympel" unit from 1993 to 1995.

This is just a handful of mistakes that can be found in the article; there are too many of them to be listed here. As I said in the headline, this article should be rewritten by people who are unbiased and have a good command of the Russian language (or are native speakers themselves). In its current state, the article is awful. --Arbeite19 01:01, 09 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbeite19 (talk • contribs)

I have never contributed to the text of this article myself, but I have a suggestion: Perhaps people who assiduously write complaints about the 'quality' of articles themselves upon talk pages of Wiki. articles (such as yourself) could, perhaps, take time to improve articles themselves, no?--Kieronoldham (talk) 08:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 April 2015

Beslan school hostage crisis → Beslan School Massacre – see in talk page discussion 'Article rename' and 'Article title'. The title 'Beslan school hostage' for this event is so anodyne as to be misleading, but has clearly been contested previously. Flexdream (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: miscapitalisation and not the most common name. Hostage crisis is hardly "so anodyne as to be misleading", it was after all a hostage situation. I would propose Beslan school siege as the WP:COMMONNAME as demonstrated by this ngram. Ebonelm (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)