Jump to content

Talk:Moscow theater hostage crisis

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

This article needs cleanup

[edit]

There are dozens of grammatical errors and citation issues with this article. How do you mark it for cleanup? Bryteline (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of hostage deaths?

[edit]

I heard in a documentary of the incident that very few of the hostages who were killed were killed by the gas - some were crushed by comatose bodies laid on them, and the vast majority of the fatalities were killed because they were left lying on their backs while comatose and choked on their tongues. Sadly, I cannot cite this, as I do not know how to. Grieferhate (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing

[edit]

It says that the terrorists killed people, "She was seen to be pushed through a side door and presumably executed when three shots were heard, but 5 were actually shot. The next day another civilian also managed to gain entry to the theater. It is said that he told the gunmen that he was there to fetch his son, but when his son did not seem to be present, he too was shot outside.", and then it says they did not.... "All the terrorists lay dead, and not a single hostage had been killed by the terrorists.[citation needed]" ??

Fix the links section. All the Wasington Post links are broken. --jenlight 11:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I heard that the person killed by terrorist was a woman who wanted to enter the building.

I also saw on the History Channel documentary on the incident that the person killed was a woman trying to get in. I'll make the change. Mprudhom 07:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Move

[edit]

I don't understand why '106 moved this article to House of Culture Incident. When I searched on Google for "House Culture Incident" I didn't get any relevant hits. But "Moscow theatre siege" got plenty. --Ed Poor

Just make sure that you integrate the two articles... DanKeshet

Sequence

[edit]

The "Sequence of Events Summary" is redundant. It just duplicates everything in the main body of the article, for the most part. Should we just integrate the little additional info from the sequence of events summary into the main article and ditch the rest? --kwertii

Widows

[edit]

I heard that many of the bomb women were widows of Cechnyan combatants or victims. They are part of the Black Widows group.

Is this a siege?

[edit]

If terrorists or their ilk take over an educational or religous building (with or without hostages), and police or military then try to dislodge them from this recently-assumed posture, should we call this a "siege"?

If so, WHO has laid siege to the building? The terrorists, or the forces trying to dislodge them?

My impression after reading our siege article is that taking over the Church of the Nativity or the school in Beslan -- which then attracts a government anti-terrorist squad -- isn't really the same as a "siege". Or am I just not understand the word correctly? --Uncle Ed 17:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A siege is a military operation to compel forces within a city or building to surrender, chiefly by not letting in food or other supplies ("laid siege to the city"). Siege operations also include tactics to breach the walls of a fortress; siege weapons included catapults and ladders in medieval times. --Uncle Ed 15:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Renamed

[edit]

No one commented or complained, so I 'moved' this article from Moscow Theatre Siege to Moscow Hostage Crisis of 2002. I don't think the terrorists were conducting a siege, because they weren't trying to make "forces within the building" surrender. Nor were the commandos who ended the takeover conducting a siege, because they didn't try to starve out the terrorists.

The terrorists took over the building suddenly. The commandos stormed it and rescued the hostages. I don't see how any of that is a "siege". The media are sloppy; they'll use any word that's short and catchy. --Uncle Ed 17:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I moved the article to Moscow theatre hostage crisis. The term should not be capitalized as it has not yet become a historical term in the way that, for instance, Cuban Missile Crisis is a historical term. Indeed, a quick Google search reveals that "Moscow hostage crisis" is usually not capitalized (see, for example, what currently are the first three results: [1], [2], [3]) except when it is in the title of a news article, in which case it is only capitalized because words in news article titles are capitalized.
Actually, "theater" not "theatre" since it is the form that appeared most often on the text of the article. --Lowellian 06:11, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
I like your approach, Lowellian. Please read and comment on the new hostage crisis article, a first draft of which I posted today. --Uncle Ed 18:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's a bit late in the day, but I would support moving this to "Moscow theatre hostage crisis of 2002". In light of current events it seems that the chance of something like this happening again, in Moscow, is high enough to warrant including the date. -Ashley Pomeroy 09:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to go through and make sure that all references to this event, including the ones that use siege redirect here because I but in The Siege of Nord Ost, which is the way the history channel reported, and nothing came up. Stop Me Now! 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorists or rebels

[edit]

Hi, the discussion here is much more polite, and I would like to invite you to resolve or calm down the dispute we are having over the October 2005 Nalchik attack. Both incidents (+ Beslan school) are different but however closely linked. Thank you. -- Goldie (tell me) 11:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

Calling the attackers "terrorists" is a blatant violation of the NPOV rule. Taw 15:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC) >>>>Taking hostages who are innocent people and making demands makes you a terrorist.>>> (Adrien C)[reply]

Actually, yes these are terrorists, unless of course you don't believe terrorism exists. I understand the argument, that they aren't terrorists because of their cause and the ongoing war, but then that would make Al Qaeda, the IRA, Hezbollah, and other organization that target only civilian people. I know there's an ongoing war, but they went beyond their borders and targeted 900 people who, for the most part, had absolutely nothing to do with the war in their home country. If you really believe this, Taw, then you wouldn't call the 9/11 hijackers or anyone else from the muslim world who attacks the United States terrorists. Surely you don't dare to make that statement? Stop Me Now! 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article does use the word "terrorist" too much. See Wikipedia:Words to avoid - "In line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View policy, the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y". In an article the words should be avoided in the unqualified "narrative voice" of the article." It's not a matter of whether I, you, or any other editor believes that they are terrorists or not, simply whether it's an appropriate neutral stance to say that they are in this article. MorganaFiolett 08:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does not really matter. One can call them "rebels", "hostage takers" or whatever to improve the style. The article describes what they actually did. This is clear enough.Biophys 23:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spetsnaz are better than U.S. Special Forces and S.A.S

[edit]

I deleted the comment that was here because it wasn't really an argument so much as someone trying to lash out against the United States and British special forces, and really didn't have a whole lot to do with the article. But, you can't remove the elite from in front of the spetsnaz because whether or not you like them, (I am not taking any side), you can't argue that in the Russian army they ARE the elite units. It's not a question of they skill compared to the Americans or British, but their skill within the Russian Army. Oh yeah, and you can't just shove some unsigned comment up that is only an opinion and then not sign it. Stop Me Now! 18:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

Whilst the article may not be completely neutral, it is hardly biased. The term "terrorist" is used and misued with equal regularity. Anyway, I have reduced the frequency of use in this article and on the strength of that removed the POV banner.

I recently made an addition to the article that called these people terrorists quite often and anyone who removes these references is committing vandalism and giving the article a POV that supports the terrorists. If you remove the terrorists references without discussion, as the the unsigned comment above says they did, I will flag you for vandalism. Stop Me Now! 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Terrorist' + footnotes

[edit]

These guys were terrorists by every international and national law definition there is, and so it is not POV to use it.

Anyways, the real reason I'm here: This article should have more footnotes, especially for the direct quotes. Joffeloff 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive report by a hostages' relatives

[edit]

http://www.pravdabeslana.ru/nordost/dokleng.htm - it covers just everything established yet and the questions too. Someone would use it in the article.

Gas section

[edit]

I think this should be moved to another or a new article. --HanzoHattori 15:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without it, there would be no: Categories: Pages needing expert attention | Articles with unsourced statements since January 2007 | All articles with unsourced statements

Pictures?

[edit]

Practically ANY would do. --HanzoHattori 13:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politkovskaya

[edit]

Politkovskaya tells of her excitement about breaking a news story that a ``terrorist who had been involved in the Russian theater hostage taking in October 2002 was now employed by the government of President Vladimir Putin. Expecting a flurry of queries and phone calls, she is surprised by the lack of reaction to her expose. [4]

?? --HanzoHattori 14:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I give up - so they now officially say 12 escaped or not? how to write this?

[edit]

Fri Jun 1, 2007 7:45 pm (PST) Russian prosecutors suspend probe into Dubrovka attack

MOSCOW, June 1 (Itar-Tass) - The Russian Prosecutor General's Office has suspended the investigation into the terrorist attack on the Dubrovka theatre in Moscow, as the whereabouts of the defendants remain unknown, lawyer Igor Trunov, who represents victims' interests, told Itar-Tass.

"Today, we received a letter from the prosecutor's office saying that preliminary investigation into the case over the Dubrovka terrorist attack has been suspended in connection with the unknown whereabouts of the defendants - Gerikhan Dudayev and Khasan Zakayev, who were put on the wanted list," Trunov said.

According to the lawyer, he would appeal the prosecutor's decision, because "it is unsubstantiated."

"I believe the investigation was not conducted properly. According to investigators, at least 52 people were involved in the act of terror; 40 were destroyed in the course of the special operation, and at least 12 escaped, hence the question: why only two were put on the wanted list," Trunov said.

The prosecutor's letter also stated that the attack was masterminded by Shamil Basayev, who died in an explosion.

Forty gunmen broke into the building of the Dubrovka theatre center in the evening of October 23, 2002, taking 912 spectators hostage. Most of the hostages were saved in the special operation on October 26, 2002. One-hundred and thirty people died. [5]

Fair use rationale for Image:Dubrovkaht.jpg

[edit]

Image:Dubrovkaht.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup done, copyedit needed

[edit]

--HanzoHattori 13:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New sources

[edit]

Nord-Ost: 5 years - discussion at Echo of Moscow with Yevgenia Albats. Some important points:

1. Poison gas (most believe that was aerosol of carfentanyl) was inefficient: hostage takers continued their shooting out during 20 minutes after this gas was used (21 people), according to official investigation. (Russian text: Я хотел бы подчеркнуть, что пример Марата подчеркивает развенчивание мифов о чудо-газе. Не только Марат не заснул. Не заснули террористы. В материалах следствия отмечено, что они в течение 20 минут отстреливались из 13 автоматов и 8 пистолетов. Газ был видимым, согласно материалам следствия, имел запах, не мгновенного действия, и фактически только провоцировал террористов на ответные действия.)

2. "Chemist" who directed this gas received a high honor (Gold star). Всего за «Норд-Ост» были даны пять звезд «Героев России». Их получили двое ребят – бойцы «Альфы» и «Вымпела», еще две звезды достались Штабу, а именно – руководителям штаба по освобождению заложников, первому зам.директора ФСБ генералу Проничеву и начальнику Центра спецназначения ФСБ генералу Тихонову. Пятую золотую звезду получил химик, пустивший газ в театральный центр.

3. All bombs of hostage takers were disconnected; no detonators; the batteries were taken out; and Russian authorities knew about it. The concert hall was under electronic survelliance. An informer in the hall (which was taken by the terrorists) had a constant communication with FSB (this man, Pavel Platonov, was officially honored by government for that). There was absolutely no chances that anything would be blown out. So, there was no any reason for using this gas. See Russian text below.

Четвертый орден вручен Павлу Платонову – он, бывший военнослужащий погранвойск, сумел из зала давать информацию сотрудникам спецслужб о всем происходящем в зале – вплоть до момента штурма.

Е.АЛЬБАЦ: То есть, они знали, что там происходит?

Д.МИЛОВИДОВ: Они знали. Кроме того, зал был начинен системами аудиконтроля и другими – неспроста, как вы понимаете, Штаб находился так близко, и спецмашина так близко от зала находилась – несмотря на якобы угрозу взрыва. О взрыве надо сказать отдельно – в 35 метрах от зала находился штаб. В штабе находились послы иностранных государств. Чьи граждане попали в заложники, известные деятели Госдумы, - и это при угрозе взрыва? Господа, выводы делайте сами. Марат говорил о том поясе, который стоял напротив него. В материалах следствия указано – данные три пояса, которые находились перед ними, детонаторов не имели. Исполнительные устройства у шахидок не были подключены к поясам. Батарейки, согласно протоколам осмотра мета происшествия, согласно протоколам осмотра трупов террористок, оставались в карманах. Biophys 03:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout drug used: was it fentanyl?

[edit]

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=fentanyl sez: "In 2002 public attention world wide was focused on the drug as it (or one if its derivates) was used by Russian special forces during their attack, which ended the Moscow theatre siege. Over 150 people (including innocent hostages) were killed due to the large, knock-out dosage used." -- anyone have a suggestion where to look to confirm the drug was "fentanyl" and not "an unknown drug"? And the # of people killed? ( seems that fentanyl article confirms this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl#External_links ... then again, it might have been remifentanil -- according to http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/02110b.htm ) 68.149.190.31 04:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was officially not disclosed. Many say it was not even a gas, but an aerosol. --HanzoHattori 08:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best information available, analysis of drug residue from the clothing of two British hostages and the urine of a third British hostage,by a team of researchers at the British chemical and biological defense labs at Porton Down, Wiltshire, England, indicates two fentanyl derivatives were used - and neither were fentanyl or 3-methyl fentanyl (the Russian Minister of Health said fentanyl or a derivative had been used, but didn't accurately specify which derivatives).
This analysis, Analysis of Clothing and Urine from Moscow Theatre Siege Casualties Reveals Carfentanil and Remifentanil Use, showed that while fentanyl or 3-methyl fentanyl were absent from the urine of one survivor or residues of the agent in clothing of two other British survivors, the veterinary large animal sedative drug carfentanil and anesthetic agent remifentanil were discovered by liquid chromatographic tandem mass spectrometry (compared to standards which comprised fentanyl hydrochloride, cis-3-methylfentanyl free base, carfentanil oxalate, sufentanil citrate, lofentanil oxalate, remifentanil hydrochloride, norcarfentanil and remifentanil acid).
These are enough hard data to allow us to conclude carfentanil and remifentanil were used as a mixture in the knockout agent (not a gas as such, and even the anaesthetic agent halothane supposedly used to dissolve the fentanyl derivatives in boils at 50.2 degrees Celsius, so it's not a gas, either - all three agents were sprayed into the theatre as an aerosol). loupgarous (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should I take care this article?

[edit]

In the sense of what I did to the Beslan one? --84.234.60.154 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not covered effects

[edit]
  1. The order to destroy bodies of "terrorists" since (included Maskhadov's).
  2. A campaign by the special forces of killing the widows of the Chechen fighters. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, I just doubled the article in size now

[edit]

Give me an internet cookie or something. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for huge improvements! I think this is now close to "good article" status. Actually, most of the surviving hostages have been incapacitated (very serious problems with heath) to the rest of their lives due to this poison substance. Maybe this should be mentioned.Biophys (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Add yourself? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing - :Riches et al Analysis of Clothing and Urine from Moscow Theatre Siege Casualties Reveals Carfentanil and Remifentanil Use are definitely on point, showing that while fentanyl or 3-methyl fentanyl were absent from the urine of one survivor or residues of the agent in clothing of two other British survivors, the veterinary large animal sedative drug carfentanil and anesthetic agent remifentanil were discovered by liquid chromatographic tandem mass spectrometry (compared to standards which comprised fentanyl hydrochloride, cis-3-methylfentanyl free base, carfentanil oxalate, sufentanil citrate, lofentanil oxalate, remifentanil hydrochloride, norcarfentanil and remifentanil acid).
I would say that these are enough hard data to allow us to conclude that the Russian Health Minister Yuri Shevchenko either willingly lied or was misled by his own government's sources in announcing the active agent of the gas used in the hostage rescue at the Barricade Theatre in Moscow was fentanyl, and that speculation that the agent was the more toxic and potent analogue 3-methyl fentanyl was premature. Analysis of actual agent residues, compared to known standards of both fentanyl and 3-methyl fentanyl, showed presence of neither drug, while showing the presence (otherwise unaccountable-for in a moviegoer's clothing or urine) of carfentanil and remifentanil.
That's the last analytical word, friends.
Paul M. Wax, MD, Charles E. Becker, MD, and Steven C. Curry, MD, in "Unexpected “gas” casualties in Moscow: A medical toxicology perspective," a review article in Volume 41, Issue 5, May 2003, Pages 700–705 of The Annals of Emergency Medicine, placed the available evidence, including Porton Down's findings, into four valuable perspectives:
- the toxicology in HUMANS of the veterinary drug carfentanil and the perioperative anesthetic drug remifentanil when used as aerosolized agents ("gases" within the military sense of the word) weren't studied closely enough. The lipophilicity of all the fentanyl derivatives may have caused a "re-narcosis" syndrome requiring repeated doses of the appropriate antidote promptly to save affected persons' lives;
- withholding of the identity of these drugs or even the general class to which they belonged probably cost many lives after the rescue, but hypoxic brain damage might have been unavoidable in some cases;
- it's hard to see what other options the team in charge of the rescue had but using these agents to subdue the terrorists (with their fingers on the detonators of enough high explosives to kill all 800 people there) and, unavoidably, their hostages.
- the secrecy which prevented Russian officials from IMMEDIATELY informing their own physicians what they were treating WAS avoidable, however; and
- future use of these or similar agents to subdue hostage takers or other violent individuals should only be attempted after more extensive study of their effects, spread after spraying in buildings, and how they travel in the human body, and - most importantly - making appropriate antidotes for these agents available to be administered promptly to incident survivors after their use. loupgarous (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For further use

[edit]

[6] [7] [8] (lots of information, later). --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything more about this?

[edit]

"But even among the fanatical women with their suicide belts, not all wanted to die. The older women, yes, but among the shahidki were a lot of girls, very young ones, seventeen years old or so. Two girls came up from below to see Barayev's wife. They were crying. They spoke in their own language, but I understood - they were very scared of dying. I saw that they were frightened. Barayeva yelled loudly at them. It seemed to me that these women during the assault threw off their gowns and masks and belts and hid with the hostages. They found two suicide belts in the hall afterwards, and the girls were discovered in the hospital where I had been taken. They found them because of the gunpowder on their hands. They gave them artificial respiration, first aid, and then took them somewhere." [9] --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latynina

[edit]

In the republic of Ingushetia, death squads are executing people. They're being shot in front of witnesses, in crowded places, in market squares, at bus stops, and then weapons are being planted on them and they're being photographed as dead "terrorists." In some instances, the crowd has shielded the intended victims. In others, the local Ingush police have nearly beaten the Russian executioners to death. Who's being killed? Those on the so-called Wahhabi lists. These lists were compiled at the order of the FSB (the successor to the KGB) soon after the Moscow theater massacre of 2002, in which Chechen terrorists took an audience hostage and 130 people died when Russian special forces stormed the theater. ad_icon

But who ordered these lists to be drawn up? Who would think, to stop the problem of terrorism in the northern Caucasus from spreading, of executing fundamentalist Muslims wholesale, simply for their convictions, not for any crimes that they may have committed? Such an order couldn't have been given without Putin's knowledge. In the 1970s, then-Israeli prime minister Golda Meir had those who had taken part in the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics annihilated. But since the Moscow theater incident, Putin has gone her one better -- he has even wiped out people who had nothing to do with it.

Each such execution, however, has created more terrorists than it has eliminated, and for all intents and purposes, Russia has lost control of Ingushetia -- the only republic where authorities have fully followed the execution order. Who will dare to inform the great Putin, the former KGB man, the courageous hero, who happily sits for photographs in the cockpit of a fighter plane and poses bare-chested on a fishing trip?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/20/AR2008062002596.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OSNAZ vs Spetsnaz

[edit]

A contradiction here:

In the intro it says the siege ended after a raid by OSNAZ but in the section entitled Special Forces Raid it says it was the Spetsnaz that performed the operation.

I thought Spetsnaz was from the Soviet era and OSNAZ was 'it's same old faces, just different name' replacement.

It needs to be sorted out anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.112.31 (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. They mean the same thing and Spetsnaz is the newer name although both are used today. There are no "faces" which are the same, Osnaz/Spetsnaz is just regular troops/policemen/agents which are trained to do a specific thing such as hostage extraction. Unfortunately the teams assigned to this event were trained in terrorist assassination not hostage extraction. Both names itself means special forces though (talk)

(All above brought over from Talk:2002 Moscow theater hostage crisis)

"Two Captains"

[edit]

There is no mention of Chechens in "Two Captains" at all, the claim that it is somehow prejudiced towards them is not based on fact. The captains in the book work in the North. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.3.170 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about attitudes towards Beslan and Dubrovka

[edit]

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) 04:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nordost-dubrovka.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Nordost-dubrovka.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The statement "Russian authorities reportedly insisted that the hostages not be separated into foreign and Russian categories" is used three times in the article in various forms, but two of the inline cites do not support the statement, and the first mentioning of it is to a paid-subscription link of the Moscow Times. How can this be verified? The first linked is also a dead link, now. I'm going to tag this for citation needed - I can't find any other mention of this in any Google search I do. It smells of propaganda - what possible point would the Russian gov't have in demanding this?HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Number of victims

[edit]

Why revert widely published number of 129 (130)(BBC)? According to organization "Nord-Ost", the actual number of dead hostages was even higher, 174 [10]. This tells "around 200." And this source tells 174, according to Karinna Moskalenko, a lawyer acting for the victims’ families. And this... My very best wishes (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC link says all 40 attackers were killed and 130 hostages also sounds reasonable. Those other links you posted have conflicts of interest (a lawyer??) and are not mainstream and reliable sources. We should stick to well established, mainstream news outlets like BBC. LokiiT (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Karinna Moskalenko, Andrei Soldatov and Vladimir Kara-Murza (quoted above) are pretty good sources. To be completely honest here, I was surprised that you appeared after several months of inactivity to revert my edit, although I did not edit in this area for a long time. That was just a coincidence (I thought about creating a BLP page of former actress of Nord-Ost). Unfortunately, I do not have a lot of time right now for editing any politics, no I really do not. My very best wishes (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I do not see any reason why I should not edit these pages, at least occasionally, since almost no one improved them for years, and I am familiar with the subject... My very best wishes (talk) 06:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Moscow theater hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Summarily executed"

[edit]

I changed "summarily executed" to "killed" but left "presumably while unconscious."

It isn't known that the hostage-takers were unconscious. Some may have been conscious, even if they were in a stupor. Some may have been playing dead. Some may have already been dead, or may have received a lethal dose. If they were dead, then the gas caused their death and not the bullets. If they had received a lethal dose of gas, then shooting them was a coup de grace instead of a summary execution, because they were going to die anyway.

So I do not think "summarily executed" is appropriate in the first sentence. Yes, it was a very harsh and very Russian operation. But if it is a summary execution, so was the death of Osama bin Laden. To me, summary execution means killing without a trial and in cold blood, not in anger or self-defense. If the hostages were captured, driven to a pit and shot, that would be summary execution. I think killed, presumably while unconscious is neutral in that it lets the reader decide whether or not it was justified to shoot them. Roches (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Moscow theater hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moscow theater hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Moscow theater hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Moscow theater hostage crisis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty as a source

[edit]

As being a deliberately 'against the grain' news source, articles by RFE/RL should be checked on the use of primary sources or other material that is present in the article, which can be fact-checked by the reader.

These are not present in the articles that are used as a source on this Wikipedia page. As such, they have no more value than other conspiracy theories and rumor/hearsay tabloid stuff.

Language

[edit]

This incident took place in European Russia, and it makes sense to use European spellings. Conversely, there is no apparent reason to use US English. The page should therefore be moved to Moscow theatre hostage crisis. Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The type of English used is based (per Wiki guidelines) on how it was first started.50.111.26.236 (talk) 03:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong date?

[edit]

> The hostage-takers demanded termination of the use of artillery and air forces in Chechnya starting the next day (Russian forces ceased using heavy weapons until 28 September),

The whole thing started in October. Was "until 28 October" meant instead? Nowaker (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Section "Claims of FSB involvement" reads like a conspiracy theory

[edit]

After having read through pages of other terrorist attacks where conspiracy theories about state involvement exist, the section "Claims of FSB involvement" uniquely stands out as being biased in favour of such conspiracy theories. Not only does this section cite mostly articles from Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. an American state-owned media outlet, but it also uses highly editorial language that I cannot find on other pages about terrorist attacks. For example: "What would have been the motive for possible Russian involvement? During the period preceding the hostage taking, heavy pressure was being brought to bear by the West and within Russia on Putin to negotiate with the Chechen moderates and their leader, Aslan Maskhadov."

Furthermore, the RFE/RL articles that are being cited rely almost entirely on statements by a few select Russian personalities. No evidence is being presented in those articles, and as far as I can see, the theory that the FSB was involved is being rejected by most historians.

I don't think that an edit lending credibility to "9/11 was an inside job!" conspiracy theories using Russian state-owned media outlets and a few prominent American politicians or scholars would fly on the page about the terrorist attacks on 9/11. So why is an equally dubious conspiracy theory that relies on highly questionable sources being presented as credible on the page about the 2002 terrorist attack in Moscow? Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a conspiracy theory. The articles for Basayev and Barayev are pretty explicit that they coordinated it (without Maskhadov's permission) and even admitted to it. JSory (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not really. And remember that Basayev had a GRU handler [11] (Anton Surikov). This section is related to the member of the terrorist group known as Terkibayev, an agent provacateur who worked for the FSB, left the theater unharmed just before the assault and later died in a "car accident" elsewhere.
  1. Terkibayev appears in the book Death of a Dissident, pages 275-276. According to the book Anna Politkovskaya managed to interview him, and he said he worked for the Russian secret services as an undercover agent and guided the terrorist team through Moscow to the theater.
  2. Another source is the last book ("Is Journalism Worth Dying For?") by Politkovskaya, page 248, where she say he was killed when the US intelligence decided to interview him, while making an inquiry to the death of a US citizen in the theater.
  3. There are dozen books on the subject describing Terkibaev and the role of the FSB [12]

See also publications by Jamestown Foundation: [13], [14] My very best wishes (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Interview Accuracy

[edit]

Firstly per the BBC source, the statements made were by 2 people that were interviewed by {unnamed presenter} over the phone. Secondly it seems unlikely that a Russian would say "the Russians" and not something like "the police" or "security", so I suspect that there is some changes actually being made in translation. A better source needs to be found that actually 1. identifies the interviewer and method of interview and 2. Accurately reports exactly what was said (if the source is in Russian then this can be directly cited and then a proper translation made). JSory (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How did they rid the theater of fentynal residues?

[edit]

Does the theater still exist? If so, how did they rriid it of the residual car and remi fentynal? 2603:7081:E00:C581:FA0D:926A:2ADD:19D4 (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis&oldid=1256970340"