Talk:Beslan school siege/Archive 3

New information?

I just saw [this article], and wondered if somebody would be able to look into whether or not it was true...if it is, it certainly helps explain why this particular school was chosen as the target. Sherurcij 09:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Now this sounds funny, coming from an Ingush: "Grozniy (today Jokhar)". Claiming to be Ingush, but born in Chechnya - no explanation given. And it gets weirder: "There wasn’t chairs and toilet in the gymnasium. They did not feed us, did not give water to us. The guards constantly offended men, they caviled on any occasion." No water, no food. Problems with the toilet. Sounds suspiciously like the way the 2004 terrorists treated the children they took hostage. Of course, they did not offend the men, they just killed them. Still, it reads like a defence of what happened in 2004. Did something like this happen 13 years ago? Of course it did, on both sides. This was one of the first civil wars after the break-up of the Soviet Union. --pgp 01:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Wording

Demands === === Demands

The hostage-takers in Beslan are reported to have requested the presence of the following people at various times, to conduct negotiations

or

The hostage-takers in Beslan are reported to have at first made the following demands

Presence of the following people in the school:

• Aleksander Dzasokhov, president of North Ossetia,
• Murat Ziazikov, president of Ingushetia,
• Alu Alkhanov, president of Chechnya (other reports name presidential advisor Aslambek Aslakhanov, or Mukharbek Aushev, Duma member representing Ingushetia),
• Vladimir Rushailo, Executive Secretary for the Commonwealth of Independent States.

It seems to me that we need the clarity of the first one, or some kind of compromise...since the reverted-back-to wording makes it sound like the kidnappers just said "Gather us a bunch of presidents in our booby-trapped school to kill" which wasn't the case. It is quite usual for hostage-takers to demand that a president conduct negotiations themself. [User:Sherurcij|Sherurcij]] 01:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

..:: Porque ::.. Porque... si somos seres humanos, porque muchos de estos seres son desgraciados y destructores de las paz... acaso que no somos en verdad humanos? somos una raza tan potencialmente destructores para extinguir lo que es un sentimiento llamado amor?... Tratemos de tener conciencia de estas situaciones y buscar una manera de acabar el egoismo y el odio hacia los demas y unir nuestros corazones y fuerzas para ser una seres que protegemos y amamos en el universo... Jainner-Diciembre 2005.

My Portuguese (?) is beyond poor, but I'm catching Why, why, if these people...their disgrace and destruction (of peace?)...not even human...sentimentality...new...in the world. and guessing that it's not going to fall under NPOV. If I've misunderstood you, I apologize. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 18:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Since it comes up about once a month

Once a month an anonymous non-WPian decides to come in and add "Muslim terrorists", "Islamic pigs" or anything along the same line, I'll reiterate on the talk page in the hope that some of them read it before they edit a page. We do not chiefly identify the Beslan hostage-takers as Muslim because the crime was in no way religiously motivated. Shamil Basayev is not a fanatical religious freak, and in 7 days of a siege, not one of the 32 hostagetakers was ever recorded as praying, and none of them ever appeared to be devout Muslims by anything other their skin colour. It's also worth noting that there was a Korean and a Slav among the Checens. So no, no matter how often you try to portray this as some "crazy Muslim jihadists", it's not true. Were they wrong, yes. Were they terrorists, almost certainly. Did they self-identify as Muslim followers doing this in the name of Allah, not once. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 19:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just finished watching "Three Days in September", and one of the survivors said that if he did not quit moving, he would be shot because he was interrupting the terrorist's prayers. Wouldn't this make the above statement of "and in 7 days of a siege, not one of the 32 hostagetakers was ever recorded as praying" a little less true? Additionally, it's my understanding that the leader of that planned the Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis also planned this attack, isn't HE an extremist? I apologize if my etiquette is off here, I do not know how to participate in these dicussions using whatever format WP uses. --Mutant 02:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, your etiquette is fine, and a great improvement over User:Absent claiming that a beard is evidence of a Jihadist terrorist :P I haven't seen the film myself, but I agree that the statement does suggest there was praying going on inside - so my statement is slightly in error. I think the point still stands, that the group was not a group of fundamentalist Muslims, but a Korean, a Slav, a lot of Chechens and Ingush, and among them there was at least one devout Muslim, and likely more. But Hitler was raised Catholic and still spoke about God frequently, we don't claim that Nazis were a pervesion of Christianity. You're right, by the way, Shamil Basayev was the organizer of both the theatre and school hostage-takings - but he is a military commander, not really a jihadist the way Osama bin Laden is seen. He doesn't inspire men by shouting verses from the Quran promising virgins in heaven or talking about the great Satan, he draws lines on maps and checks train timetables for troop movements in the hopes that his military actions will secure autonomy for a section of land he believes belongs to him - and I think that's an important distinction to make. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 02:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Now Sherurcij, I understand you have a political agenda to uphold here, but let's take a look at your arguments:

To say that Shamil Basayev is not an Islamic Jihadist is an outright lie and you should be ashamed of yourself. First, his name is Abdallah Shamil Abu-Idris. If it is not Islamic, I do not know what it is

My father's name is Paddy O'Brien, but he's actually French - claiming that somebody is an "Islamic Jihadist terrorist" just because their name contains the word "Abu" (which means "father" in Arabic as I recall). I'd also point out his actual name is Шамиль Салманович Басаев, which is transliterated as Shamil Salmanovich Basayev - so using your logic, we could claim that he was obviously a Tsarist or Cossack, but that's obviously not the case. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's a terrorist. Now you can argue semantics all you want. If you still claim that Shamil Basalyev is not an islamic terrorist, then all hope is lost.--Absent 11:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, let's take a look at the man himself: http://www.prima-news.ru/upimg/m_22518.jpg. Now that we have discovered that by his appearances and name he is Islamic...

I see a man with a beard, so I guess by your logic http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/forum/castro.jpg Fidel Castro must also be an "Islamic Jihadist terrorist"? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)}

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... it's a terrorist. http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,212809,00.jpg http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/22/air.strikes.follow/link.bin.laden.jpg http://www.sw-asia.com/People/images/Bio979b.jpg http://www.cpj.org/zimages/enemies00/khamenei_web.jpg

I see a frightening similiarity; by no doubt you see it not. The beard is an important Islamic tradition; I am sure you are not familiar with it seeing as you are making your ridicilous claims.--Absent 11:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's take a look at a quote of his:

"In the name of God, Most Benevolent, Most Merciful!

(Bismillah Rahman Rahim!)

Praise Allah, the Lord of the worlds...(truncated but keepin

Needs work

The "Investigations" chapter is probably the most disorganized part of this article, that could most benefit from a good cleanup, if somebody could do that, much appreciated :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 04:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Shmel "flamethrowers" usage urgently needed - as addition to tank fire

It's an essentional issue, as it contributed to possibly greatest number of casaulties among the hostages who perished in the gym fire (the issue is heavily featured in the terrorist's trial, which survivors and residents use to charge authorities).

Several Shmels were fired from the opposite roof which was occupied by the special forces and their used tubes abandoned there - it's an extremally powerful weapons, comparable in effect to the 122mm HE shell. It's possible this was "the second explosion" (the more powerful one), as they were aimed on the gym roof which subsequently catched fire and collapsed.

(Russians military, officials and press call these weapons "flamethrowers" - and so does most of world media; really it's a FAE rocket weapon.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kocoum (talk • contribs) .

Muslim/Christian

Now, Shercucj. why do you refer to information about the predominant religion of the participants as "vandalising"? They were Muslims. Victims were Christians, Why do you delete that aslo? You doubt that N. Ossetans were Christians? Igor NJ 04:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Their predominant religion had no more bearing on the incident than their predominant sexual orientation, their predominant right-handedness or their predominant preference for lasagna over penne. The attack had zero religious motivation, Shamil Basayev isn't a radical Islamist, and to portray it otherwise is to paint your own bias over the attack. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you - how much do you konw about the conflicyt in that part of the world? HAve you ever been to Russia? To Chechnya? To Osethia? Do you speak by any chance Russian or Chechen? Why do decide to judge what is relevant and what is not in taht conflict? HAve you heard about Beslan even before the incident?

I am wondering since you incredible claim that religion is not relevant.

Since you callim ZERO religious motivation, do ypu think Russia-Chechnya conflict also has no religious dimention? What makes you claim that?

In any case, you misinterpret my edit - I did not claim that terrorists were Jihadists, but just statet that they were Muslims and terrorists. And they were. If and how they were influenced by Islam is very difficult question, but how do you think you know that they were not? We should let readers decide if the fact that Muslims attacked Chtistians were just an irrelevany coincidence, or fits into a broader pattern. (Hint, hint).

The fact is that the Beslan tragedy is only a small part of broader conflict with Chechnya, which is to soem extent is itself part of fight to control of the region, that goes back centuries. If Chechnya would be Christian, there would be no blooby secessionist movement. Just like other Christian North Caucasian republics it would likely be fine within Russia.

Again, will you please elaborate what and how dou you know about conflict in Caucausus - surely not only through liberal Western media? What other sources do you have? Igor NJ 04:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I always wonder why people instantly assume that if I disagree with them, I must be American. tsk, tsk. How much do you know about Nurpashi Kulayev? Do you know if he said the Salah, or paid the Zakat? Do you have any source showing that Issa Torshkhoev did? They were men from a Muslim background, acting under a Muslim leader - I am from a Christian background and acting under Christian leaders, but if I go take hostages at the local bank, then newspapers and encyclopaedias will not report me as "The Christian hostagetaker, Sherurcij". Should we just let readers decide if the fact both Mohammed Atta and Hermann Goerring were right-handed is "just a coincidence" or fits into a larger Jew-hating pattern of right-handed people? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 04:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why people assume you are American. What makes you think I did. I didn't. But it doesn't matter what I assumed or not. I did ask you how do you know about Chechnya conflict? What are your sources? Do you know languages of that region, have you been there, did you talk with those who was/are involved etc.? There are millions of Russians who have first-hand knowledge of the conflict. Those are relevant questions if you want to decide what should or snould not be included in teh article. How old are you? You politisize the issue ignoring religious aspect of the conflict. Typically liberals would do that. That makes me think you let your view give an article a political slant. I suggest we let the readers know the facts and let them decide. What is wrong with this approach? Why should we hide facts? Is North Ossethia Christian? Yes, it is. Why we cannot say that? Do you admit that Muslim extremism exist? But not Muslim terrorism? Or Islamist terrorism? Your right-handed analogy is completely out of placce here. Religion motivates people in their actions, unlike "handedness". Ever heard anout religious wars? They were men from a Muslim background, acting under a Muslim leader - what does it mean from background? Were they Muslims or not? Do you imply that they were not Muslims? Do you think in that part of the world you could be half-Muslim and half-Christian? What is your religion, by the way? I would appreciate if you share your sources of information for the article.

The sources for information in the article are listed in the article, if there is a particular sentence you have difficulty with, feel free to ask and I will help you. I don't see why my personal religion or age factor into anything? Would 44-year old Jains be more entitled to write encyclopaedia articles than 17 year old Hindus? Why does it matter what languages I can speak? There are not millions of Russians who have first-hand knowledge of the event as you claim, but there are many. However, if the "Voice of Beslan" and "Beslan Mothers' Committee" prove anything, it's that there is dispute even among those who were taken hostage.

I have never said that Muslim extremism or Islamist terrorism don't exist, of course they do. I'm one of the two chief editors of the articles surrounding the pilots and hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center. About half my time on Wikipedia is spent writing articles about (chiefly Islamist-based) terrorism...hell, look at my fecking signature :)

I'm confused by your statement that "typical liberals" claim that religion is not a bad thing. Most of the far-left liberals I have met are predominantly anti-religion; any amount of reading on socialism, anarchy, communism or similar leftist ideals tends to show a great deal of loathing for religion...yet you say that it's "typical liberal" of me to claim that religion was not the motivator for Beslan? Why do you assume I'm liberal? Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 07:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You write:

The attack had zero religious motivation, Shamil Basayev isn't a radical Islamist, and to portray it otherwise is to paint your own bias over the attack.

Are you serious? Here's from Wiki. article on Basayev -

In August 1999, Basayev and Ibn-ul-Khattab led a 2000-strong army of Islamic fundamentalists in an unsuccessful attempt to aid Dagestani Wahabbists to take over the neighboring Republic of Dagestan and establish a new Chechen-Dagestan Islamic republic (with a later invasion of Ingushetia planned as well).

And this is from Russian Wiki. article on Basayev -

Шами́ль Салма́нович Баса́ев (родился 14 января 1965 года в селе Дышне-Ведено Веденского района Чечено-Ингушской АССР) — один из лидеров чеченских сепаратистов и исламистов, ...

Do you need translation? The article calls him one of the leaders of Chechen Islamists. (Not that one needs a Wikipedia article to know that).

Also, I said that millions of Russians have first-hand knowledge of the conflict (Chechen one), not Beslan massacre. There were more then a million residents in Chechnya before the conflict, hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers were serving in Chechnya throughout the years, then there are millions of people living in close proximity in neighboring republics, dealing with refugies, troops etc. So it makes millions of Rusians to be very involved in the conflict one way or the other.

Look, only in Russia I lived nearly twice as long as you lived in Canada. I do not claim that I know everything or don't have some biases. Still, if I were to learn anything new about that conflict it would not be from 22-year old liberal foreign student from across the world who has never been in the area, doesn't know the language, etc. I also wonder if Wikipedia articles would serve any good if written by poorly informed enthusiasts from distant lands, yet with some political agenda. Igor NJ 08:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why people must say "armed Muslim terrorists". If it was a Christian commiting the crimes for the same reason against Muslims, it would read: "armed terrorists" and the reason will simply be that it was a hate crime.

I'm not trying to bring down Christians, I am just saying that religion shouldn't have to have anything to do with this. And why, for the [only] source for the thought that the terrorists were "Muslims", there is a picture of a naked Brittany Spears and there's also NO other sites claiming that these terrorists were "Muslim"? It seems that nowadays people are doing anything to create religious schisms: including taking sources from "news" websites that at the same time contain pornography. Armyrifle 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't me who has been insisting on the Muslim description. Although I see no problem with as realistically we must realise that religion probably played an important element in their actions. From the initial screams of Allah Akbah when storming the school (and later when executing hostages in the “execution room”) to after when Shamil took responsibility and talked of the martyrs and of heaven and hell, etc. Shamil himself was fighting for an Islamic Kalifat. The Shahidkas, the target (Christians in a Muslim dominated area), the involvement of international Al Qaeda elements, their demands ("From Allah's servant [...] Allahu Akbar"), etc. - many Muslim commentators also reconised that they were Muslim (and that they put a blemish on the name of Islam) Rune X2 13:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Terrorists/Militants

If Shamil basaev is identified as a "terrorist" WITHIN the article, then not using it in the other parts of the article makes absolutely no sense. Also, the articles related to 9/11 claim that those hijackers were terrorists, however this article ignores that fact about the other hostage takers. So, either the 9/11 hijackers are NOT terrorists , just hijackers, or this article has to be changed (which I will do now).

oh, and I did read the Talk archive discussions on this issue, but there was obviously no firm conclusion, just a bunch of people arguing with each other.

So the attackers must be identified as terrorists atleast once in this article per the points stated above, and per Definition of terrorism. "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons."

Was it unlawful? Yes. Was force/violence used? Yes. Was it against people or property? Yes. Was there intention of intimidating or coercing? Yes.

Other definitions from that page may be used as well and they all apply to this case. And please don't say that since Terrorism does not have ONE single definition that it cannot be used in wikipedia. It is used, and the 9/11 article is just a tiny example. --Lenev 20:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said about many atrocities in the world's history, including those committed by certain government-led forces. I would also remind that leaders of some post-Soviet states and Russian republics found comfort in categorizing any opposing manifestants as potential or real terrorists. The word becomes a label and the "tear drop of a child" is passed unnoticed. ilgiz 07:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

None of the 9/11 hijackers are referred to as a "terrorist" in their article, they are "hijackers". The 9/11 article itself is different, if only because it's one that's frequently edited by anonymous users - so there is a grey line, but it's not fair to say we call the 9/11 hijackers "terrorists" since each of them has their own (long, and exhaustive) article. Basayev may or may not be a terrorist, that is irrelevant, the question is whether Nur-Pashi Kulayev and others were, and that's not for us to judge. It's also worth pointing out that 9/11 was enacted for the sole purpose of inflicting pain, Beslan was a hostage situation that turned into a bloodbath on both sides after tense negotiations. That is a difference in motive, on whether their sole goal was to create fear/terror, or whether they simply used it. This article has not agreed to call them "terrorists", and has by consensus referred to them as hostagetakers. , to be honest I don't think I've seen an editor's change to "terrorist" last more than 24 hours...ever. I, and others, revert such changes because when there is no consensus, then we have to err on the side of "caution". I seem to recall a similar argument with somebody over Charles Whitman and whether he was a deranged gunman or a terrorist. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a response to all of your points.

1st, the 9/11 page has been locked for vandalism for quite a while which means that only the "proper" version can be seen. It relates to these people as terrorists several times, I hope I don't have to quote them because it would be much easier for you to just read the article.

What does this mean? This renders your statement that "None of the 9/11 hijackers are referred to as a "terrorist" in their article, they are "hijackers" irrelevant. (aka It's a complete and utter LIE)

sigh, please see Template:9-11 hijackers, that is a listing of all 19, plus the various 20ths, plus some falsely accused. Point out the word "terrorist" being used to identify a single one of them "in their article" as I said. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this issue??? We're talking about the article of the event, not the attackers' personal articles. That link just lists the names of the hijackers. It does not prove anything but their relation to the tragic events of 9/11. But the actual 9/11 article does call them terrorists. Because of that I think that it would be fair to identify the hostage takers of Beslan as also terrorists too.--Lenev 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

"to be honest I don't think I've seen an editor's change to "terrorist" last more than 24 hours...ever.". That is another lie. just go to the 9/11 article now and see for yourself.

I was referring to the Beslan article, if that wasn't obvious Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it wasn't obvious (to me at least).--Lenev 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

2nd, You said "but it's not fair to say we call the 9/11 hijackers "terrorists" since each of them has their own (long, and exhaustive) article." Honestly, I do not see how that is relevant to this issue. First of all you DO call them terrorists in the 9/11 article! And second, what you just said is that since not ALL Beslan terrorists do not have their own wikipedia articles we can't call them terrorists?????? to me that makes no sense at all.

Er, what? I didn't say "since not ALL Beslan terrorists do not have their own wikipedia articles we can't call them terrorists??????" at all...no wonder it doesn't make sense Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

In that case please tell me your exact argument, or rephrase the one quoted above since it does not follow a logical principle. (9/11 hijackers are referred to as terrorists in the 9/11 article. I agree that they do each have a "(long, and exhaustive)" article and that's super, but that's no reason to refuse to call the Beslan attackers what they are - terrorists.)--Lenev 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

3rd, You said "It's also worth pointing out that 9/11 was enacted for the sole purpose of inflicting pain, Beslan was a hostage situation that turned into a bloodbath on both sides after tense negotiations. That is a difference in motive, on whether their sole goal was to create fear/terror, or whether they simply used it." The Sept. 11th attacks' SOLE purpose was to inflict pain???? That sounds very ignorant, since there are always more than two purposes to a terrorist act. However, that is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. But, that doesn't mean it is fact. To do that you have to prove that the Sept. 11th attacks' sole purpose was to inflict pain, and after you do that, you're welcome to use it in your argument.

Welcome to Wikipedia, we try to focus on what's verifiable. It is verifiable that the planned outcome of 9/11 definitely involved killing the victims...in Beslan, that doesn't appear to have been their intention, or else why wait and negotiate for several days? 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You just made a conclusion based on unverifiable info. There's no way to find out what were the exact motives of either terrorist groups. Your point above is arranged rather strangely for a strong argument. For example, you say "or else why wait and negotiate for several days?"

There are many possible answers to that (like, "to increase the tension and sorrow of the victims", or "to buy time to get more media attention.") and not one of them is even close to being 100% certain.--Lenev 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

4th, 9/11 was also a hostage situation but that doesnt mean it's not also a terrorist act, in fact, it most definitely is. "Taking hostages is today considered a crime or a terrorist act;" as per Hostage

There were no hostages on 9/11, there were hijacked flights with the intention of killing everybody aboard. Beslan consisted of a list of demands, 9/11 didn't. Stop trying to say they're the same. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The absence of demands of the 9/11 hijackers does not imply that that's what makes them terrorists. Terrorists may have demands as part of their goal, and there's no reliable source that says the opposite. Therefore, the presence of demands does not exclude the fact that the besland hostage takers were terrorists. I never said "9/11 attacks were the same as the Beslan school siege." I merely pointed out the similarities and the inconsistency of tagging people as terrorists throughout similar (NOT identical) events.--Lenev 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Did I ever say that the Beslan attack was not a hostage taking incident??? If you actually see my edit, you'll find that I only characterized the attackers as terrorists in a few sentences. This tragic event is both a terrorist act and a hostage incident. And you can't have a terrorist act without terrorists???

And 5th, last but not least, you said that there has been a consensus on not calling the attackers terrorists. I have thoroughly studied the Talk archives and did not find such a consensus. Please point me to the voting or arbitration page which CLEARLY shows that the users have voted against the use of the word 'terrorist' to describe the attackers of the Beslan School Number 1.

--Lenev 19:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is seen in the fact that 99% of the time, this article does not include the word terrorist, because it's recognised that it's contested. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying this isn't a terrorist attack, or all those involved aren't terrorists...I'm saying it's contested, and when it's contested, err on the side of NPOV. People on whom there is valid disagreement over the label of "terrorist", we take the professional approach of adopting a more neutral term that describes their crime, in this case, taking hostages. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why we're here,- to improve articles. If an article does not contain something, that's definitely not an argument for the continuation of this state. Every single article on Wikipedia can be contested, depending on WHO is contesting it lol. For example, there are several people who say that Atlantis did exist for sure, but there are many more who say that it didn't. And that situation, in theory, may be applied to any article on Wikipedia.

But, the Atlantis article states that it is mythical and therefore did not exist. You can call that a POV issue. In fact, everything in LIFE may be a conflict of Points of view.

What I'm trying to say is that nothing is 100% certain, and that is no reason (including in Wikipedia's policies) to not use a contested statement in the article.

And another HUGE reason for the inclusion of the word "terrorist" in the description of the Beslan hostage takers is that the Russian Ru, Spanish Es, French Fr, and Serbian Sr versions already do it!. (there may be other language versions, but these are the languages I can understand and contain the words that I can translate.)--Lenev 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There were only 3 participants by the end of the Russian discussion page, ru:Обсуждение:Трагедия Беслана. One of them insisted that the government wasn't to blame for the deadly outcome, so he threw many details out of the article. Not to mention the silencing of the throwback received by the Russian mass media from the government. That dispute became quite personal so I lost any interest in it.

Ok, but what we're discussing here is the use of the word terrorist to describe the hostage takers. I don't see what the level of government involvement has to do with this issue.

The thing is that most other language versions (not just the Russian one) apply the term "terrorist" to describe the attackers, and this is a pure fact that is not open to interpretation.--Lenev 21:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What are the objections to the paragraph on pervasive nature of labels? ilgiz 08:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The article on Terrorism defines that as "acts of violence, or the threat of violence". The taking of a hostage is an act of violence all by itself, and it clearly comes with a threat of more violence. Add the fact that we're talking about the very deliberate taking of children, and it becomes a pretty clear-cut case of terrorism. It doesn't matter if they had hoped to get out of it without killing anyone at the end. They were terrorists from the moment it began.

This wasn't some quick operation where children just happened to be at the school and might be called collateral damage. The terrorists had time enough to release the women and children. They didn't. If these hostage takers can't be called terrorists, then who can?

-- Randy2063 13:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Randy2063. That conclusion seems pretty obvious to me too.--Lenev 21:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

— I hope I wasn't far off the topic, the use of the word "terrorism", when I commented on the poor response to the assault from the government. My intent wasn't to mislead the participants but rather to give another dimension to the discussion. If I stayed within the boundary of the "acts of violence" definition and didn't mention other concerns, I would have suggested applying the term to many current and past events. I do perceive hijackers as terrorists and killers. They did intend to kill hostage men from the very beginning and they killed them. They did threaten the lives of the children and they killed them.

My point is that I don't like the word "terrorism" because it implies an act of blind violence that occured without any visible justification. It is as if an outside evil condescended on citizens ruled by the benevolent government. The picture isn't so black-and-white, and the decisions taken by the government in dealing with the crisis show that the lives of the children weren't a top priority. — ilgiz 02:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but there's a flaw in one of your core assumptions. "Terrorism" may imply "an act of blind violence that occured without any visible justification" to you, however people have varying opinions, and the fact is that that point is not in any of the official definitions. For example, in many people's opinions "terrorism" does not have to consist of "blind violence" or have "visible justification". In fact, the overwhelming majority of terrorist acts are not blind violence since they are almost always carefully planned. "Terrorism" as a term, is also usually used towards acts of violence that have tons of visible justifications in the shape of confessional video tapes or online broadcasts. It's true that there are many questions regarding the government's involvement in the issue, however does the fact that children's lives were possibly (unproven) not the top priority imply that the attackers were not terrorists? Most definitely not.--Lenev 17:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since in Wikipedia we're trying to only use information that has good sources and has been proven, we must use the official definition of "terrorism" in every applicable case. If there are other articles with terminological flaws similar to the ones in this one, anyone is welcome to improve them as well. I appreciate everybody's input on the issue since it shows the numerous opinions from both sides, and it allows me to provide ample information/arguments in support of this change. Please do not think that I am trying to randomly argue, because before even discussing it here I have carefully analyzed all (99%) of the possible legitimate factors that may affect this issue, and have based my decision on the conclusion of this analysis.--Lenev 17:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

— The term "terrorism" was to me an act _without_ justification. Part of your response referred to the opposite opinion. Your understanding is closer to the definitions listed in the Definition of terrorism article.

I still insist that the word is pejorative and that it can be used mutually by opposite groups. This is what the bottom of the definition article about.

Terrorism is after all, a tactic. the term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. (Jason Burke)

— ilgiz 22:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

This is hardly the place to dispute the use of the word Terrorism overall. If you wish to argue over the core issue of the use of the word, you should go to the Talk page for Definition of terrorism and do it there. This discussion takes the definitions of Terrorism and it's uses in Wikipedia as a basic rule. If we ignore that then this will quickly become a personal argument of people with different points of view.--Lenev 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

With your attitude any term in the language is not absolute. That's why when I edited the article there are numerous terms present to describe the attackers (not just one). Terrorist is a legitimate term that is used worldwide and throughout tons of wikipedia articles.--Lenev 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

You cannot dispute this term with your arguments because that would imply the rewritting of hundreds of pages in Wikipedia (ex.2002 Bali terrorist bombing, July 23, 2005 Sharm el-Sheikh attacks. BUT, even before doing that there has to be a legitimate decision made by the whole wikipedia community. Of course, you are free to organize anything in this matter, and that's what you have to do to change this situation.--Lenev 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Definition of terrorism page there are criticisms of the term. However, once again the presence of such criticisms does not imply that they're the law. In fact, those are the views of a few select groups so they should be mentioned and they are (in the Definition of terrorism, but definitely shouldn't be used as absolute rules.--Lenev 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

So, basically if you want to change the use of Terrorism in this article, change the others that use the word Terrorism, because, I apologize, but I do not accept your arguments (the ones stated above) as valid.

The only other way this can be solved is through a vote, however my edits are consistent with all the rules and "regulations" of Wikipedia, so it is up to the opposing side to organize one and even after that it's kinda tricky.--Lenev 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This discussion may get confusing really quickly if we start disputing more and more obvious words. Next thing you know we'll be arguing over the word "expert" or something.

The definitions used in this discussion should be taken as fact. If you don't like that situation try to dispute them on their own pages before coming here and saying they're wrong.--Lenev 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement Needed Citation

It was later revealed that the terrorists had killed twenty adult male hostages and thrown their bodies out of the building that day.[citation needed]

I saw a documentary last night narrated by Julia Roberts in which a video camera being used by one of the terrorists, peeked out a window ledge to the ground, showing the bodies of about 10-20 naked and half-naked men, which would seem to confirm that statement. Although, I'm not sure how I could use the documentary as a source, but it was called Three Days in September. Morhange 20:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have added the neutrality icon because some of the descriptions of Russian actions against the terrorists. They seem to be geared towards justifying this horrific act of terror.

Completely agree with you. This article definitely needs re-wording. --Lenev 21:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to "Hunting down the stragglers" as a heading. This makes the terrorists sound like the victims, and has nothing to do with half of the information under the heading. Also, it seems like whoever wrote the article is trying to blame "the armed fathers of the hostages" fo the incident.

I have removed the neutrality tag, as I think the original concerns have been resolved. However if that is not the case, feel free to reinsert it. Rune X2 09:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Time to move article

This article was started during the event, before the final outcome was known. The name Beslan school hostage crisis might have been appropriate then. Now we all know what happened. It was a massacre. Sure, maybe the Russian government could have handled things differently, but the fact remains that the majority of the vicims died at the hands of terrorists, who had no right to take them hostage in the first place. Had U.S. forces taken 1300 children and parents hostage in a school in Iraq, and the end result was the same, this article would already be titled "Massacre." But I guess when "oppressed" minorities commit this type of violence, there is a tendency to downplay things. A crisis is when a school gets underfunded or starts on fire. A massacre is when armed thugs walk into a building and kill innocent children. See the difference?

Do a google search. Massacre is the most common title other sources give to this incident. The wiki article (or derivatives of it on other sites), plus contemporary accounts before the final outcome was known account for a good number of the sources that can be found call this the "Beslan school hostage crisis." It is time for a change. This needs to be called what it is, The "Beslan Massacre." or "Beslan School Massacre" Give Peace A Chance 20:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As nobody has voiced an objection, I'm moving it. Give Peace A Chance 23:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you cannot move an article just because nobody has replied to your talk page comments within a day of you posting them. I've subsequently moved the page back. The event took place over several days, and included a hostagetaking, issuing demands for specific people to be brought to the school, a standoff, a massacre, crossfire, militants escaping, special forces and civilians hunting them down, there is a lot more than just a massacre, this article is about the entire crisis. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Peace, massacre is the most common term for this action, not crisis. Similiar events such as November 1997 Luxor massacre have similiar titles. Max The Dog 21:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Even ignoring POV issues with "massacre", the term fits Luxor much more closely because the "bad guys" ran into a place and killed as many people as they could, that was it. In Beslan, they actually *took them hostage* and tried to negotiate their demands, the "massacre" itself (regardless of whether the Russian forces were responsible or not) was a very brief incident at the very end of the stand-off. This article is about the entire incident, not just the firefight on the last day. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 11:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sherurcij's arguments are a joke. Why is it that only he cannot see that this event was a massacre? Could it be anymore obvious that Sherurcij prefers 'crisis' to 'massacre' because it doesn't make the terrorists look as bad? Sherurcij's pro-terrorist sympathies are guiding his arguments. Sherurcij clearly does not have a neutral POV.

YOu mean now that it's clear that the Security Forces likely started the bloodbath on their own? This was a hostagetaking that went terribly wrong - we don't know whose fault it is that things exploded, and we know equal amounts of innocents were hit by Russian bullets as were hit by the hostagetakers...this isn't the definition of a massacre, it's the definition of a crisis. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

citation needed

I have changed the following phrase,

'Around 13:04 on September 3, 2004, the hostage-takers agreed to allow medical workers to remove bodies from the school grounds. When FSB officers instead began to approach the school the hostage-takers opened fire, and two large explosions were heard.'

with

'Around 13:04 on September 3, 2004, the hostage-takers agreed to allow medical workers to remove bodies from the school grounds. When the medical workers began to approach the school the hostage-takers opened fire, and two large explosions were heard.'

Both on the Dutch and German page and in the sources I have read no notion is made of FSB officers. If there is a proper citation it can be changed back.

Just a note

I know we've argued the terrorist/militant/hostagetaker angle to death, and I really hate to bring it up again - but I just want to point out that the difference is that the 9/11 hijackers took hostages expressly to use them to kill thousands of others - the hostagetaking on the planes was just a collateral neccessity, to carry out their plans of "flying planes into buildings". Here however, the opposite is true, schoolchildren were taken hostage for the purpose of having Chechen demands answered - they may've been unreasonable demands, and it was certainly the 'wrong' way to negotiate, but they took hostages for the same reason as a bank robber - to use as a bargaining chip to get what they wanted. Just because one wanted "Russian forces out of Chechnya" and the other wanted "$60,000 and a helicopter flight to Cuba", they're still similar actions.

Google "hostage + school", (minus "Russia" and "Beslan"), and see what you get. Gunman Takes Children Hostage at Arizona Elementary School, The hostages--who include school children, teachers and a priest--were seized from two schools on March 20. The rebels subsequently released 20 hostages in exchange for food and medicine, A three-year-old boy from Canada died when police stormed the Siem Reap International School after it was seized by masked gunmen, A gunman took several hostages today at a school in Waiblingenpolice commandos have freed six girls and shot dead an armed man, ending a two-day hostage crisis at a nursery school in Paris, and perhaps the most similar, Six gunmen who had storm into the International School of New York in Siem Reap, took 70 children hostage.

Now it would certainly look odd and alarmist in any of those headlines if we replaced "hostage-taker", "militant" or "rebel" with "terrorist" - so what exactly is the difference? An armed group takes as many schoolchildren hostage as it can, and begins announcing its demands, when they are not met, police become involved, and ultimately the children are killed. Yet only in Beslan do we call them terrorists.

Personally, I'm in favour of an RfC, or poll, to see whether the broad WP community (not just us dozen editors) would rather see hostagetaker, militant or terrorist used. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Their actions clearly fits them as terrorists by any meaningful definition of that word. World media generally refer to them as terrorists. They self-identify as terrorists. Muslim learned generally denounce them as terrorists. Even the Mufti of Chechnya denounce and refers to them as "terrorist-criminals" who have "once again shown their beastly face". Are there actually anyone at all, besides a few extremist groups, who don't consider them terrorists? It would NPOV for Wikipedia to try to pass them off for anything else than terrorists. Rune X2 13:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You completely failed to notice me asking you to differentiate between them and the many other "gunmen" who take schoolchildren hostages, and then kill them...by responding that "any meaningful definition of the word" which is something of a non sequitor. And no, none of the hostage-takers self-identified as a "terrorist", despite what you say. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Their goal is doubtful. According to some accounts, Shamil Besayev apparently meant for it to be the attack that started a general war in the region. An attack so terrible, no other outcome could be possible. Ie. that the hostage taking and subsequent negotiating was never the primary reason.

It's also worth noting that the UN designates Basayev as a terrorist. As does the United States. I believe (but will have to look up to be sure) that the UN, after Russia called for an emergency session at the security concil, also called the Besland murder a terrorist attack. Rune X2 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

UN calls the Beslan slaughter “terrorism”:

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said that the brutal and senseless slaughter"of children only served to emphasise the need for the world community to come together in confronting terrorism. "Even without what happened in Beslan, we are all aware of the terrible toll terrorism has taken on people and nations around the world, and the need for the international community of nations to come together and work to confront this phenomenon. What happened in Russia underscores that point even more."

The EU calls the Beslan slaughter “terrorism”:

The European Commission issued a statement this week expressing its shock and deep sadness at the news of the deaths of the Beslan hostages in Northern Ossetia. "Killing of these innocent people is an evil, despicable act of barbarism," said Romano Prodi, President of the Commission. "The fact that many of them appear to have been young children murdered in cold blood is simply horrible."

The Commission reiterated its condemnation of all forms of terrorism fully and unconditionally and said that it regretted that the crisis could not have been solved peacefully; however, it acknowledged that blame could not be put on anyone but those who committed what it called 'this heinous crime.' “I would like to express my deepest and sincerest condolences to the families of the victims who will have to live with the memory of this horrible day. The fight against terrorism is a common cause to all peace-loving peoples and governments of the world," said Mr Prodi.

if the Mufti of Chechnya can call it terrorism. The UN can call it terrorism, the EU can call it terrorism, the US can call it terrorism. I think we'll be on fairly safe ground at Wikipedia by referring it as terrorism too, don't you think. Rune X2 14:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

"Islamic"..?

I've read this talk page, and i've gotta ask.. What does their religion have to do with this? I'll be the first to admit that the Islamic faith has recieved a good deal of stigma and assosciation with terrorism and extremists, but in this case its irelevant. NEVER was this motivated by faith, never did the hostage takers say this was because of their Islamic beliefes, and never did they kill people for Allah. Instead, they did it for their own reasons, and trying to say its because of their faith makes as much sense as saying Timothy McVae carried out the Oklahoma City bombings because of Christianity.

There's been more then a few instances of Islamic faith being perverted into a reason for terrorism, but this isn't one of them. Mr.Bluegrime 04:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the word “islamic” is not mentioned a single time. “muslim” is only mentioned by Shamil Basayev in his demands to Putin. So I'd say the article already bypass and tones out this angle. What passages in particular is it you object to? That said, the extend to which Islam played a part is debatable. Reportedly, the the first words of the terrorists was: “Allah Akbar” when they the first day stormed the school. Vidoes from immediately before the action at Beslan, shows several of the terrorists, including the leader, talking about Islam and how they long to become martyrs. Several of the terrorists were observed in deep prayers throughout the terrorist actions. Tapes of Islamc sermons were found at the scene. etc. etc. The victims were mainly Christians in a small Christian enclave, the terrorists Muslim. This is Shamil Besayev's message to Russia after the Beslan massacra: “Praise Allah, we are dreaming of dying in jihad, we are dreaming of dying on the way of Allah, so that we could earn paradise and mercy of Allah.”

Claiming it was NEVER motivated by faith is something I find hard to believe with the available evidence. Rune X2 05:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

it was clearly motivated by religion, muslims always kill non-muslims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.49.1 (talk • contribs)

Sherurcij/RuneX2 disagreements

Look Sherurcij, you seem to have some serious problems with this whole cooperating and sharing thing, which is at the heart of Wikipedia. You can look up how Wikipedia works in the help pages. This article is not yours, and you do not delete large parts of others contributors work, without first debating it in the debating pages. This is the third time you have tried that. I suggest it will be the last.

Now if you have some problems with some of my additions, I’ll be more than happy to discuss them, and try to edit them so we all can be happy. But this willy-nilly deletion of yours of passages I have put much work into, is not how it works. Again, you do not own the article, so stop behaving like it. Rune X2 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I make no claim to owning the article, the only claim I make is that I will not watch people use it to push their agenda towards either direction, we are to list the facts of the event, not that "screams were terrible". Your edits are pushing a very clear boundary of POV, and removing information about the school's history is vandalism and trying to whitewash history. I don't "delete large parts of the article", I remove vandalism and POV-pushing as soon as it appears, there is a difference. When you came across the article a week ago, it was at a certain level that editors were happy with, there were niggling discrepencies and disagreements, but in general, we had written an article that took no sides. Then you came in with your own POV, and started insisting that it should be treated as sacred, as though it was the efforts of two years of editing and compromising when really no, it was just your own POV. Yes, your writing is important, but no, it is not afforded the same luxury of debating its insertion for a month before removal if it clearly crosses POV lines.

I've worked on this article for a year now, as have other editors with whom I co-operate fine with, and respect despite our disagreements. But your writing isn't even trying to be neutral or factual, you removed At trial, some claimed that there had indeed been sexual assaults to replace it with However sexual impropriety did take place in the form of rape of several of the young children and adolescent girls, whose cries and screams were heard echo through the school., do you see the problem? Things you write like the parents started to fear they would start to die aren't based on fact, they're assumptions of what people were feeling. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a diary, people's personal opinions and feelings have no place here. You moved the page itself to "Beslan Massacre" without any consensus whatsoever, and when you were rebuked, you vandalised the Category listings, inserting "Beslan Massacre" as the title of the article, which it is not. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel my edits are pushing a "boundary of POV", again I’ll be happy to discuss it and help make changes so they're more to everybodys likeing. What is simply not the Wiki-way is to delete other peoples work with such complete disregard as you have shown a history of this last few days.

Re. moving the article to "Beslan Massacre" and my supposed rebuke.

You seem to confuse me with someone else, as I have not tried to move the article to another name. Lets try to make an effort shall we.

Re. category listing.

Come on. I added some categories, and accidentally made the wrong heading. You really are grasping for straws. And you’ll notice I did not revert your changing of those.

Are there any specific passages you want to talk about?

"However sexual impropriety did take place in the form of rape" - I have now, after having talking about it here, inserted conditions in the sentence. Perhaps you’re more happy with it now? However I think it’s important to note that according to several witnesses, as per the cites, rapes of the children might very well have taken place.

"the parents started to fear they would start to die"

Is a near direct quote from a parent, as shown in the accompanying cite. How you write it off as an irrelevant “mere feeling” you’ll have to explain, as I read it more as an evaluation. An even was it just a complete unbased feeling, it still goes to show what kind of conditions existed in the gym. Rune X2 18:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Re. the school's history

1) In what way do you think it’s relevant? As far as I know, it had absolutely no bearing on the terrorists decision to attack that school and not another one. Do you have a cite from before or during the attack to suggest otherwise.

2) The site you refer to is highly suspect. In no way can it be said to even attempting to be neutral. It would be like citing an Al Queda internet site on the 9/11 article. Really it should be backed up with at least a more respectable cite. Rune X2 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

(ps. you ought not edit in your already send messages, as it destroys the flow of the talks Rune X2 18:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC))

First, I apologise for confusing you with the other user, I should have double-checked the page history on that issue. However, I'm quite right in editing my own comments, assuming that nobody has yet responded to them, which they hadn't.

In 1992, SNO had served as an informal detention centre during the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, when unknown Ossetian militants used it to detain people of Ingush race, resulting in several being killed.[1] is relevant information that indicates why the school may have been chosen, why you have deleted it is only to push your own POV

At first the terrorists pretended to be Russians, and tried to lure the children playing in the school playground inside the school with sweets and chocolate bars., for starters the article makes no mention of sweets, you've added that fictitious detail yourself, also it says that a teacher at the school believed they were Russians because they were wearing camaflouge and driving a truck, so it's fine to say she mistook them for Russians, but you might not want to claim that they were actually pretending to be Russians based solely on the confusion of a single teacher.

the terrorists stripped the hostages of all valuables would need to be sourced

Immediately as the terrorists felt they had control of the situation they set about killing the strongest of their hostages. is gratuitous use of the word terrorist, and pure conjection with no basis in fact. Simply because 20 male bodies were found, doesn't mean it had anything to do with who was strongest, nor that it had anything to do with "once they felt like they were in control", you weren't inside their minds, you don't know what they were feeling or thinking.

The terrorists forced other hostages to throw their bodies out of the building and set some children to wash the blood off the floor. is gratuitous use of the word terrorist, and would need to be sourced anyways.

On day two, many of the young children started to succumb to the effects of neglect after having being denied any form of food and water and often forced to stand up for long periods in the tightly packed and hot gym. Many fainted, the parents started to fear they would start to die. is suited to a novel, not to an encyclopedia. We already mention they were denied food and water, any further illustration is unnecessary

poured water on their heads before throwing them back in. is POV, one could just as easily claim "Before leading them gently back into the school gym", rather than "throwing them back in" - neither would be a fair statement.

When the bombs started to go off, many of the surviving children were so fatigued they were barely able to flee away from carnage. has nothing to do with September 2nd, but could be moved to the proper place

rape of several of the young children and adolescent girls, whose cries and screams according to some survivors could be heard echo through the school. is based on the testimony of children, which contradicts the testimony of their parents, so it should probably say something about "may have", rather than stating it as absolute fact, but it is also nevertheless illustrative, their "screams echoing" is not factual, it's speculative and immersive, it's good story-telling, it's not encyclopaedic.

About a dozen of those mothers released were allowed by the terrorists to take only one child and forced to leave behind other children (a number of which were killed). is just repeating what has already been said, that the mothers were only allowed to take their nursing infants, repeating something ad nauseum to drill it into reader's heads is poor article-writing, unless you are trying to write persuasively. Hint: You shouldn't be.

When the terrorists realised they were being stormed, they started to deliberately murder the hostages, making no distinction between men and women or adults and children. Many children were shot in the back. One 18-month-old baby was found to have been repeatedly stabbed by a black-clad terrorist who had run out of ammunition. is a travesty, to be frank. You start with the word terrorist, you then use "deliberately murder" as though there was any other type, no, you just used a superlative to try and be POV. You fail to mention that many of those found shot in the back were not children, or that many died in crossfire, it was a bloodbath, but it wasn't execution-style slayings. Then finally, you repeat ad nauseum a blatant journalistic lie...one can find a baby with stabmarks in the aftermath, I doubt one can determine from the baby's wounds that the killer was wearing black (almost none of the hostagetakers were black-clad anyways, look at the videos and photos), or that he had run out of ammunition. That's pure speculation, again, fine storytelling, bad encyclopaedic writing.

We don't need quotes from 15 different world leaders all repeating one another, it is sufficient to say that Israel and the US both offered any support neccessary, and all world leaders seemed to be agreed that the actions were reprehensible.

In addition, you also edited in the word "terrorist" 11 times. Cheers, Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 18:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"is relevant information that indicates why the school may have been chosen, why you have deleted it is only to push your own POV"

- Read above. It is based on highly suspect sources. And has little relevance in any case.

"it first the terrorists pretended to be Russians, and tried to lure the children playing in the school playground inside the school with sweets and chocolate bars., for starters the article makes no mention of sweets"

- Actually I got that (“sweets”) from piecing two different accounts together. But you’re correct that the cited article does not mention it. Of course I’d say chocolate bars are a form of sweets. But it’s not like it’s a point I find important, so it can be deleted with no objections from me. I made some changes, see if you like it better now.

“is gratuitous use of the word terrorist, and pure conjection with no basis in fact. Simply because 20 male bodies were found, doesn't mean it had anything to do with who was strongest, nor that it had anything to do with "once they felt like they were in control", you weren't inside their minds, you don't know what they were feeling or thinking.”

- Nothing gratuitous about using the word terrorists. The article itself states (and not by me), that it is a terrorist attack. Terrorist attacks are done by terrorists. That the killed males were selected from them being strongest is no speculation of mine, it comes from a direct source. If it’s not the one cited, I’ll see if I can dig it up.

“is gratuitous use of the word terrorist, and would need to be sourced anyways.”

- “terrorist” read above. I’ll dig up the cite, if it’s not already there.

”We already mention they were denied food and water, any further illustration is unnecessary”

- It’s necessary to explain why the children were starting to faint at this point.

“is POV, one could just as easily claim "Before leading them gently back into the school gym", rather than "throwing them back in" - neither would be a fair statement.”

- Perhaps. I admit to being lazy and taking the phrasing from the cite. I also try to keep as much as possible to the cite not to be accused of making things up. But it could be rephrased. I made some changes, see if you like it better now.

“has nothing to do with September 2nd, but could be moved to the proper place”

- Yes. I put it in there, since it fitted in the flow of the article. But it could be moved.

“is based on the testimony of children, which contradicts the testimony of their parents, so it should probably say something about "may have", rather than stating it as absolute fact, but it is also nevertheless illustrative, their "screams echoing" is not factual

- I already made changes to the article with regard to the “may have”. As for the “screams echoing”, from the cite. Again I try to keep as close to the cite as possible.

“is just repeating what has already been said, that the mothers were only allowed to take their nursing infants”

- I think it’s important to understanding what took place at Beslan, that many mothers were forced to choose between their children and leave children behind – some of which died. This is not repeating, it’s giving details so the readers can better understand what happened.

“You start with the word terrorist, you then use "deliberately murder" as though there was any other type, no, you just used a superlative to try and be POV.“

- “terrorist” read above. "deliberately murder" can be phrased otherwise. The important point was that they precisely were not killed in an accident or in cross-fire, but that they were deliberately targeted. Many adults were also shot, yes it could be given more detail.

“one can find a baby with stabmarks in the aftermath, I doubt one can determine from the baby's wounds that the killer was wearing black (almost none of the hostagetakers were black-clad anyways, look at the videos and photos), or that he had run out of ammunition. That's pure speculation, again, fine storytelling, bad encyclopaedic writing.”

- No actually it’s taking the source serious, as that was a more or less direct quote from the source following it. How the journalist came about that information, I have not speculated about. Perhaps somebody saw it, perhaps it should be edited out of the article. I made some changes, see if you like it better now.

"We don't need quotes from 15 different world leaders all repeating one another, it is sufficient to say that Israel and the US"

- Well it can be edited down I suppose, though I find the words of the Kofi Annan (UN), Romandi Prodi (EU) and Bush (US) to be the three imporant voices to single out - and not espicially Israel.

"In addition, you also edited in the word "terrorist" 11 times."

- Don't rightly know what you mean. I don't think I changed any parts of the existing article at all to the word "terrorist". But it is true, I've used it in the additions. Rune X2 19:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time at the moment, so just a quick note - I think the "fair compromise" that seemed to draw the least criticism, was to refer to the event as a terrorist hostagetaking, but not to the individuals as "terrorists" whenever they're mentioned. (ie, use "The gunman led the children...", not "The terrorist led the children..."). I agree with you that Bush, Annan and Prodi would be the three most important accounts to keep, and don't be too paranoid about "following the wording of the source", since one could also argue it borders closer to plagarism, the information is not copyrighted, but the wording is, so don't hesitate to rewrite the information contained in a source, as long as the facts remain the same. If you don't mind, I've tweaked the subject title of this talk page just to appear more amicable. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

the following lines have been added multiple times:

In 1992, SNO had served as an informal detention centre during the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, when unknown Ossetian militants used it to detain people of Ingush race, resulting in several being killed.[1]

the source that is used is highly controversial, if you take a look at the website you can see that it tries to do everything to justify this hostagetaking. I have seen no other source claiming that it was used for detention. I will delete it when it is added again.

Beslan school siege/Archive 3 removed from Wikipedia:Good articles

Beslan school siege/Archive 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there are 9 citation needed tags so it's not adequately referenced. It's also got many examples of poor writing, such as Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev took responsibility for the hostage taking, reportedly led by his principal Ingush deputy Magomet Yevloyev in the intro, and A Russian tradition, "First September" , also known as "Day of Knowledge", sees children accompanied by parents and other relatives, attend ceremonies hosted by their school from the very first paragraph. Also, the article appears not to be stable, having been edited 50 times in the last 5 days, changing quite significantly as a result. Worldtraveller 10:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree with its delisting, and while I don't wish to 'cast blame', I do believe that in the past month the article has been twisted into a largely POV work and is now using clearly non-illustrative Associated Press "artistic" photographs unfairly and illegally, is written poorly as though attempting to be a novella and does not keep its focus, instead wandering off into discussions of Shamil Basayev's personal politics and such. If there is no sense of disagreement (and perhaps some volunteers to help out with a User:Sherurcij/Beslan school hostage crisis/sandbox attempt), I'd love to compare this article to its state back on July 11th, pick out what has been improved, then revert back to the old version, but adding the (likely many) improvements, and culling the rest. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 13:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A month ago there were 7 citations needed – as well as 5-6 that popped up over the next couple of weeks – now there's 3. The examples of bad phrasing both predates the recent changes, one has now been changed for the better. That the article is undergoing changes is a fact – largely because changes were direly needed, with this in mind removing it from Good articles is perfectly ok, until it reaches a more stable state.

The AP photographs are no more “artistic” or “unfair” or “illegal” than any other photographs that exist on like articles, e.g. 7/7, 9/11, etc. The article clearly needed a paragraph on the motives of the attack, the sectioning largely taken from the 9/11 article. And all in all, one most conclude that the article is now, while far from perfect and still in need of many improvements, a lot better and less POV (where it before for example used kavkazcenter as cite in the introduction), that before the recent bouts of improvements. You are of course perfectly welcome to also add your own edits, but they will be as continuing the current article and not branching off into several different sub-project on the same topic. Rune X2 14:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you'll notice the 9/11 article doesn't have "Here is an artistic photograph of a silhouetted figure standing against the sunset praying" or anything. You can have fair use images of the attack, of the attackers, you can't have poignant flashback artsy images like a girl's hand wrapped around a Cross necklace. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with any one photograph in particular, then say so, instead of claiming the whole lot is illegal and unfair. I consider the photo with the girl in the hospital taken immediately after her release (the “antsy and flashback” stuff, is your own interpretation not supported by the realities of the photo), illustrating the section on the Casualties, to be iconic of the event, much like the photo of the “Falling Man” were of the 9/11 attack, probably the most widespread of all photographs to do with Beslan, and any article on Beslan would be incomplete without it. On the other hand I do see a number of “antsy” photograph on 9/11 – e.g. “Collection of photographs of those killed” + a number of others on the same page – all much more so, than any from this article. Rune X2 15:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Responsibily for the Beslan school hostage crisis

The article is 56 kilobytes long. So to shorten it a bit I propose moving the list of attackers to a sub-article: Responsibily for the Beslan school hostage crisis Rune X2 14:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

56 kilobytes is not that bad. If it would be 150kb I would agree. --Deenoe 15:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes well. The Wikipedia guidelines has no mention of 150kb. However for 50kb it has this:

“> 50 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)”

Not binding of course. But if anything is to be moved, it seems to me that the list of responsible is a straightforward section to move to a subsection. Well lets see if anybody else has some input. Rune X2 15:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding allegation of sexual impropriety

There are two cites, and two eye witnesses who claim it did take places, however the case is disputed, so it should not be stated as a fact. But of course it should be included that some survivors “allege” it happed. Simply to claim that it is “UNTRUE” is not a serious argument (and I note that you gladly include cites to obvious Jihadist underground sites like kavcenter, but not UK newspaper). In any case there are another cite beyond the one you dislike. Don’t delete section before a consensus has been reached here. Rune X2 11:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's NOT a "UK newspaper." It's UK a notorious (fake Iraq abuse photos!) UK tabloid. Look, The Daily Mirror. Citing Wikipedia: "In its traditional sense, tabloids tend to emphasise sensational stories and are reportedly prone to create their news if they feel that the subjects cannot, or will not, sue for libel. In this respect, much of the content of the tabloid press could be said to fall into the category of junk food news." The claim is untrue, totally, absolutelly, and it goes out. --HanzoHattori 12:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be of the misunderstanding that if you state something as true, without anything but your insistence, it is naturally so. And you seem to completely refuse to acknowledge that there are two cites. There’s no doubt that a number of hostages though some of the girls were raped, and the article must reflect this. I’m afraid it’ll stay. At least until we get some kind of argument from you besides the “I say so” kind, and preferable some input from some other wikipedians and some kind of consensus. Rune X2 12:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the TOTALLY FAKE "Iraq abuse" photos should be cited too, in Abu Ghraib article, as a real events - look it was in "an UK paper" (notorious tabloid)? No, this is just laughable. The sensationalist news of "rapes" were totally unfounded - go and see ANY of the serious Beslan analyses, summary reports, books or movies, there were lots of these. Heck, even the official government story, or the Kulayev trial reports. Now, from the REAL AND IMPORTANT things: the terrorists shot two tapes (no, not a kiddy pr0n). One, which was founded long time later in wreckage by a local(!), is quite famous. The other was sent outside and adressed to Putin; it was officially claimed "blank" by the government, but there they recorded their demands. Overally, there was much more of mediation than the "Roshal" debacle, or even the entry of Aushev. And many, many other things. --HanzoHattori 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Notorious British tabloid as a source? PLEASE

Pravda should not be cited too - it's nearing the World News Weekly, especially in article titles and headers (total sensationalism).

Vodka and plants

Why don’t you read the cites before stating something as "VERY impropable". The vodka report is right testified by one of the survivors Beslan Children Testify: http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?action_id=2&story_id=15341 Likewise the story on eating plants and flowers are widely reported. That you haven't heard of it before is no reason to delete it. They are needed, like them drinking urine, to given an impression of what was taken place in the room. The one with the bayonet, is also cited there. But I let it go as it seems to have only one source. Rune X2 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Flashnews: fundamentalist Muslims don't drink vodka (unless stories of some of hostages who claimed there were "smoking Slavs" who had dissapeared before day3 were true). If you remember the Moscow siege, they "found" a strangely erect bottle of cologne next to bloodied body of Barayev, and showed it on TV. Idiotic propaganda, but quite usual in Russia (like the claims a Kuwaiti "al-Qaeda man" had a male Chechen lover - it was even on wiki, complete with the MVD website link). Later, they channged their version - one of commandos blaced the bottle on Barayev "as a joke". It's very, very typical. Are you sure this boy is even real? The only hostage executed in gym was a man on the morning of day one. His name was Ruslan Betrozov - see? --HanzoHattori 13:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well I suppose some of them weren’t so fundamentalist then. In any case, the whole Islamic angle has been downplayed throughout the article. Do you suggest we focus more on the Islamic angle? So you believe the FSU forced the boy to tell about the vodka? Personally I find it unlikely, but in any case, we don’t have to speculate too much on it, as the article merely states that "one boy said …" – then the reader can make up his own mind weather he considers it trustworthy. But perhaps you want to guard it more, by adding the claim seems to run counter the the attackers Islamic religion? Rune X2 13:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many more logic problems. For starters, did you ever drink vodka? Do you think it makes people less thirsty? Going next, how about this thing with the kids digging it up from a terrorist's backpack - what else they were doing, playing with their captors' guns? The story is just plain stupid. I wouldn't be surprisided if one who invented this was drinking heavily himself. --HanzoHattori 16:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Making this article better

Instead of sheer idiocy in style of "eating plants" or unfounded sensationalist rumours of bayonetted childred etc, how about some REAL actual events? How about, for example, detailing real executions? We have two survivors and their stories, one of which cheated death three times (the accidental blast - which is mentioned only later, shootings, and then they let him live upon discovering still alive). Or the former army sapper guy who had disconnected a major bomb (and so it didn't explode). Or the story of woman who was proposed to take the unexploded belt of one of females. Lots of stuff, not a stupid stories of "people eating uneatable flowers" (try yourself - what, can't you?). Or just leave as it is, only "most important things" with not going into details (especially if much of what happened on day 3 is still uncertain, because of chaos and lies). --HanzoHattori 12:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The "idiocy" of "eating plants" is widely reported (and cited – read them!) and not really a controversial issue at all (except by you for some reason) – and not I’d prefer not to myself, like I‘d prefer not to drink "undrinkable" urine, etc. The paragraph is needed, just as the urine fact, as background information on the conditions inside the gym. But I agree the article in many ways seems unstructured and forced into an existing mould that perhaps is not ideally for the subject, and overall could do for some better organisation. The guy (from the Esquire article) who cheated death? Sure if you can work it in it would be a nice addition, though I don’t necessary see how it adds anything general to understanding the incident – same with the woman who (according to same article) was propose to act as Shahika in exchange for releasing her family, if you can work it in good idea. Rune X2 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The urine is drinkable alright (in small amounts). And yes, drinking one's urine is common in extreme situations (and also widely reported in Beslan - because this happened). On the other hands, flowers are radically different. Do you often hear about starving people in wild, for example, eating random flowers to survive? Of course not, they look for a strawberries or bugs and slugs, etc. Just a little logic, is this that hard? The "lucky" man was Karen Mdinaradze, and the one who escaped was Aslan Kudzayev. But I'm leaving this article as it is since now, in part because of your obstructions. Maybe one important thing - the very same school was a concentraton/hostage camp for the Ingush during the 1992 ethnic conflict (it was even reported in official Russian media at the time, when an Ossetian militia stopped a federal detachment from reaching the site). Several hundred Ingush are still "missing" from this conflict (and tens of thousands remain refugees, which is a huge number there). No idea if they chose it because of it or by chance, I think they gave no indication they knew. --HanzoHattori 13:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Possibly #1 wrong thing with this article

It's very misleading on one aspect. Somebody worked hard (with a Russian and UK tabloids and some wild rumors not repeated anymore) to change an Islamist/Nationalist terrorist group into a band of vodka-drinking, drug-addicted robbers-pedophiles who lure children with sweets to molest them, at least when they're not busy bayonetting them or repeatedly stabbing them with knives. Which is wrong and completely false, to the extent it's even nowhere in the official government versions (which are conflicting each other on many other accounts, btw), but for whatever reasons it's creating this certain image anyway.

Also for the drugs (no, not "withdrawal"), they were reportedly using the Russian combat drug, known as VIL, "used only by the GRU" (oh, not anymore). Thanks to this some still fought, despite receiving multiple and even an otherwise fatal wounds. (Or an "American drug" according to Torshin the clown: We suspect that this was a combat narcotic, invented by the Americans as early as 1943. By the way, the use of this narcotic in Beslan is one more reason to assume the possible participation of foreign special services in preparation for that act of terror. He and the "unflamable flamethrowers" Shepel, they should team-up for their own TV show.)

I don't even know about the rest of the article, because I honestly just gave up. One thing for sure, it's fairly bad constructed. But the children-molestation-by-addicts thing for start is just too much. {{User:HanzoHattori]]

It's upsetting to hear that you also "gave up", since I pretty much "gave up" trying to hold this article together when RuneX2 started making rather...'drastic' changes. I promised myself I'd wait till he had run out of steam, and then bring consensus to get rid of a lot of his stuff, but obviously it's still ongoing months later. The article used to have the potential to look for Featured status, but nowadays it reads like a single editor's work, rather than a neutral collaboration of consensus. As you said, reading the entire article once-through, you get a pretty odd picture of the incident, if you knew nothing about it already. You could walk away not knowing they were Chechyans, but never forgetting that they raped little girls...which is itself doubtful at best. Unlike the problems that arose with 9/11 and stuff though, I can't really picture a alternate Beslan theories article, I mean, everything is alternate, there's not even an official "government" version - there's a lot of ill-founded media hype, and even more "Putin is a crazy mofo who just shoots anyone and everyone" or "Islamic bastards with no respect for human life" propaganda. I'd really love to see three or four active Wikipedians sit down and hash out the article, possibly even over IRC one afternoon, to help it become more neutral, and decide what is/isn't relevant. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I found this article to be poorly constructed too. It's quite hypocritical that when millions of Russians have died before, nobody actually paid attention.. but in this war on terror, everyone jumped with condolences and turned a blind eye to Russian breach of human rights in Chechnya and elsewhere. Sheer hypocrisy.

Hostage-Taker???

Ok that last comment is probably the embodiment of stupidity. How can you rationalize w/ someone who equates killing 340+ civillians (including 186 children) w/ the "Russian breach of human rights in Chechnya?" Chechnya is the size of Connecticut. It should have been blown off the map a long time ago.

Moving forward, what the heck is a "hostage-taker?" Can we NOT say terrorist? Terrorist: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion Hostage-taker: not in the dictionary. Any thoughts? This article needs to be deleted & re-written!

Hostage-taker / terrorist again again. I have reverted a number of "terrorist" -> "hostage-taker" changes by Sherurcij. The incident has widely been accepted as a terrorist attack (by the UN, Russia, EU, US, Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, South Africa, etc.) which makes terrorist the correct description of the people who perpetrated it. The mastermind even described himself as a terrorist. In addition we can take the 9/11 article as a template on usage being one of the most deeply edited articles on Wikipedia, and this article describes the 9/11 perpetrators as terrorists. Just because there are fewer Russian minded than US minded editors we shouldn't accept a different yardstick here. Rune X2 09:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Savelev report (the most probable version of the events of September 3)

A report entitled Beslan: The Hostages' Truth compiled by Yuriy Savelev, a State Duma deputy and member of the parliamentary commission investigating the terrorist attack, was published today on the Pravda Beslana (Beslan's Truth) web site [2]. This report, the "special opinion" which other investigators did not agree with, is practically the only voice of reason on the parliamentary commission, as the official version of events directly contradicts not only the evidence of the hostages and witnesses, but even the laws of physics and explosives.

Yuriy Petrovich Savelev is a doctor of technical sciences, a highly qualified expert on the physics of combustion and explosions, a professor and former rector of St Petersburg's Institute of Military Mechanics, the only specialist of his kind on the commission.

In May-June this year Savelev familiarised other members of the parliamentary commission and a range of experts with his report. Making practically no substantial objections, they described his conclusions as "deliberate falsification of the data" and "speculation". The chairman of the commission, A. Torshin, accused Savelev of "playing political games". The reaction to the report can be easily explained: Savelev not only completely destroys the official version of the terrorist attack in Beslan (the version of the Prosecutor's Office which was repeated by A. Torshin in his December 2005 report), but also proves the terrible truth: the hostages died not through the fault of the terrorists, but through the fault of the HQ's actions. Not simply the actions but the criminal order given by one of the HQ's FSB generals.

Yuriy Savelev's report is voluminous, packed with evidence, calculations, formulas and photographic proof. The author pays a lot of attention to the testimonies of the surviving hostages, witnesses and eyewitnesses. These testimonies were given in open court during the trial of Nurpashi Kulayev at the Supreme Court of the Republic of North Ossetia-Alania. Stenographic records of the trial, which were published quickly on the www.pravdabeslana.ru web site, allowed any interested party to delve into the circumstances of events in Beslan. The details repeated by the former hostages provided material to understand the events of 1-3 September 2004 and especially the events that set in motion the storming of the school on 3 September. Moreover, Savelev based his report on the large archive of photographic and video material from the scene of the tragedy which was put together with the help of reporters who worked in Beslan. It is not easy to paraphrase the report either in terms of its scope or its base of scientific evidence, so I will restrict myself in this article to just the main conclusions.

The first part of the report is devoted to the circumstances surrounding the explosions in the school sports hall, which were heard after 13.00 on 3 September 2004 and after which the "enforced storming" began. The official version runs: "The unidentified terrorists activated explosive devices rigged up in the school sports hall." The investigation proceeded from this version, conducting expert analyses in explosives and fires. Savelev pays a great deal of attention in his report to criticism of these analyses. Taking as a basis the repeated evidence of the hostages, the investigation of the nature and timing of the destruction in the sports hall, the used casings from single-shot weapons, which were found by local residents and handed in to the prosecutor's office, and photographic records and using formulas to calculate the strength of the explosions, the author of the report draws his conclusions. The first explosion in the sports hall, packed with weak hostages, was the result of a shot from an RPO-A (rocket- propelled infantry flame-thrower with a thermobaric action, in other words a Shmel flame-thrower) from the five-storey House No 37 in School Lane. The shot was fired at 13.03 into the northeast corner of the attic space of the sports hall, which adjoins the gym. As the FSB did not reply to the official enquiry of the parliamentary commission, the author admits that in this case an RPO-A might not have been used, but a TBG-7V grenade (RPG-7V1 grenade thrower), RShG- 2 (rocket-propelled assault grenade) or an MPO-A (although at that time this type of weapon might not yet have been in the armoury of the Russian Federation FSB's special centre). As the shot was made by a thermobaric grenade with a simplified charge, then it is likely that a weapon of the types mentioned with similar specifications was used.

The second explosion in the sports hall, which was heard 22 seconds later, was caused by a high explosive splinter grenade, with an equivalent of 6.1 kg of TNT, fired from an RShG-1 grenade thrower in the five-storey House No 41 in School Lane. The shot destroyed the wall beneath the northern window's sill, close to the western wall of the sports hall.

It is important to note that a significant number of the explosive devices rigged up by the fighters in the sports hall did not explode, while some of them did explode as a result of the raging fire. A large number of the hostages in the sports hall died precisely as a result of the first two explosions. Some of the survivors managed to run out of the sports hall, while after the explosions others were taken by the fighters into the school's canteen, assembly hall and southern wing. The fighters moved the people because a fire had started in the sports hall and had taken hold very quickly. The fire in the sports hall started as a result of the first shot, practically at 13.05, as the school's attic area, ceiling rafters and lagging had begun to burn where the thermobaric grenade fell. The burning rafters and lagging fell onto the wounded, but still living, hostages. The order of the head of the operational HQ, FSB Maj-Gen V.A. Andreyev, to extinguish the fire came at 15.10, the first water at 15.28, that is, two and a half hours after the start of the fire. In this time all the hostages who remained in the sports hall were burnt. Helpless and wounded, they were burnt alive.

A better fate did not await those who were moved from the sports hall to other parts of the school. All parts of the school except for the sports hall came under fire from outside from Shmel flame throwers, RPG-26 and RShG-2 grenade throwers, other weapons and also from tanks. Yuriy Savelev has calculated from the investigation's official documents and forensic reports that approximately 300 to 310 hostages were taken from the sports hall to other parts of the school and that approximately 106 to 110 of them died.

The report contains many other convincing expositions and conclusions. I have mentioned only the basic ones. The main conclusion is: the storming of the school in Beslan was engineered (begun) by the use of weapons by the Russian special services, specifically the team from the operational HQ. However, the storming was presented to us as "enforced", that is, begun after "the fighters blew up the sports hall". Savelev proves in his report that this is not true.

Why did events turn out this way? What was the logic and what were the circumstances that made the HQ fire several times into the sports hall and then begin the assault? I have been asking myself this question for a long time. This is my theory. First, it has to be taken into account that there were in fact two "operational headquarters": one, termed by convention "the power-wielding structures or heavies", which included the federal FSB, and the other "civilian", which included the leaders of the republic, deputies, and also regional, Ossetian heavies of a lower rank. From 1 September the "heavies" HQ was preparing the assault, while the "civilian" HQ was looking for a peaceful resolution of the situation through negotiations. In many ways the "heavies" restricted the actions of the "civilians" (in particular in their attempts to negotiate with the fighters) and also took pains to assure everyone that "there will be no storming".

From the very beginning the local population and relatives of the hostages in the school were very afraid of an assault by force. Representatives of the "civilian HQ" went out to meet people and assure them that "there will be no storming". But they were not really believed: the degree of mistrust of officialdom was outstripped by the lies of the HQ and mass media (especially the federal TV channels) about the number of hostages – all three days it was reported that there were 354 of them, although by the afternoon of 1 September the number was known to be "more than 1,000" (members of the HQ - the Russian Federation president's deputy press secretary, Dmitriy Peskov, and the deputy director of the "Vesti"("News") department for information and the press, Pyotr Vasilyev - "filtered" the information for the media). Ossetian men literally formed a living ring around the school in order to prevent an attack by the military. They were armed with whatever they could find, even with rare weapons from the Second World War.

But while the "civilian" HQ was thinking about ways of holding negotiations, the "heavies" were preparing to storm the school. It should be noted that the "civilian" HQ even achieved some success in their work – agreement was reached on the arrival of Maskhadov whom they promised to let into the school. He was guaranteed a corridor and airfield. An hour after these agreements were reached, the storm of the school began.

The "heavies" HQ faced a "difficult" task: how can they storm the school if local residents will see this straightaway and get in the way of the work of the special units? The decision was taken then: 1. to engineer the assault; 2. to make it look as though the fighters themselves blew up the sports hall; 3. to this end to fire several times into the sports hall (into the attic, under the hall's window and into the window); 4. to begin the assault with special forces; 5. to distract the attention of the fighters before firing into the sports hall (it had been agreed that forces from the Emergencies Ministry would collect bodies thrown out of the school window). This was the plan. This was the chronology: the Emergencies Ministry drives up to collect the bodies, at 13.03 explosions are heard in the sports hall, special forces begin "the enforced storming". The local population does not get in the way of the troops and themselves rush to drag the hostages out of the sports hall.

I am sure that only a few people knew the details of this operation. I am sure that this operation was devised by the FSB. Most likely the generals knew about this operation – at that time they were deputy FSB directors V. Pronichev, V. Anisimov and A. Tikhonov who were in Beslan and leading the "heavies" HQ. And of course the operation was agreed with President Putin, perhaps without the details, but in principle: "A storming and no negotiations". A source in the presidential administration reported that President Putin took the decision in principle to storm the Beslan school at roughly midday on 1 September 2004. History does not forget such decisions.

--HanzoHattori 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• I support the Mothers of Beslan who say that there should be two trials: one of the surviving hostage taker and another trial of the commanding officers twho ordered that "rescue operation". Firing tank shells and RPGs into a building filled with over a 1000 hostages and lots of explosives is not incompetent, it is simply criminal. Mieciu K 23:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Today released a 2 years work of Beslan commission. Mieciu, you better read it before blame security services (17 of professionals died, more than 30 wounded - never we had this before in special securiry services). This tells us that the situation was not easy to resolve. It's not a just chess game, it's not always easy (just look at the history or top world hostage-takings). Alexandre Koriakine 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Add this as an event to the war on terror.

This article should be added to the war on terror box under the 2004 events.

Monday, December 11, 2006. Issue 3558. Page 3. Librarian in Beslan School Dies, Bringing Toll to 334 The Associated Press

NALCHIK -- A woman injured during the 2004 school hostage taking in the southern town of Beslan died of her injuries Friday, bringing the total death toll to 334, a Beslan activist said.

Yelena Avdonina, 33, died of hematoma in a Beslan hospital, said Mairbek Tuayev, head of a group distributing humanitarian assistance to the victims of the attack.

He said Avdonina had undergone several operations.

Avdonina, who had worked as a librarian in Beslan School No. 1, was held hostage for three days, together with her son and more than 1,100 children, parents and staff, in the school's gymnasium by at least 31 heavily armed militants.

Avdonina's son survived the siege, which ended on Sept. 3, 2004, when one of the militants' explosive devices went off and security forces stormed the building. The ensuing maelstrom of explosions and gunfire killed the majority of the victims, more than half of whom were children; 12 special forces and emergency workers also died.

Two other former hostages died of their wounds in August and December last year, and another former hostage died last August, which had brought the overall death toll to 333 -- a figure that does not include the hostage takers.

Survivors and victims' relatives claim many deaths occurred because troops fired at the school using tanks and flame-throwers, setting off a fire that caused the roof to collapse over many wounded. They blamed authorities for failing to investigate the circumstances of the attack properly and the bungled rescue operation.

Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, who claimed responsibility for the Beslan siege and other ruthless terrorist attacks in Russia, was killed in an explosion in July, authorities say. DNA tests on the remains remain incomplete.

Recent edit warring

The opening line of this article is again quickly becoming the focus of edit warring, chiefly with an anonymous editor. I'd like to quickly handle the terms in question.

1. "Muslim terrorists" - definitely not a good idea, not only is the "Muslim" part of debated relevancy, but Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism makes it clear that WP should not be calling anybody terrorists. (We can however, later in the article, perhaps under "reactions", say "The hostage-takers were quickly denounced as terrorists in the Western press..." or something)
2. "Islamist terrorists" - only vaguely better, but still gives the incorrect impression of trying to relate the Chechen/Russian 'problems' to being a religious issue. It's more akin to the (terrorist) tactics of the IRA, where the religion of the attackers is technically the same...but they're attacking because they want their own territory.
3. "Chechen insurgents" - simply factually incorrect, the term is not applied other than in an attempt to reduce all political conflicts to an over-simplified "bad guys, like in Iraq" sense. It's no better than saying "they took Russian fascists hostage" - the world is not defined in WWII/9-11/Iraq terms.
4. "armed rebels" - The term "armed" seems a bit superfluous, since it's fair to assume that hostage-takers are typically armed. We discuss their specific armaments later, no need to mention it in the opening. "rebels" on the other hand is definitely an improvement over "terrorists"
5. "chechen separatists" - my preference, since it immediately identifies the political reasoning behind the hostage-taking, which cause they were trying to advance. RuneX2 might be onto something with his "pro-Chechen separatists", since admittedly they weren't all Chechens by ethnicity. It just seems a bit awkwardly worded to me.
6. militants - a wording we haven't tried in a while, but I personally think is more accurate than "rebels", and definitely more accurate than "terrorists" or "insurgents". So we come down to what adjective goes before the term, "Chechen militants"? "Chechen separatist militants"? "Pro-Chechen separatists militants"? We seem to be getting a bit too wordy, unfortunately.

As per the casualty count, how about just separating all three numbers? It's unfair to only include two groups among the hostages, but if you don't want the hostage-takers counted with the children, how about we compromise and just say "358 hostages, 43 security forces, 12 hostage-takers" or something? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 14:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's a Catholic/Protestant conflict (in addition to Irish/Bristish).

I don't understand problem with "insurgents". Say, Poles, are proud of their national insurgencies - should be they ashamed?

Most of them were not Chechens. The single largest group were reportedly Ingush.

A rebellion is, in the most general sense, a refusal to accept authority. It may therefore be seen as encompassing a range of behaviours from civil disobedience to a violent organized attempt to destroy established authority. It is often used in reference to armed resistance against an established government, but can also refer to mass nonviolent resistance movements. So, armed rebels. --HanzoHattori 15:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is part of the WikiProject on Terrorism but we shouldn't refer to it as terrorism? The incident has widely been accepted as a terrorist attack (by the UN, Russia, EU, US, Britain, Germany, Italy, Sweden, South Africa, etc.) which makes terrorist the correct description of the people who perpetrated it. The mastermind even described himself as a terrorist. In addition we can take the 9/11 article as a template on usage, being one of the most deeply edited articles on Wikipedia, and this article describes the 9/11 perpetrators as terrorists. Just because there are fewer Russian minded editors than US minded editors we shouldn't accept a different yardstick here.

re. the casualty count. I don't really know if "unfair" comes into it. The "hostage-takers" were murderes and I think that it is generally accepted practise not to count a murderer amongst the casualties when adding up the numbers even if he should have died in the act. In any case, the current format has been lifted directly from the 9/11 page. Rune X2 07:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the 9/11 article is one of WP's low points, it goes into exhaustive, minute detail on some points, and completely ignores others - it is "the" home of POV, for all sides. Now that said, your comment doesn't have any criticism of the "358 hostages, 43 security forces, 12 hostage-takers" route, so let's agree to go with that? There is no "different yardstick" being used on this article, we're still trying to abide by the Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism - we are welcome to say "The incident was condemned as terrorism by groups A, B and C" further down in the article, but referring to the individual people as "terrorists" is editorializing on WP's part. They are hostage-takers, militants, gunmen or rebels, whichever seems the most appropriate. I'm still not a fan of "armed rebels" which seems redundant to me, but I'm willing to go with it as a compromise over "terrorists". Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 16:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Armed rebels ? It's euphemism. There are hundreds of rebel groups all over the world but only a few commited such crime. How do you distinguish between let's say fighters against Nazism during WW2 and these murders ? I'm stronglly against using such euphemisms.

Let's call them simply: 'terrorists'. If we do not use word terrorist in this case we can delete this word from dictionary because I can't imagine better example of usage word 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' as Beslan massacre. Timmy A 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless you meant the massacre of 20 adults, it's more like "state terrorism". But I prefer calling them "special forces" than [any loaded term] anyway. --HanzoHattori 21:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Proof read

I proof read the article and made some minor changes. I think the article can get a better rating if

• Some sections are moved to another article and linked to this one, like the list of the participants. It is too long.
• The edit warring on if the they are "separatists" or "terrorists," "right or wrong" is somehow value-laden. Per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism "separatists" seems to be a better choice to me. That wont diminish in any way what has happened, and how big a 'tragedy' it was. The participants' identities are not much of an issue because they were there for Chechen separatist cause. The whole Islamic rhetoric has simply been adopted to receive money and support.
• Beslan Massacre could be a better description of what had happened there.

regards. cs 13:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

-Is seems there is no longer anything that can be called a terrorist act on WP. Would someone please tell me something that COULD be described as a terrorist act? How can the slaughtering 186 children not be the act of terrorists?

-the reason some 'pro-terrorist' contributors don't want to use the word 'terrorists' is because using it conflicts with their pro-terrorist political POV/agenda. the pro-terrorists are abusing WP as an ideological battleground and are engaged in a strategic war of deception and obsfucation. the pro-terrorists logic is simple, the more difficult the pro-terrorists can make it to define terrorism the harder it is to fight against it.

pro-terrorist contributors have invested hundreds of hours across dozens of articles in a systematic campaign to exploit WP. this has to stop.

the pro-terrorist goal is to sell readers the idea that the slaughtering 186 children is a not actually an act of terror even though there is no way that any honest person could deny that. how they manage to even get other contributors to even discuss such a ridiculous idea is nothing short of incredible.

the pro-terrorists are conducting a politically motivated campaign to subvert and exploit WP to soften people's perception of terrorists and their heinous terrorist acts.

the pro-terrorist goal is to normalize terrorism and use deceptive language to de-emphasis its shocking nature and make terrorism more 'acceptable' and therefore harder to condemn and combat.

in the disingenous and agenda-driven world of the pro-terrorist, a terrorist participating in the massacre of 186 children becomes an 'armed rebel' in a 'crisis'. pretty pathetic by anyones standard.

-sherurcij is one of the most motivated pro-terrorists on WP. a little explanation to give other contributors and understanding of how he operates so that they can read his 'contributions' in their correct context.

-if you take the time to read Sherurcij's 'contributions' to WP you will see him relentlessly employing every tactic conceivable to further his pro-terrorist agenda. sherurcij's strategy is to hide behind 'reasoned' argument. sherurcij is cunning enough to never be too obvious, but once you realize what it he's up to, the bias behind his arguments become both clear and apparent.

-sherurcij is a person of strong motivations, unfortuntely creating a balanced and credible online encyclopedia is not one of them. every post sherurji smacks of pro terrorist agenda even though he tries to conceal it.

-sherurcij is constantly trying to redefine and abuse the english language to further his pro-terrorist agenda. one example of this is to try and prevent the words 'muslim' and terrorist' appearing in the terrorism articles he is so dedicated to 'contributing' to.

-finally. anyone with half a brain knows this article should be called the 'beslan massacre'. its embarrassing that anyone could argue against that. 31 terrorists (yes, shocking i know, but yes, they were terrorists) heavily armed with weapons and explosives take hundreds of children hostage resulting in 186 child deaths. unless you are an agenda driven pro-terrorist, that is a massacre.

i eagerly await sherrurcij's response defending his pro-terrorist agenda-driven position under the guise of reasonable argument. sadly for sherurcij his pro-terrorism career on WP has now been unveiled and his response will only serve to further reveal his transparent pro-terrorist agenda. 68.125.87.124 10:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC) babyx 06:09, May 10 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines suggest against personal attacks. Besides, WP policies do not allow articles become "soapboxes", or political manifests. I find it useful that some can argue and that they are esteemed editors. I recognize that not putting words "muslim" and "terrorist" together changes the editorial angle, and I appreciate that. The accuracy of the article does not suffer from this distancing. ilgiz 06:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

my goal is not to make any personal attacks, but to draw attention to a 'contributor' who is not NPV. that is a legitimate thing to do. the pro-terrorists who campaign to get words 'terrorist' and 'muslim' removed from the article are politically motivated to deflect the truth about islam. if the editoral angle has been changed then who (or which POV) benefits? 68.125.87.124 babyx 06:09, July 4 2007 (UTC)

Church controversy

Someone would mention the Orthodox Church's plans to build the temple on the site (protested by locals who want this left how it's now). --HanzoHattori 13:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)