Talk:Moscow theater hostage crisis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments) |
|
 |
Moscow theater hostage crisis is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
It says that the terrorists killed people, "She was seen to be pushed through a side door and presumably executed when three shots were heard, but 5 were actually shot. The next day another civilian also managed to gain entry to the theater. It is said that he told the gunmen that he was there to fetch his son, but when his son did not seem to be present, he too was shot outside.", and then it says they did not.... "All the terrorists lay dead, and not a single hostage had been killed by the terrorists.[citation needed]" ??
Fix the links section. All the Wasington Post links are broken. --jenlight 11:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
An event mentioned in this article is an October 23 selected anniversary.
I heard that the person killed by terrorist was a woman who wanted to enter the building.
- I also saw on the History Channel documentary on the incident that the person killed was a woman trying to get in. I'll make the change. Mprudhom 07:58, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand why '106 moved this article to House of Culture Incident. When I searched on Google for "House Culture Incident" I didn't get any relevant hits. But "Moscow theatre siege" got plenty. --Ed Poor
- Just make sure that you integrate the two articles... DanKeshet
The "Sequence of Events Summary" is redundant. It just duplicates everything in the main body of the article, for the most part. Should we just integrate the little additional info from the sequence of events summary into the main article and ditch the rest? --kwertii
Contents |
[edit] Widows
I heard that many of the bomb women were widows of Cechnyan combatants or victims. They are part of the Black Widows group.
[edit] Is this a siege?
If terrorists or their ilk take over an educational or religous building (with or without hostages), and police or military then try to dislodge them from this recently-assumed posture, should we call this a "siege"?
If so, WHO has laid siege to the building? The terrorists, or the forces trying to dislodge them?
My impression after reading our siege article is that taking over the Church of the Nativity or the school in Beslan -- which then attracts a government anti-terrorist squad -- isn't really the same as a "siege". Or am I just not understand the word correctly? --Uncle Ed 17:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A siege is a military operation to compel forces within a city or building to surrender, chiefly by not letting in food or other supplies ("laid siege to the city"). Siege operations also include tactics to breach the walls of a fortress; siege weapons included catapults and ladders in medieval times. --Uncle Ed 15:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Renamed
No one commented or complained, so I 'moved' this article from Moscow Theatre Siege to Moscow Hostage Crisis of 2002. I don't think the terrorists were conducting a siege, because they weren't trying to make "forces within the building" surrender. Nor were the commandos who ended the takeover conducting a siege, because they didn't try to starve out the terrorists.
The terrorists took over the building suddenly. The commandos stormed it and rescued the hostages. I don't see how any of that is a "siege". The media are sloppy; they'll use any word that's short and catchy. --Uncle Ed 17:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I moved the article to Moscow theatre hostage crisis. The term should not be capitalized as it has not yet become a historical term in the way that, for instance, Cuban Missile Crisis is a historical term. Indeed, a quick Google search reveals that "Moscow hostage crisis" is usually not capitalized (see, for example, what currently are the first three results: [1], [2], [3]) except when it is in the title of a news article, in which case it is only capitalized because words in news article titles are capitalized.
- Actually, "theater" not "theatre" since it is the form that appeared most often on the text of the article. --Lowellian 06:11, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
-
- I like your approach, Lowellian. Please read and comment on the new hostage crisis article, a first draft of which I posted today. --Uncle Ed 18:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's a bit late in the day, but I would support moving this to "Moscow theatre hostage crisis of 2002". In light of current events it seems that the chance of something like this happening again, in Moscow, is high enough to warrant including the date. -Ashley Pomeroy 09:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
I am going to go through and make sure that all references to this event, including the ones that use siege redirect here because I but in The Siege of Nord Ost, which is the way the history channel reported, and nothing came up. Stop Me Now! 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Terrorists or rebels
Hi, the discussion here is much more polite, and I would like to invite you to resolve or calm down the dispute we are having over the October 2005 Nalchik attack. Both incidents (+ Beslan school) are different but however closely linked. Thank you. -- Goldie (tell me) 11:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] POV
Calling the attackers "terrorists" is a blatant violation of the NPOV rule. Taw 15:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC) >>>>Taking hostages who are innocent people and making demands makes you a terrorist.>>> (Adrien C)
Actually, yes these are terrorists, unless of course you don't believe terrorism exists. I understand the argument, that they aren't terrorists because of their cause and the ongoing war, but then that would make Al Qaeda, the IRA, Hezbollah, and other organization that target only civilian people. I know there's an ongoing war, but they went beyond their borders and targeted 900 people who, for the most part, had absolutely nothing to do with the war in their home country. If you really believe this, Taw, then you wouldn't call the 9/11 hijackers or anyone else from the muslim world who attacks the United States terrorists. Surely you don't dare to make that statement? Stop Me Now! 18:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Spetnaz are not elite or commandos
If everebody agrees, I think someone/I should remove the "elite" and/or "commando" from the Spetnaz. It is clearly that this is not an elite /commando unit as they have also shown in the school hostage crisis. They don't deserve the honor or respect to be called Elite or Commando.
[edit] Spetsnaz are better than U.S. Special Forces and S.A.S
I deleted the comment that was here because it wasn't really an argument so much as someone trying to lash out against the United States and British special forces, and really didn't have a whole lot to do with the article. But, you can't remove the elite from in front of the spetsnaz because whether or not you like them, (I am not taking any side), you can't argue that in the Russian army they ARE the elite units. It's not a question of they skill compared to the Americans or British, but their skill within the Russian Army. Oh yeah, and you can't just shove some unsigned comment up that is only an opinion and then not sign it. Stop Me Now! 18:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV
Whilst the article may not be completely neutral, it is hardly biased. The term "terrorist" is used and misued with equal regularity. Anyway, I have reduced the frequency of use in this article and on the strength of that removed the POV banner.
I recently made an addition to the article that called these people terrorists quite often and anyone who removes these references is committing vandalism and giving the article a POV that supports the terrorists. If you remove the terrorists references without discussion, as the the unsigned comment above says they did, I will flag you for vandalism. Stop Me Now! 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 'Terrorist' + footnotes
These guys were terrorists by every international and national law definition there is, and so it is not POV to use it.
Anyways, the real reason I'm here: This article should have more footnotes, especially for the direct quotes. Joffeloff 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Extensive report by a hostages' relatives
http://www.pravdabeslana.ru/nordost/dokleng.htm - it covers just everything established yet and the questions too. Someone would use it in the article.
