Talk:2009 Nevsky Express bombing

Rename
Should be renamed; it didn't really occur near Bologoye. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 08:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I only named it that because it seemed to be the nearest town. I did 2009 Heilongjiang mine explosion and worked on Fort Hood Shooting (current events) and tried to follow a general pattern but if you have a more informative title, by all means suggest it. I've no particular attachment to a specific title. HJMitchell    You rang?   08:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since it didn't take place near any particular settlement, something like 2009 Nevsky Express derailment would probably make more sense. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 08:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I support renaming into "Nevsky Express derailment (2009)". Derailment is a fact, bombing is only one of the versions, not 100% credible Svoboda News. They have already discussed it and made this renaming in ru-wiki. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Importance?
Does this really warrant a "High" rating on WikiProject Russia? I don't normally edit many articles that fall under that project, but this doesn't strike me as higher than a "Mid". I know it's a notable recent event, but in the long run... —  Hunter  Kahn  ( c )  16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Offliner (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bomb
Don't have time to add it at the moment, but BBC reports Russia train crash 'caused by bomb'. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed terrorist attack
The confirmation of the Russian government about a terrorist attack has been confirmed on Skynews. Could someone rewrite the article? I feel my skills are not enough, however, I've started. Ferike333 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Moscow – Saint Petersburg Railway
Moscow – Saint Petersburg Railway points here. If there is a major development it'd be good to throw a bit there too. --Falcorian (talk) 19:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oblast
According to the article and the coordinates the accident took place in Tver Oblast, but the map shows Novgorod Oblast. Hellerick (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Response?
For some bizarre reason, we have the following statement from the US in the Response section: U.S. President Barack Obama issued a statement via a spokesman, saying he was "deeply saddened by the terrible loss of life and injuries". Is this at all pertinent to the bombing? Or are we just doing the rounds regarding international response? I don't see a statement from the Prime Minister of Australia in the section, or indeed, any other leaders. 92.30.1.44 (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then if there's no opposition, I'll be bold and remove it. 92.30.1.44 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Terrorist group
According with the newspaper El País, one terrorist group has been atribuited the attack, its name is Combat 18 an ultra-nationalist and skin-head group who fights against the illegal inmigration.

Sixth paragraph

"Spanish Ya uno de ellos ha asumido la autoría del atentado: Combat 18, un grupúsculo de cabezas rapadas que existe en Rusia desde los años noventa. El anuncio lo hicieron a través del blog de uno de los activistas del ultranacionalista Movimiento contra la Inmigración Ilegal. Hace pocos días el mismo grupo dijo ser el responsable de la colocación de una bomba simulada dos semanas atrás en el metro de San Petersburgo."

"English One of these groups had been asumed the crime of the bombing: Combat 18, a little group of skinheads who exists in Russia since the 1990's. The press release were did it from the activists' blog of the ultranationalist movement against the illegal inmigration. A few days ago the same group said be the responsible to the simulated boomb into Saint Petersburg metro two weeks ago" --Ravave (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like complete rubbish. Combat 18 was a British group. Also, what would their motivation be for derailing Russian trains if they in fact existed? 93.161.106.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC).


 * I know, but, the others newspapers say the same, look the Clarín (Argentinian newspaper). --Ravave (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I be found this website of the terrorist group, Combat 18 is not just a British group, Russia has one to. [www.c18russia.org/] . --Ravave (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources (bomb / technical fault controversy)
As for the information from the blog http://reytar.livejournal.com/56664.html - Wikipedia policy is to reflect reporting in the |established, reliable media sources. | Self-published sources are not acceptable: ''Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media — whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.'' So, for the news on "the bomb conspiracy" (however probable it may seem) to be covered in an encyclopedia article it should be first checked and published by an established media organization (e.g. BBC, CBS, Independent, New York Times or the like)--Sascha. (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting facts
-M.Nelson (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The main section of the article states there were no casualties in the second bombing, yet under casualties Alexander Bastrykin – head of the Investigative Committee - suffered a traumatic brain injury. Can someone verify the facts and make the necessary corrections? PetroNYC (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears as though he was injured. I will adjust the article with English-language reliable sources to reflect this. -M.Nelson (talk) 17:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the second bombing, doesn't that confirm it was a terrorist attack? And shouldn't the line in the intro about some operators doubting it was a terrorist attack be removed in that case? LokiiT (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No it does not confirm anything and this line should not be removed. There was no blast at the time of derailment, but there was a strong bang and debris were flying past windows of the second carriage after the locomotive. This cannot be explained by the version of explosion under one of the last carriages. Moreover, the article should be renamed as "derailment" rather than "bombing" because derailment is a fact but bombing is still just one of possible versions. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained what caused the second blast that injured investigators. I'm pretty sure it's widely accepted now that it was a terrorist attack. All mainstream sources I've seen now reference it as a bombing. What you're describing is a fringe view that isn't supported by any recent sources. Moreover, your claim that there was no blast and your descriptions of the event are in complete contradiction to many first hand witnesses who were on the train, as well as official investigators who were there at the scene. I'll be removing that line per WP:FRINGE if you can't come up with more mainstream sources. LokiiT (talk) 21:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LokiiT, you removed the sentence that has nothing to do with the second blast. I restored it. The second blast can be discussed separately. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 13:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with the second blast. This proves it was a planned attack, as every single mainstream source verifies. The view that it was a "technical failure" is non-existent at the time being. This view was held prior to the second attack which confirmed it was a terrorist attack. I put that material in the "causes" section in the proper context. LokiiT (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Utterly useless map.
What on Earth is the point of the infobox map? With no identified features, it does nothing at all to inform the reader where in Russia the event took place. Instead, it shows the outline of some sort of territorial subdivision of some other territorial division, which the reader is presumably expected to understand is somewhere or other in Russia. Or are readers of the English-language Wikipedia expected to be able to identify the Novgorod Oblast by its outline, and to know where in Russia it is sited? I assume not. Either produce a proper map showing the actual location of the incident (you have the coordinates) together with identifiable features the reader can be reasonably expected to know about (e.g. Moscow, St Petersburg, and the railway line between them), or show nothing. 86.191.147.56 (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Look at the links below the map - click on the last one - this gives the district's relationship to the rest of the Russian Federation very clearly.104.169.28.113 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. Maps are supposed to impart information. If you have to read text to get the information, and with that information the map tells you nothing more, it is useless. 86.191.147.56 (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

article has unfinished feel to it
While there is a Charges section, there is nothing in the history of the event after that. Trials? Convictions? All wiped out in a commando raid? 104.169.28.113 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)