Talk:Beslan school siege/Archive 2

Timeline
Most english-language news sources seem to be equivocal about what triggered the storm. I've attempted to produce a timeline for the half an hour around the start of the storm in English here using Russian ticker and aggregator archives for the day - someone with NPOV feel free to reuse any or all info from there for this article if deemed interesting. user:MoonShadow

Please don't edit the word terrorism in the article
Please don't edit the word terrorism in the article until the issue is settled here. -Gene s 17:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Investigations
Well, I did read the ITAR_TASS report and it did state a territorial law enforcement source told them that militants disguised as repairmen had concealed weapons (my paraphrase). Where is the source for the refutation? Also could editors please add some text to their summaries so we can see what is being changed, eg. "typo", "extensive rewrite", etc. (Here's the report)
 * ITAR-TASS report on Arsenal of weapons hidden in Beslan school back in July -Wikibob | Talk 20:18, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

There are several media sources still maintaining this story, I quote as fair-use:



One witness said the gym had been rigged with explosives - a theory backed by security officials who said the rebels had planted dozens of weapons in the school while it was under renovation during holidays.



The head of the North Ossetian security service said that he was certain now that the guerrillas had located their point of attack well in advance and had not simply rushed into the school on Wednesday, the first day of the academic year, on the spur of the moment.

(it goes on in detail naming sources)

From my memory of reading russian translations, I recall a boy saying he wanted to see the renovation work done in summer (so it seems likely there was work done around July), an adult hostage claiming he was forced to rip up floorboards to expose the hidden cache.

I haven't time now, but later this section could be expanded with at least what is being said by named sources. -Wikibob | Talk 19:54, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)

The surviving school director insists that the only renovation work in the school was done by the history teacher and superintedants with their children. ilgiz 06:04, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

The parliamentary commission had proved that the russian security forces threw flaming grenades on the gym's roof, setting it on fire and provoking most part of the casualties in it ("After the front page", documentary from Frank Müller, Germany, 2005). --madtibo 22:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


 * If it happened at all, they were stun and flash grenades. Even if it were true, a fire on the roof would not cause any casualties at all.  Give me a break. --Noitall 01:48, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * You should check the parlementary commission conclusions or watch the documentary by Franck Müller. It says the Russian security forces have used flaming grenades on the gym's roof, setting it on fire. The roof collapse and made many casualties. I really hate terrorist acts but the Russian way of dealing with it is really harsh, and I'm not surprised something like that had happened. There have been more than 344 casualties (three times more according to beslanhope.org ) and maybe some died in a fire caused by the Russian security forces!! If you are positive the security forces haven't done it, maybe we should speak about the two hypothesis... And I won't "give you a break"!!! --madtibo 09:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * The bombs strung up in the gym caused the roof collapse by knocking out supports. A fire on a roof, especially an old roof, would take a very long time to collapse.  You could run through the gym 30 times before that would happen.  That is not to say the Russian "solution" did not exacerbate the problem, mostly with shooting, but the fact that many were not saved or in fact killed because of this is already mentioned in the article.  --Noitall 13:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is said that the Russian security forces exacerbate the problems... but maybe it could be said more... --madtibo 18:46, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Government and Aftermath
Now this is just a consideration, but I thought it may be worthwhile to add a section about how the (Russian) government has handled this tragedy in terms of political situation management. So far, the let's-get-bloody-revenge response seems to instead be one of we-have-handled-this-astoundingly-poorly in terms of attitude, at least on the part of the (Russian) president. I could be horribly wrong here, but I'm only going by what the papers tell me.

There is also a very good chance that this is irrelevant or too dubious (with regards to neutrality) a point to make at all. Just a thought. I havent added anything to this tune to the article itself. --Oceanhahn 09:01, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I certainly think it would be good to add something about how the government has been said to misinform the media and the rest of the world from the beginning of the hostage crisis. --Lenton 21:17, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Anti-terror demonstration
It was an anti-terror demonstration (антитеррористический митинг/antiterroristicheski miting), not an anti-war. Word "anti-war" has completly different meaning. I hope we don't start edit war again...

At the "demonstration" no oppositional members of the parliament spoke to the citizens, because the Kremlin ordered so. According to European media channels, the Russian government has ordered the Russian TV stations to broadcast the event with a 10 minutes delay, so the government could censor raging or critical overtones.

Where did you get that? Lazy Ranma 00:12, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen the information on the 10-minute delay of the rally's broadcast. However, there are some details on the meeting here: There is a photo of a telephone-gram from the head of one of the Moscow districts to all its enterprises in the bottom of the article: ilgiz 04:59, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * http://grani.ru/Events/Terror/m.76395.html (translation)
 * They were asked to, not forced. I live in the Goliyanovo district with younger sister, but she didn't know anything about demonstration, so teachers didn't say anything about it to her and her classmates. I am removing all that nonsense I have quoted. Lazy Ranma 16:03, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jesus, some people desperately need to start being coherent. No member of Moscow goverment would care to do such a thing - there are miitioneers to handle misconducts or whatever the mentioned 10 peole were (if they really were) rounded for. Goverment's rating is hign enougth without such petty tricks. Cacofiend 16:00, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand, the telephone-gram asks the managers of the local companies to provide 10 persons each for _participation_ in the meeting. Your comment suggests that the order asks to provide security guards.  I understand the USSR traditions are pretty much embedded into the bureaucrats' memories so they act just as some 20 years ago.  I cannot blame people for not being citizens enough and for not criticizing the government at the meeting as I emigrated 6 years ago.  ilgiz 16:38, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
 * They were not forced. How do you imagine this? I think that schools', institutes' and public enterprises' directors allowed their students and workers to leave early to the damonstration. I've seen some students on TV, who learned about demonstration in dean offices and voluntary went to it. BTW, grani.ru have written about educational institution, but not about companies. Lazy Ranma 17:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Forced
According to one TV report, several of the demonstrators were forced to attend by their companies. There were complaints that in the demonstrations after Madrid railway attacks, Spaniards weren't forced to attend. -- Error 02:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ties to Al-Qaida
What ties are we talking about? WhisperToMe 02:08, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The Russian government has accused Basayev's group of being linked to AQ. Outside of Russia, this view isn't widely accepted and it's not yet been confirmed that Basayev was indeed behind the Beslan siege. -- ChrisO 00:46, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Is there any more detail on what kind of connections the group is said to have? (E.G. Are they getting money or weapons from Al-Qaida? Are Al-Qaida members also participating in that group? etc) WhisperToMe 02:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Militant" and "terrorist"
Militant is deemed to be a neutral term, whereas terrorist clearly indicates that the behavior of the individual or organization is reprehensible regardless of the motivations for such behavior. - from Militant.

I believe terrorist connotates that you have civilian targets.... terrorist -- user:ryguillian

So how many children do you need to shoot in the back before your behavior is "reprehensible regardless of the motivations"? user:TimShell

America killed more Iraqi children in the invasion of Iraq than the hostage-takers/Russian incompetence killed in the Beslan school siege. Killing children does not automatically make you a terrorist. --Cynical 16:41, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do wonder how a hypocrious scum like you would sound like, if those happened to be your children! I see not even the slightest difference between US soldiers killing Iraqi kids (i cant imagine them doing that on a purpose) and arab assasins shooting children in backs it the courtyard of the Ossetin school. It anything depended on me, both kind of murderers would have to idle away their scrawny lives serving a lifetime sentence in the worst prison on Earth. Cacofiend 18:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cynical- Do you have any sources showing that Allied forces in Iraq have purposely killed children or taken them hostage? When the Soviets were attacking Berlin, they also killed many children - are they terrorists? They must have known that children would be harmed. I would guess that the conquering of Berlin was a military strategy. I guess that those German children were just collateral damage. (Although the USA was never directly attacked by Nazi Germany, I am proud that Americans finally recognized there was no option of diplomacy with Hitler.) At Beslan the hostage takers were clearly terrorists. They shot and terrorized children before the final battle. I would call those children civilians. And I would call the hostage-takers terrorists. Anyone here who says they weren't terrorists without going into more history and comparisons? WhyerdWhyerd 12:48, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wonder when we will start calling Russian army terrorist. Hundreds of thousands of Chechens have left their homes since the beginning of the war and their stories are really terrible. Freedom for Chechenya is Freedom for Russia; what was happening in Russia during Beslan massacre clearly shows that Russia si evlving into dictatorship. Szopen 13:18, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moving the page and NPOV dispute
Suggest moving this page to Beslan school siege to mirror Moscow theatre siege. - [[User:Nickshanks|Nick | ✎]]

I am inclined to agree with Nick. What do others think? &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 10:22, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Ausir 10:31, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed, siege appears to be an accepted term (as per google.com search of beslan siege vs. beslan hostage crisis) mvdhout 11:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Point taken, it's more of a hostage crisis than it is a siege. on the other point: I prefer hostage-taker above terrorist or militant, even though I personally think all three apply. mvdhout 15:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems peculiar to put the emphasis on the siege rather than the hostage taking. It was the actions of the hostage takers, not those who besieged them, that led to the carnage. If one were to go by Google, "Beslan terrorist attack" would be correct. Of course, we won't use that at Wikipedia, because these fine gentlemen and ladies might be freedom-fighters. - Nunh-huh 12:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Really? And can't the gentelmen and ladies that are fighting for their freedom in Palestine and Iraq turn out to be fine, despite the countless innocent civilians they've been slaughtering? Up until the above post i'been thinking that there actually IS a limit to one's lack of morale. Cacofiend 20:45, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you ever heard of sarcasm? Ausir 20:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I certainly have, but this is definitely no topic to make jokes about. Cacofiend 20:55, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Trying to appear neutral is one thing, but it's morally wrong to misrepresent something. Waco was a siege. This was a hostage crisis. Look, I'm pro-Chechen, but sometimes we just need to call a spade a spade. Ambi 14:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind as to clarify what makes you feel so badly for terrorists? Cacofiend 20:47, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You have a point here about the naming of the article. On the matter of people's reluctance to use the term "terrorist" I think we should be clear that no one editing this article is seeking to defend these people, it's just that the word is pejorative and therefore POV, which doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Any sane person would indeed consider these people to be terrorists and wouldn't dream of defending their actions, but that doesn't mean they should describe them as such in an objective article. The best analogy I can give you is that the article on Adolf Hitler doesn't say "Hitler was evil" even though only the dangerously deluded would seek to defend him. That article describes Hitler's actions and lets the facts speak for themselves, and we should be doing the same here. That is not equivalent to allowing for the possibility that the hostage-takers might be better viewed as freedom-fighters. Perhaps the best solution is to simply refer to them as hostage-takers, which is incontrovertible fact, as "militants" does carry a slight tone of conspicuous political correctness. I notice that TV news here (Britain) seems to have adopted this approach: they usually tend to avoid "terrorist" and prefer "militant" except in this case where they can say "hostage-taker" without attracting accusations of political axe-grinding. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 14:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree with the above statement; the word terrorist is a bit too subjective to use in this context (if any?). --FarQPwnsJoo 14:23, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Militants do not shoot on running children and do not blow up school, do they?
 * Terrorism is a tactic of violence that targets civilians, with the objective of forcing an enemy to favorable terms, by creating fear, demoralization, or political discord in the attacked population.
 * Is this article wrong? Lazy Ranma 14:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As I said above, we should not be using "militants" or "terrorists" when we have the perfectly good term "hostage-takers" which no one can dispute because it's fact and doesn't stray into morality. We can then in the article include discussion of why this hostage-taking can be regarded as terrorism, based on your definition above and Kwantus's below. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 15:46, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Terrorism has nothing to do with morality - someone thinks terrorism is bad, someone thinks terrorism is good. Terrorisam is hostile actions against civilians. And this crisis was hostile action against civilians. Why "hostage-takers", not "hostage-killers"? Do you know than they killed about 20 people and throw their bodieas out of the window? It seems to me, you are too neutral. Refuse to call the serial murderer of children the murderer, instead you call his kidnapper. Lazy Ranma 16:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Beslan hostage crisis more correctly describes the event, according to me. I don't think we always should try to use popular names. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 15:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I Think I agree with User:Sverdrup and User:Trilobite here. I also think the word has in a way lost some of its meaning from all the misuse of it. Anyone using violence to oppose those in power are increasingly becoming terrorists. I'm not saying that these guys were not terrorists, though.--Dittaeva 19:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think "terrorism" is appropriate; it was clearly meant to scare Russians into backing their government's reconquest of oil-bearing Chechnya, and fluff up the general antimuslim sentiment in the rest of the world. (Russia's one of the few backing Iran against the US right now; WTF would muslims p*ss off one of their only big-gun friedns?) There's no way anyone clever enough to have organised this could not have foreseen that no matter how well it went, let alone with balky behaviour. And the Russians, insanely, attack the place and kill nearly everyone who could say who was really behind this. I, myself, believe "terrorist", but I don't believe "Chechen/muslim" (thus "insurgence/resistence/militants/etc") one iota. This was a Shrub-Sharon operation (which doesn't rule out "al Qaida") to bring Putin onside, in which Putin would be a vaguely willing (tho unwitting) participant because of the ambitions on Chechnya. Kwantus 15:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I still agree with "terrorist" and reject the OMTIAFF argument because these were not freedom fighters: "About half of the 32 terrorists have been identified and we have not yet discovered anyone from Chechnya." To Putin's credit, he's not leaping to attack the way Israel hoped. ("Israel now expects [sic] Russia not to support a Palestinian resolution at the UN" "Lavrov...rebuffed the Zionists' implied incitement against Islam and Muslims") And apparently he's cautious of blaming it on Chechens w/o physical evidence. Kwantus 20:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Or at least Chechens and muslims in general. He does seem keen on grabbing a couple specifics, though I can't tell how much of what I'm hearing is western media confusion and spinning. (And one must keep in mind the US still pretends to have had specific targets in Afghanistan and Iraq.) Let me add this: "The men were certainly not Chechens. When I spoke Chechen with them, they said they couldn't make out a word. 'Speak Russian,' they told me." (Aslanbek Aslakhanov, a Chechen and Putin advisor RIA Novosti) BTW something I'd read confused me about the state of Chechnya: perhaps it said it had been independent for a very short time and got taken back, and i only got the first part... Kwantus 17:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Despite the fact that europeans are well known for their hypocrisy and ignorance, it still strikes me as an amazing thing that some of you can call those vile murderers a "hostage takers" or "militants". Did you not ever thought that it is only a matter of luck that it was not your country that have been hit by that fuckheaded morons that call themselves "fighters for hell knows what". I suggest that from now on, whenever you see your child taking a seat in a school bus, pray for its life. I just hope that this madness stpos before another world war is started. Cacofiend 19:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Has it not occured to you that just perhaps everyone taking part in this debate agrees with you that these people are, as you put it, vile murderers, and indeed terrorists? Maybe if you can grasp that you can move on to the concept of NPOV and understand why in an encyclopedia it's probably better to avoid such terms, however true they might be. A professional news service wouldn't use such phrases as "vile murderers" except when quoting someone else, and that's the tried and tested approach we like to follow here. The facts speak for themselves: these people were murderers, they were terrorists, and what they were responsible for was one of the most depraved and despicable acts of violence I have ever had the misfortune to hear of, but such assertions just don't belong in an encyclopedia. I hope this makes things clearer for you. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 20:48, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why should not it be called a duck, instead of "anatidae"? Because some ducks would feel that it's a pejorative term? Or because some news outlets like to call own ducks "ducks", but ducks from other countries "anatidae"? If there is a common word correctly describing a certain activity, why should not it be used to describe it? "Vile murderers" is a bad example because it would require explaining why this murder was particularly vile compare to other murders. And why don't you try to visit a Wiki page on 9/11 and try to remove the word "terrorist" there. Just go there and replace it with something neutral. If you are correct, then you would get a lot of support, right? --Gene s 08:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your point is well taken, it just feels a bit sharper when it happens so close to you. My frined's girlfriend, whom i studied with was among those who lost their lives during the siege of the Nord-Ost, and i had stopped believing in any reasons of those freedom-fighters since than. And, by the way, i am still not certain that others feel the same way you do. Cacofiend 21:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC) Now they a rebels... What the hell they were doing in North Ossetia then?

WHAT rebels, kiddie? Among identified ones there were only arab assasins and one negro. Cacofiend 19:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * As a sidenote, please sign your comments with ~, it makes it easier for the reader to see who wrote what. Thank you very much. --Conti|✉ 19:23, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

How, exactly? This differs a bit from an ordinary chat, so i just dont know how to enter a signature Cacofiend 19:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just type four tildes ( ~ ), they will automatically make a signature for you, like you can see at the end of this sentence. --Conti|✉ 19:33, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree on using the term terrorists. A terrorist, as per Wiki description, is the correct term here - because civilians were targeted. It's not a moral issue, a moral issue is what one thinks of terrorists. Hostage-takers is a good term, but terrorists is a more narrow one and fully applicable under the circumstances. Solver 20:52, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also think it's important that the article makes clear that the hostage-takers were terrorists, and it should do that by making reference to the usual definition of terrorism. If these people weren't terrorists then I wonder who on earth is? I don't think that fact is at issue here though. This is only speculation, but I would hazard a guess that the US media describes people as terrorists more readily than in other parts of the world, and so to American eyes an article which uses the term "terrorists" throughout is less striking than it would be to European eyes. If you look at, for example, this analysis by the BBC, they use "hostage-takers", "militants" and "attackers" but not "terrorists", because it's a loaded term they consider to be best avoided in neutral reporting of events. I think perhaps the term has a subtly different meaning in different countries, with the US standing out as an example of a country where it's routinely used in factual reporting. This is just conjecture on my part, but it would appear to explain why Americans in particular can become enraged when hearing terrorists called by a different name, as if whoever's doing the naming is trying to diminish their actions. I hope this matter can be cleared up to everyone's satisfaction, and then we can remove the NPOV notice which makes Wikipedia look bad, particularly as this article must be getting very high traffic as we speak. I invite others to comment on my view of things. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 21:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's a very fair point. Even our article on terrorism here mentions that the term is politically loaded. However, that political load is usually visible as people who don't use terrorist tactics (by definition) are called terrorists. Strictly speaking, a suicide bomber in Iraq who attacks a US Army base and kills US soldiers, can't be called a terrorist, as he targets military personnel. He's an insurgent, militant, rebel or an attacker then. Those, however, who take civilian hostages, suicide bomb civilian locations (like buses in Israel), etc., they are terrorists by definition.


 * I think that, as long as this article links the word "terrorists" to the respective article, it's fine - anyone who clicks the link will see that these people were indeed terrorists, by any definition. Solver 21:57, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The last link to terrorism had disappeared... BTW, look at category =) Categories: Terrorist incidents | Conflicts in 2004 Lazy Ranma 22:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * BBC did not have a problem calling Libyans involved in Lockerbie bombing "terrorists" (see link on the bottom). They also did not have much trouble using the derivatives of "terrorism" with regard to 9/11 attacks. Could it be because European media tend to be hypocritical? --Gene s 08:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually I've put NPOV notice bacause of "rebels". The cant be chechen rebels, bacause at least 10 of them are... were not chechen. Treay are international terrorists. Quote: the Russian government has suggested that the hostage takers may have had ties to al-Qaeda. Lazy Ranma 22:53, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording in the introduction to read "terrorists" (it had said "militants"), and thereafter they are referred to as "hostage-takers" or "attackers". The article is far from perfect but I hope this will keep most people happy for the time being, so I have removed the NPOV notice. If Lazy Ranma or anyone else feels there is still a major dispute (and remember discussion can continue without the need for a tag on the page) they can of course put it back on, but I'd advise them to read everything that's been said on this page so far and if they do add the tag back in to list explicity here their objections to the article. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 23:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * There were three references to "rebels" remaining, and I have removed one to address Lazy Ranma's concerns. The other two occur in discussion of who the hostage-takers were, which clearly notes the presence of non-Chechens in the group. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 23:05, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Lazy Ranma 23:51, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Calling the neutral naming conventions a hypocrisy is single sided in the sense that actions of state military personnel can sometimes also be called terrorist. Even Putin was surprised to see Grozny destroyed to the ground when he flew over it in a helicopter few months ago. It is also known that some consider military conflicts within the state not subject to international law. Let's see just when Russia or United States join International War Crimes Tribunal. Ilgiz 01:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Could the word 'perpetrators' maybe be not only less emotiv but also more accurate. "Terrorist" as I've always understood the word, is someone who attempts to achieve specific goals through the use of terror as an immediate and also ongoing threat. This usually, but not exclusively, involves identifying the act of terror with a cause, demand or movement. Without this identification, any such action becomes random terror, which would be hard put to achieve anything for anyone. (Other than opportunistic politicians perhaps)

As a little aside; would it contravene the npov to refer to the purely factual coincidence of this and the two planes crashing happening during the week of the Am. Republican Party election campaign start. Or questioning the lack of claimants in these particular cases. (possibly with all sorts of cross references to the disappeared at camp xray/cia brainwashing techniques/ the general quietness in the world of Int. terrorism) Just a thought. Marvin Sunday 02:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some are still having a thought that sept 11 was also arranged by Bush and his men just to secure an excuse - after all it's obvious to anyone that the only thing that matters for them in Iraq is oil, but not terrorists. Cacofiend 07:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Me! Me! If not arranged, allowed - and about half of New Yorkers agree. (Not that I think by popularity poll - but re "some are still having a thought") Kwantus 20:42, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would not be neutral, as it's pretty unlikely that the two had anything to do with each other. The Chechens have issues with Russia, not with the United States, so that would be a little bit far-fetched, and I haven't heard a single commentator suggesting such a thing.


 * I'm happy with hostage-taker or terrorist - anything but militant, because it's a weasel word. I don't quite understand what you mean, however, Marvin. You seem to be arguing against the use of the term terrorist, but your definition (attempting to achieve a specific political goal) fits this exactly. Ambi 03:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the point (main) i was trying to make was that, until such times as the perps have identified themselves or been positively identified, it's perhaps a bit erroneous to tie them in to a particular group or type of people. One thing I picked up during all this was that at first came claims for the chechen cause as passed on by the Russian government, then all of a sudden they were taken back. During the same news broadcast it was mentioned that an expert mediator was brought in to talk to the killers, and she, as I understood it, made a statement after * hours of discussion with these people, to the effect that, as far as she was concerned they had nothing to do with any chechen freedom fighter/terrorist/guerrilla forces whatsoever. Her opinion, I feel, is bolstered by the actual 'identified terrorists' being from places outwith Russia. Such an atrocity can be given a lot of names and descriptions which are all open to debate, but the common part of all their definitions is probably 'criminal'. And until such times as any other definition is established, shouldn't we all treat it as just that? I don't know what news coverage you saw, but after the bits i saw (eg. the large number of parents suffering outside who looked more Chechian and less Russian), Al-Queada/Bin Laden or Bush/oil concerns are as likely candidates if not more likely than chechen people to be behind it. If so, then the way must be opened for Presidents, Prime Ministers, Kanzlern etc. to be branded terrorists in the media. Otherwise there's an implied immunity which is totally unjust. As for the commentators, (if it were the USA + pals behind this) maybe it would be too big and too hideous a crime to imagine. Or want to imagine. Not to mention them personally being implicated by assosiation. make any sense? Marvin Sunday 04:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There can be no doubt that "terrorist" is an accurate description of the hostage-takers (they targeted and killed innocent civilians to create a climate of terror and achieve political aims), in the same way that there is no doubt that Hitler was a mass-murderer. Still we shouldn't use the word "terrorist" all over the article to refer to the hostage-takers for the same reason that we don't use "mass-murderer" in the Hitler article in that way. "Terrorist" doesn't add anything that isn't clear from the facts already, it is actually less precise than "hostage-takers". A paragraph on terrorism in the Russian-Chechen conflict would be useful though and should address concerns if anyone really worries that readers might be left wondering if this was an act of terrorism. Those who insist on using the word "terrorist" are not motivated by a desire to be factual, but by an (understandable) urge to express their moral condemnation. While I agree, of course with the moral condemnation, this is not the place for morally charged debates (it only leads to dubious comments like "europeans are well known for their hypocrisy and ignorance" "it was not your country that have been hit by that fuckheaded morons""only arab assasins and one negro" etc.) The point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not the Bible - people come here to get factual information not to get told about right and wrong, good and evil. - pir 09:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now a probably began to understand you. May be russian and european people have different meaning for word "terrorist". For me everyone who targets civilians and only civilians is terrorist by definition. Just because terrorist is man or woman who targets civilians. Looks like people in EU and US thinks that terrorists are very-very-very bad people, that is why this word cannot be used in article (but aren't those who kills hundreds of innocent children very "bad" people?). But here in Russia some divisions and actions of revolutionary parties of Russian empire are called terrorism in textbooks of history. If I am not mistaken, even in the Soviet textbooks. Lazy Ranma 12:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, I see your point that there may be differences in how the term is used. The thing is that Wikipedia is not there to label some as "very-very-very bad people", even if we all think that's what they are. The hostage-takers are doubtlessly terrorists but we should avoid emotive terms; the word should be mentioned in the article (like now, in the introduction) but it should not be used throughout. - pir 13:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Use of the word "terrorist" in EU media
I am just curious why BBC uses the word "terrorist" and "terrorism" to describe the Lockerbie attack,, and September 11, 2001 attackes, but not Beslan attack? --Gene s 07:45, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a good question and I would be interested to know precisely what their guidelines were on such matters. In reference to the 11 September attacks they usually seem to say "hijackers", in much the same way that "hostage-takers" in
 * This is incorrect save for "usually". Here is an expample of "terrorist" from BBC with respect to 9/11
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/world/attack_on_world_trade_center/newsid_1612000/1612612.stm
 * It's not the news report section, it's for children (quite telling...)pir
 * Does it somehow make it different? Children are not people? Can you provide a link to a BBC for children article where Beslan hostage takes are described as terrorists? It should be noted that children are usually seen as easier targets for indoctrination. --Gene s 04:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I am sure more can be found. Here is "terrorist" for 1993 WTC bombing:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/26/newsid_2516000/2516469.stm
 * Simply not true. It does not say "terrorist", it says "..bomb terrorises New York" which is completely different, and later the perception that the US was "immune from acts of terrorism", i.e. they don't label anyone as "terrorist". pir
 * Simply not true. The bombing has shocked America which had seemed immune from acts of terrorism that have plagued other parts of the world. --Gene s 04:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This sentence is a factual statement about the perception in the US, i.e. the emotional reaction to the first foreign attacks of this type on US soil. The point is that the BBC don't use their authority as an objective news source to label anyone as a terrorist (even when it's completely uncontroversial), thereby remaining outside the debate of who is and who is not a terrorist. Wikipedia is best served by attempting to achieve a similar non-emotive matter-of-fact attitude (even in completely uncontroversial cases like the Beslan massacre). - pir 10:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * And yes, I can see that BBC is very weasely in using words. They like to say "terror" regarding 9/11, which sounds similar to "terrorism" but not quite it.
 * It is simple. BBC is US company. When... erm... attackers hit their country, their frends and families, those people are obviously terrorist. But when some people take hundreds of children in hostages and kills many of them in far far away Russia, it is unknown for them are they terrorist or not. May be they just rebels who want to separate the Northern Caucasia from Russia... Lazy Ranma 12:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * BBC is a UK company. The US equivalent of BBC would be CNN. CNN is more straightforward in covering this event than BBC. It does use the word "terrorist" to describe hostage takers: At least 338 hostages, including 156 children, were killed after terrorists seized a school building . --Gene s 13:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * this article can be used as a straightforward description of the terrorists' actions. They do however talk about such things as "the threat from global terrorism." I have been thinking more about usage of the word and I wonder if it might have something to do with the longer history of terrorism in Europe, and the fact that it has generally come from within instead of overseas. If you take the example of the IRA the BBC have always had to be careful about how to refer to them because of the old cliché that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. There are other examples all over Europe, particularly such groups as ETA, where, like in Northern Ireland, part of a political movement for independence uses violence, which may be considered justified by some sections of the community. The US on the other hand has been notably free of terrorism, and when the 2001 attacks took place they were perpetrated by people from outside with no significant support base inside the country. This is a different situation, and allows the US media to use the word terrorist without offending anyone. This is not to say that in this article anyone is trying to suggest the terrorists could be viewed as freedom-fighters and therefore we should try to avoid offending people, it's got more to do with the different usage of the word that has developed outside the US. "Terrorist" is an emotive term which is striking in a news report or encyclopedia article &mdash; it tends to make it look more like an opinion piece. As for the Lockerbie attack you may have noticed that the page you linked to was not a news report as such and so is probably not held to the same standards. The BBC does have a more tabloid, sensationalist side to them outside of their direct reporting of news. Note also that the article also uses the phrase "mass murder" another emotive term (though correct), which would suggest that the piece adheres only loosely to their news guidelines.
 * Well, I fail to see why a perfectly valid term cannot be used to describe an activity if the term is the definition of that activity. Say, theft is called theft, not "involuntary wealth redistribution". And also, if you propose such a significant policy change, I would really like to see you change the word "terrorism" on the page September 11, 2001 attacks to something more neutral. And please also remove all references to genocide from the page Holocaust. Such request seems fair to me. If you want to be impartial, then everybody should get equal treatment, right? --Gene s 16:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * By the way I have no connection with the BBC or any desire to defend them, I have used them in the debate over this article as an example of a news source respected around the world for accuracy and neutrality, though of course many disagree and often I do too. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 10:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you used them as a point to argue against the use of the word "terrorism" in describing the terrorist attack in Russia. And it seems to me that your choice had an interesting side effect. The source you wanted to use as a model for impartial coverage appears to be either (a) bigoted or (b) bigoted and racist. Those who attack us are terrorists, those who attack you are "fighters", "militants" etc. Do you really belive Wiki would benefit if editors here would also take such bigoted stance? --Gene s 16:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason for the hesitancy in the use of the word terrorist in some media organisations must be the fact that the events are still on-going and not properly understood. Older terrorist attacks can be recognised and named as such.  Large media organisation must be aware that their reporting of an event as it happens may even prejudice the outcome, even in international reporting.  If Wikipedia continues to grow as is seen as a legitimate source of information and news it should also recognise this.  In the erly hours of the event "hostage takers" was the best word soon after the event degenerated that became rather an insult.  It may not be suitibly named to most peoples satisfaction for a long time until its significance and place in history is understood. MeltBanana 16:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I really would like anyone to come forward and claim that the attack in Russia was anything but a terrorist attack. It seems to me that we have a unanymous agreement on what it actually was. --Gene s 16:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a foreigner i had only marked for myself that whenever these people are killing europeans or jews or americans they are called nothing but terrorists, but the moment they cross Russia's border they become "freedom-fighters" as if there's anyone who questions their rights in Russia. Cacofiend 14:38, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's quite a serious accusation Cacofiend, but it's simply not true for the BBC:
 * 1996 Manchester bombing: "...It is the seventh attack by the Irish Republican group since it broke its ceasefire in February and is the second largest ever on the British mainland...."
 * 2001 New York attacks: "...No-one has said they were responsible for the attack, but US officials have pointed the finger at Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, an Islamic militant..."
 * 2002 Moscow theater siege: "...Only one of those held for three days by Chechen rebels died of gunshot wounds, ..."
 * 2004 Istambul attack : "...Provincial governor Muanmer Guler said one of the bombers also died in the attack, and the other was wounded..."
 * 2004 Madrid attack : "...No group has admitted responsibility but Spain's government blames Basque separatist group Eta for the attacks which come ahead of Sunday's election..."
 * 2004 Bersheeba suicide attacks: "...Two bombers also died ... Palestinian militant group Hamas later claimed responsibility for the attacks..."

I've been trying to find the initial news reports on BBC. None of them use the word "terrorist", sometimes they use "terror" in a very careful way but that is quite different. (In fact the BBC is constantly attacked by Israel and pro-Israeli organisations because they refuse to call Palestinian terrorists "terrorist".) Their language seems to be very consistant in the news reports (not the opnion and analytical pieces). Oh, and just for the record, I'm not defending the BBC as ideal, I often find the BBC coverage (of other issues) biased, but compared with other news outlets they are pretty good and careful about inflammatory language. - pir 17:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now for a few recent examples where the BBC does use the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" in news reports: In summary, they only use it when they quote other people, or when others have used the term - but they don't label anyone a terrorist. One curious exception may be "Abu Hamza ... arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences" later changed to "held on suspicion of committing terrorist offences"  - but again this deals with police accusations (btw. the police withdrew them later). - pir 18:00, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

I certainly meant no offence or I should probably apologize if that's what it sounded like. On the other hand, i distinctly recall lord Judd's comments in front of EU parliament when he was all but writhing trying to defend those who later claimed resposibility for the explosions in Moscow and Budennovsk. I did not mean that it was news correspondents who was calling Basaev or Maskhadov freedom fighters, but, for example, perhaps you would explain me by what right was the terrorist's emissar Zakaev harboured so willingly in London, since he calls himself an official representative of those who confessed in terrorism and mass murder? Cacofiend 15:37, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What would you expect? What law has he broken? Unless he has actually committed a crime - taken part in terrorist acts, or incited or funded them - he hasn't done anything that he can be held to account for. You can't just arrest people because they claim to represent criminals - what would happen to all the lawyers? 172.186.179.97 08:36, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would expect him to be surrended to be judged in Russia. If he hasn't commited any offence than he has absolutely nothing to be afraid for. Since he is still held in Britain, i take that as a public confession of his guiltyness and an act of chauvinism and open support of terrorist's, pardon "freedom fighters" from Britain. Cacofiend 15:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who is editing the page so my messagf is not shown? Cacofiend 07:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lie is not NPOV
I cannot agree with the practice of use of the words like "hostage-takers" and even "rebels" instead of the clear term "terrorists" in this article. It is not violation of NPOV, these people are terrorists by any POV (I believe by terrorists itself POV), at least I know nobody who can say that murderers of children in this crisis can be named just as "hostage-takers". They are murderers, killers, assassins, they have no excuse and you just want to name them as "hostage-takers". It's not NPOV, it's a lie. If they would understood that their crime is unbelievable and released all hostages without any harm for them we will name them as "hostage-takers", it will be correct. But they are not only "hostage-takers", they murdered innocent children, so "terrorists" is the mildest term they deserved (for me it's neutral enough, at least I know some English words that are more appropriate for these people, but they are not in format of Wikipedia). I don't want to evaluate these people by themself, it's not a point here. Who knows may be in the past they were very nice people and were kind as Santa-Claus, but in this crisis their behaviour is named "terrorism" for sure. So I reverted these "hostage-takers" and "rebels" to "terrorists" to remove the lie. Maximaximax 12:07, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Apart from the whole 'one mans terrorist...' argument, hostage-taker is more accurate. Someone who assassinates a world leader could be described as a 'terrorist'. Someone who hijacks an airplane could be described as a 'terrorist'. Someone who blows themself up could be described as a 'terrorist'. Assassin, hijacker, suicide bomber etc. are more desirable, even without considering the NPOV benefits, because they are more specific and therefore more accurate.--Cynical 17:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I doubt there are many on any side of the Chechen independence argument who would consider the taking of a school hostage to be anything other than terrorism. - Mark 12:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * goodness, they're terrorists by anyone's definition, and they are also militants, rebels and hostage takers. The problem we see here is that "terrorist" has been turned into a propaganda term by the US regime, but that shouldn't stop us to use it correctly when appropriate. dab 12:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point ; but if "terrorist" is used throughout the whole article, it reads a bit like a propaganda piece because it's a constant appeal to the readers emotions. - pir 13:28, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't want an edit war, but please understand that there really is no one who is saying they aren't terrorists. They obviously are, as you say, by anybody's POV. Everyone agrees on that. Everyone also agrees that Adolf Hitler was an evil mass murderer, but it doesn't say that in the article, because it's still POV, however true it might be. Ask yourself why respected sources of news don't use the word terrorist? Is it because they think what these people did was not actually that bad? The answer is of course no. They don't use the word because it's POV. The facts speak for themselves. It makes Wikipedia look amateurish to have an article which is full of the word terrorist. People don't come to Wikipedia to get moral judgements, they come for the facts, and that is what we should be supplying. I would like to urge you again to read everything that's already been said on this talk page, and the same goes for anyone else who comes across this article for the first time. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 13:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Trilobite described my thoughts on the issue exactly, think the word terrorist should be avoided. -- Ævar Arnfjörð [ Bjarmason]   13:49, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Can you for just a minute control your understandble&justified outrage and anger, and explain to us how it is a lie to use the word "hostage-takers" instead of "terrorists" ? - pir 13:11, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Now it is Bush fault... If US propaganda would use a word of "duck", will you rename all ducks to waterfowl?


 * Yes. If Bush or Putin or Chirac or Saddam or bin Laden used the word "duck" for propaganda with such success that it became strongly connoted with a strong appeal to emotions, we would try to avoid the word when possible. - pir 13:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * while americans may have been indoctrinated to think "terrorist" means "enemies of God as defined by his seravnt GWB", there are parts of the english-speaking world where terrorist still has a well-defined meaning... dab


 * "Terrorist" has always been used by propagandists to describe an enemy, not just by the US. Virtually no armed group uses "terrorist" to describe themselves. - pir 13:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about we just alternate between the terms here? Use terrorist here and there and hostage taker here and there. If nobody is objecting to the fact that they committed terrorism (check the definition at the top of terrorism), then I'm sure there is a very simple compromise reachable here without hardline revert wars. - Mark 13:39, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I hope so. That's what I was originally trying to avoid by changing the conspicuously politically correct word "militants" into the factual "hostage-takers", but it seems to have met with limited success. If possible some of the sentences should be reworded slightly to avoid having to make the choice, but we can't avoid it all together. By the way, I don't object to the hostage-takers being described as terrorists, as long as it's qualified somehow so that it's clear we are being objective and factual and not just using an emotive term. What I object to is wholesale replacement of all the words that are used with "terrorist" which makes the whole article read very badly and looks unprofessional. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 14:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't get it, why isn't it a violation of wikipedias NPOV policy to write exempli gratia that Al Capone was a gangster, Caligula was a cruel despot or that Marc Dutroux is a notorius criminal and serial killers, but calling terrorists by name is? 193.219.28.146

To repeat what I wrote above: some of those who insist on using the word "terrorist" are not motivated by a desire to be factual, but by an (understandable) urge to express their moral condemnation. While I agree, of course with the moral condemnation, this is not the place for morally charged debates. The point is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a moralistic authority - people come here to get factual information not to get told about right and wrong, good and evil. I don't know if we are 100% consistent, but at least we try (e.g. avoiding the term "dictator" including for people like Kim Jong-il and Fidel Castro) - pir 14:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like that there is no "rebels" in this article anymore, but I see that my explanation why we shall use the word "terrorists" instead of "hostage-takers" was not understood, I guess it was because of my bad English, sorry. So I will explain more detaily. You missed my explanation that they are not only "hostage-takers". They are "hostage-killers", "hostage-murderers", etc. "Hostage-takers" we can name people who take hostages, but after a while they released them without any harm. But these terrorists were gangsters, "bandits" (rus.), they are not takers, they had noi intention to save lives of their hostages - they started to kill them from the beginning of the action. So, if you think that using of the term "terrorists" throughout the article looks "unprofessional", change some of them to killers, murderes and gangsters, I think it will be okay with NPOV. As for me using name "terrorists" for terrorists does not look throughout the article about a terrorist incident does not look "unprofessional". For example, if you write an article about crocodiles you call them crocodiles but not green americans, sorry. I will not revert edits again, please do it by yourself, I hope now you understand why it's necessary to do it. AGAIN: they are NOT ONLY "hostage-takers", they performed much worse crime, so they MUST be named accordingly Maximaximax 14:51, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I understand what you mean. I agree partially whith what you are saying. However "hostage-takers" in no way implies anything as to the fate of the hostages - clearly any reader of the article will know what their eventual fate was ; I don't think there's any evidence that makes it clear that they planned to kill all the hostages from the beginning. I'm not hung-up on any particular word : in one context "terrorist" may be the most to-the-point in another it maybe "hostage-taker" and there are other suitable terms. However it is not acceptable to use highly emotive words like "terrorist" throughout. - pir 15:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree with pir and Trilobite about avoiding the moral charges here. It is something that I found unusual when I left Russia. Maximaximax, I agree as everybody else that the perpetrators were terrorists and inhumane. But giving some space to the readers' judgement is what I liked in the Western culture. My words may sound offensive and only spoiling this discussion by distorting the pir's and Trilobite's point of view. I am only trying to add some emotional dimension to my understanding of situation. The urge to divide the points of view into "ours" and "theirs" is all too common in Russian state-backed newspapers and TV channels, and this give justification to hatred towards any non-Slavic national residing in Russia. I am probably offending Maximaximax or Cacofiend by measuring people by the country of origin, but keep in mind I myself am from Russia and I understand the emotional part of a Russian soul as it was always more important than the judgemental part. What pir and Trilobite are saying, in my understanding, is that they don't want wikipedia be a part of the search for moral questions. I understand such separation of data from judgement as a great cultural achievement of the West. Ilgiz 15:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I am really interested in learning the newspeak. What would you call a person, who steals? What would you call a man who had forced sex with a woman against her will? Please provide appropriate terms. I would like to absorb the great cultural achievement of the West. I strive to separate data from judgement. --Gene s
 * a) One can easily see the elements of this culture in the newspaper articles where a suspect is called a suspect until he/she is sentenced.
 * True, but I don't think it's relevant now. Can you actually provide a term which you would use to describe a person who, say, is convicted of rape? See, no one questions the fact that this was a terrorist attack. No one questions the fact that attackers/hostage takes really existed. So, there were people who participated in a terrorist attack. Why not call them terrorists? Not some particular Joe or Ahmed, but the group as a whole.
 * But mistakes happen even in the court system, as the 27 year improsonment of Milgaard has shown. b) It is already known that an injured person who only _looked like a militant_ was beaten to death by the crowd just moments after he was brought from the school.
 * Do you feel a moral right to pass judgement? Suppose it was your child there and you saw an armed stranger coming out of school who quite possibly killed your child. How would you personally act? Would you keep cool and protect him from others? Remember, this is a small town. They probably know each other by face. Would you advocate sentencing the specific father who actually killed the gunman for unpremeditated murder? Would you advocate sentencing the others who participated in beating for assult?
 * c) Your point is to charge the article with the "justified" emotions
 * My point is to avoid doublespeak.
 * but every war has two sides.
 * What two sides are you talking about? There is one side with everybody on it (even Maskhadov), and the other side with the terrorists.
 * I am probably trying to stay above the fight.
 * Like it or not, by trying to justify terrorist actions you are choosing sides.
 * Not sure if I can be forgiven for that. Ilgiz 17:13, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a big question. --Gene s 05:11, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think it's important to include in the article that this was a terrorist action, at the moment the first reference to the hostage-takers in the article says the school "was seized by armed Chechen and Arab terrorists" which I think covers this. We don't want to give the impression that anyone is trying to deny they were terrorists. However, to use the word throughout the rest of the article makes it emotive, when it should be a detached record of the facts. Your objection to the use of "hostage-takers" instead of "hostage-killers" is understandable, but "hostage-takers" is a more established phrase, "hostage-killers" would sound like it had been deliberately made up to sound emotive. If we can concentrate on improving the rest of the article, which is what I would like to try and do now, we will have something that describes what happened sufficiently accurately and in sufficient detail to make it quite clear to anyone what a terrible thing this was. I really do think letting the facts speak for themselves is the best approach in these cases. I hope we are all coming to some agreement now, if there are specific parts of the article you think are still worded wrongly please do bring them up. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 15:21, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * full agreement. using "terrorism" once should be enough for everybody. repeated use sounds like name-calling and ranting. The article needs to name facts, but it doesn't need to make a rhetorical point. dab 15:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Since you feel this way about Beslan article, your opinon on September 11, 2001 attacks should be the same, right? Would you like to go to that page first and remove all references to "terrorism" and "terrorist" there? --Gene s 16:50, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I still insist on using the word "terrorist" because it's not a non-neutral point of view; it's a fact. The guys who devastated WTC at 9/11 were terrorist. The Unabomber was a terrorist, even considering he had some reasonable point in his decisions. The hostage-takers at Beslan are terrorists, too. --Sorhed 16:57, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

A noteworthy comment by a Russian diplomat Valery Loschinin on the attempt of a Dutch EU representative to question the Russian government's responsibility: "The facts and the cause-to-consequence link of the Beslan incident are evident to everybody.  Everyone has a clear understanding, except the Dutch representative." Unfortunately this remark didn't get into the English edition of the article. The remark shows the traditional paternalistic yet irresponsible approach to dealing with the situation. Compare that to the hostages saying that not any one Russian/Ossetian official dared to answer the terrorists' phone calls even though there were some of their children in the school. A videotape of terrorists' demands was made when Roshal came and it was delivered to the officials immediately. No one has seen the tape since then. Ilgiz 16:54, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That sentence has now been deleted from the official statement after a furious response from Russia. The parlament obviously felt that Russia had a good point, since it actually retracted the statement. You think the EU parlament was wrong? --Gene s 16:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Please first visit the page September 11, 2001 attacks and remove all references to "terrorism" and "terrorist" there. --Gene s 17:02, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * no need to repeat yourself, this discussion is bulky enough. I had a look at the Sep 11 article, and I do not find an excessive use of the term. Arguably, the Template:Terrorism could be included here, but that's about it dab 17:10, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * First of all, I see some calls to completely remove the word "terrorism" from the Beslan page. I don't think it's appropriate unless it's removed from all Wiki pages. Second, do you feel it's appropriate to edit the page now when the victims are not even buried yet? The writing style of this page is that important? --Gene s 04:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The second half of the BBC article shows that another EU representative who is reporting to EU on Chechnya says that there was a point in questioning the new measures Putin is taking. Another article tells me that a similar situation with France and Algeria has been solved by peaceful negotiations.  Ilgiz 17:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The Roshal's account on the list of the terrorists' demands kept in secret by the officials.  Another  report with the statement by Zakayev below it.  Ilgiz 20:37, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why this article contains lie I was very disappointed with the fact that you insist to use the term "hostage-takers" instead of "terrorists" in this article. I see 2 reasons for it: 1) we have different meaning of these words in different languages so my understanding of these terms is far from the real English, I hope it is the real reason of this discussion; 2) it is your way to hide the truth, I belive it is not so. To hide some part of truth is a lie, I hope you understand it. I will repeat again: we may not reference these people as "hostage-takers". It's not because of morality, it's because of facts. I don't know, may be I really have a lack of correct English, so you always misunderstand me, but again I will explain using an example. Just imagine: a person steals a car. How we will reference him in the article about this action? As a thief. But if he killed a driver to stole this car we may not reference him as a thief, because he is also a murderer. So we may name him as murderer (because it is worse crime) or criminal (because it is more general word, including both murderer and thief), but not as a thief (because then we hide that he was also a murderer). The same we have in this article, we may name these people as terrorists or criminals (because meaning of these words include both hostage-takers and murderers), but we cannot name them as hostage-takers because this kind of crime is not so bad as a murder. When we call them hostage-takers we hide a part of truth, so it's a lie. I'm sure that in Wikipedia must be no lie, so we must correct the article. We may use hostage-takers in the text sometimes, but at least not more often as terrorsists, criminals or gangsters. Maximaximax 06:03, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Maximaximax, I honestly think the issue here is language, and not POV. As the article is at the moment, with a clear statement that the school was seized by terrorists in the intro, with no gratitious dwelling on the word, is fair. How can you say we are hiding the fact it was a terrorist attack when it's right there, in the introduction? I would, however, also object to complete removal of the word. As for "hostage-takers", I assume you are not familiar enough with the english language to realize that it is a "coined" expression, whereas "hostage-killer" is not. I really think, therefore, that in such questions of style, you should just believe the natives (who may well disagree among themselves, still). Again, nobody is attemting to hide the atrocity. I think the mere facts are accusation enough. dab 06:47, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible solution
Does this look reasonable? --Gene s 06:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) Let's declare a 30 day cool-off period. When the article is edited in this time, the editor would use whatever term he feels appropriate, but no one converts wholesale "hostage-takers" to "terrorists" and vice versa.
 * 2) After that we hold a vote with possible options (add more if you feel so). Maybe it should be a wiki-wide policy poll.
 * 3) Remove all references to terrorism and similar emotive terms from this article, don't touch other articles
 * 4) Remove all references to terrorism and similar emotive terms from all Wiki articles
 * 5) Use the emotive terms sparingly when appropriate
 * 6) Use them as much as possible.


 * Yes, I think so. --Sorhed 08:15, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * what's the point (sarcasm?)? The outcome will obviously be Use the emotive terms sparingly when appropriate, and that's what we're supposed to achieve here dab 11:40, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with a system-wide policy, but I also dislike emotive terminology. Finding middle ground here is more useful than a single regulation which deals with all entries regardless of their nature. With that said, however, I should also say that it is only my opinion and that I also feel that a precedent may actually cause more confusion than it resolves.
 * For what it's worth, I support hostage-takers over terrorists, but only because the later is so devastatingly overused these days. In terms of technicality, the definition of 'terrorist', such as it is, seems to fit the circumstances more or less exactly (so I say), but that would also mean that the term 'murderer' -- maybe even 'mass murderer' -- could be hung upon them. Frankly, I dont see the fault in this, but we're not here for what I think. We're here for facts, perhaps a little opinion. And in the best interests of objectivity, "hostage-takers", though loathsomely plain, seems to be the best fit.
 * I hope that helps.
 * --Oceanhahn 08:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I hope it will help. I believe you that the problem is in language. It looks very strange for me but probably in English "terrorist" is an emotive term. In Russian it is not so, it is just legal term, nothing else. And anyway I don't understand why you always skip my opinion that "hostage-takers" is very narrow term for these people. It is like name of "programmers" as "computer users". May be really in English "to take hostages" means that these hostages may be also killed by these "hostage-takers" and they will still remain "hostage-takers". I'm not native in English and may be I cannot understand Western culture as well, but I had to express my opinion, and for sure in Russian version of this article the word "terrorist" and "bandit" will be used instead of "hostage-takers". It's not because of emotions and morality, it's because of facts and may be differences between our languages and cultures. If you still want to explain me how it could be that people who did A and B where A and B are subset of C, are referred only by A but not by C (as a common term), and B is missed completely - I will very appreciate it, may be it will change my opinion as well. Maximaximax 09:34, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As a person for whom russian is native language i should probably clarify a few things. Most people in Russian have not even the faintest idea of the thing which is called "polite-correctnes", if I'm not mistaken. We do not call things other than we see them. Terrorist is called terrorist, and that not the only example. An american friend of mine was genuinely schocked when he was called a negro, not knowing that there is no other definition for a black-skinned person in the russian language. Cacofiend 16:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I wonder why the Russian version still doesn't have an article about this crisis... Ausir 14:06, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Russian version of Wikipedia is still very small, there are not so many contributors there, and we are waiting for final data about this crisis to not rewrite it several times, we just cannot rewrite it every hour because of lack of contributors. I created an article about Beslan town, but I cannot make really good article about the crisis. Maximaximax 14:18, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, you can always create a stub with only basic info about the crisis in it. Good luck with expanding the Russian Wikipedia, BTW :). Ausir 15:39, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This proposal does look quite reasonable, and I would ideally like to see a system-wide policy &mdash; for consistency and because that's what professional news organisations do. However, looking at the controversy that's erupted on this article alone, I think trying to achieve such a thing would provoke massive edit warring all over Wikipedia. We have managed to do things in a civilised way here I think; there has been heated discussion but no personal attacks or excessive back-and-forth reverting. It would be much more difficult to avoid hostility if people went round all terrorism-related articles trying to "enforce policy", whatever that might end up as. It's emerged over the course of this discussion that in the US and Russia the word "terrorism" is used more readily than elsewhere, so we are always going to have readers arriving at articles, being outraged at what they perceive as the overuse or underuse of the word and going through the article changing every reference, without knowledge of or regard to carefully considered policy. I can't see a solution to this while the world situation is as it is. There's currently not much in the world more politically controversial than the "War on Terror", and the Bush administration's willingness to throw the term around knowing full well that it's emotive of such things as people's painful memories of the horrific World Trade Center attacks means that people will feel very strongly on either side of this debate for years to come. I would like to see a cooling-off period, and to support it I am going to spend the next few days at least focusing more on improving the content of the article than the terms we use in it. For the record I do believe these people are terrorists, in fact I could hardly think of anyone more deserving of the description, but that doesn't mean it's right to make wholesale use of it in this article, because it's inherently POV, and it doesn't matter how universally that POV may be held. We should provide the facts of the case, and the readers can make up their own minds about the appalling nature of the crime. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 16:55, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hostage-takers, militants, terrorists… They are just fucking bastards. I have no other words!
 * And who are you if refuse to see it?
 * Try to explain to mothers that ladies and gentlemen who killed their children were freedom-fighters.
 * -- Vladimir.

Try explaining to the Iraqi mothers whose children were blown up in their beds that they are being 'liberated' in the name of 'democracy' by American troops 'fighting in the name of freedom'. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. --Cynical 16:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you read the page? No one is calling them freedom-fighers. No one at all. They are just fucking bastards, but there are other words. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 17:17, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes? Really?
 * If one were to go by Google, "Beslan terrorist attack" would be correct. Of course, we won't use that at Wikipedia, because these fine gentlemen and ladies might be freedom-fighters. - Nunh-huh 12:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I didn’t take these words from my mind!
 * --194.85.129.86 18:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)Vladimir


 * That was someone who agrees with you, being sarcastic. I suspect you are not a native speaker of English and you have misunderstood people's comments. Your anger is entirely understandable, but I can assure you no one is trying to portray these people as freedom-fighters. &mdash; Trilobite (Talk) 18:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Nonsense, cynical just did, above.

Exile 22:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade
Even though I myself think of "the people who took over the school and held the children hostage" as "terrorists", I agree with the reasoning above that the Wikipedia article should not automatically apply this label.

Note that the largest amount of discussion on this page is whether or not the "hostage-takers" are "terrorists". This alone should be sufficient evidence (to Wikipedia article editors) that we have a controversial issue here. And Wikipedia does not take sides on any controversy -- at least, not in its articles.

Why is the concept of terrorism so hard to agree upon, that we can't even decide whether a given action is "terrorist" or not? Here is my idea on the subject, and I mean it to be as neutral as I can make it:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." What this means is that the term terrorist is often used to mean "a person who illegitimately uses terrorism to get his way". So, for those who have already decided that an independent state for Group X is not worth the killing of a few hundred random civilians, then Xist terrorism is "bad". But, for those who think the opposite, that an independent state for Group X is worth the killing of a few hundred random civilians, then Xist terrorism is "good". (And they probably won't even want to call it "terrorism"; the word "resistance" sounds so much better.)

There's a similar "good vs. evil" squabble over many other political conflicts. One side claims that an action is intended to "liberate" an "oppressed" people; the other side says the action was intended to advance narrow interests. I sure wish Wikipedia could get to the bottom of these disputes and say clearly that Side A is right and Side B is wrong. But without an absolute standard of value (note that this link is red!), we'll never be able to do this. So we're stuck with "One side says this; another side says that" for the indefinite future. --Uncle Ed 15:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC) --Uncle Ed 15:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I believe that when writing an encyclopedia, one must go cold-blooded. One must write without any sympathy whatsoever for anyone. Let the reader decide if it is sad that the children die. WhisperToMe 23:13, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Is there necessarily a judgement being made about the cause by using the term "terrorist"? I'm very much pro-Chechen, but that doesn't make this any less of a terrorist attack. Ambi 00:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course not. Terrorism is one particular tactic which one section of Chechen separatists have chosen (and their can be many reasons for this choice, like historical precedents, the superiority of the Russian military, rejection of a negotiated solution, the general brutalisation of the conflict, personal traumas -female suicide terorrists have often lost their husband or been raped, and rape has apparently been used widely in this conflict -, etc.), but it is clearly not a choice necessitated by their cause. Not all Chechen separatists are terrorists - although Putin would like us to believe the opposite. - pir 15:08, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Uncle Ed, I think you misrepresent the debate above quite seriously. Not a single editor disagrees that the hostage-takers are terrorists, nobody here thinks that they were "resistance" fighters. Even in the world outside of Wikipedia I haven't come across anybody who publicly endorsed this terrorist barbarism. The debate here centred around the use of highly emotive language, and I think the result of the debate was that most people accept that it is best avoided in Wikipedia. - pir 09:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, my remarks were not intended only for the Beslan hostage crisis but as a general usage note. I feel that they also apply to the Arab-Israeli conflict, i.e., suicide bombings to get hold of Gaza & the West Bank; as well as either side of the war in Iraq (2003), i.e. US & UK portray themselves as "liberators", various opponents speak of an Iraqi resistance with as much admiration as the French resisting the Nazis in WW2.


 * The key difficulty here for all of us writers is this: to maintain and cherish our own values, while crafting scrupulously neutral articles on highly-charged subjects. To parapharase Mayor Koch, "How are we doing?" --Uncle Ed 13:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure what you want to say. In my opinion, we Wp. writers must momentarily forget our moral values and judgements when we write articles. They are articles not editorials or preaching. We must describe all facts objectively, make them understandable by adding analysis, and report other people's views (informed by their moral values) ; but Wikipedia itself must not express any moral values, except one: a principled dedication to representing the factual truth, in as objective and neutral a way as is humanly possible. If we get that right, we will "never have to say we're sorry" (unlike e.g. the New York Times and the Washington Post had to over their Iraq coverage). That's what an encyclopedia is for - factual information. It is not for inculcating moral values - readers already have these, and they will judge the content accordingly. Do you disagree? - pir 14:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Factually and objectively, this was a terrorist attack, as were the September 11 terrorist attacks which are not called such on Wikipedia. We are doing a disservice to the truth by avoiding the use of the term "terrorist" merely because it is a politically loaded term.  George Orwell would be unsurprised at this.  Tempshill 21:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying we should never use the word "terrorist", I'm saying we should use it where it is the most appropriate and avoid it the rest of the time. - pir 10:29, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BTW, they have broken clause 205 (and as 206, 208..) of the criminal code of the Russian Federation, and only because of this they are terrorists. It will be necessary to prove it still, but I think that it is no doubt, that fault of the seized terrorist will be proven. I still think that we should replace a few "hostage-takers" with "terrorists", but not all of them.

Article renamed
I moved Beslan hostage crisis to Beslan school massacre for two reasons:
 * 1) It's not a crisis any more; it's over.
 * 2) The terrorists massacred the hostages.

If the consensus among article contributors is that the armed group (a) killed children (b) to "terrorize", then I guess we can call them "terrorists". --Uncle Ed 17:50, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Please excuse my biased train of thought, but to me it sounds like "Beslan school massacre" is another American school shooting. Also, the event _was_ a crisis when it happened; compare to Budyonnovsk hostage crisis. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞ ]] 18:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * This could have been called a crisis had all the hostages been released. But since many were killed, it is not longer a crisis, but a tragedy, a disaster. While the event certainly qualifies as a massacre, that word just doesn't feel right. It seems loaded with emotion, which is inappropiate. Just my opinion. --Cantus


 * I agree with the first sentence. If the hostages had been released, the reason this horrible event was newsworthy would have been the mere crisis that occurred.  Tempshill 20:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just don't call it a tragedy in the article. - The writing of Wikipedia should have no emotion. Let the reader decide if it is a tragedy. WhisperToMe 04:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. --Cantus 06:15, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * I must note that actually there's nothing in the Wikipedia policies that says the writing should "have no emotion". Tempshill 20:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Actually, I'm trying to think of a consistent naming scheme for these recent incidents where terrorists take over a building full of people and then (a) hold them till their demands or met or (b) until someone they respect tells them to stop it or (c) kills them as the building is stormed by commandos; etc.

Anything but siege, I think. Because the main point is not how authorities deal with the incident. Any the word massacre implies a sudden killing of lots of people, which is generally how these things turn out. I don't like "crisis" because that sounds like Jimmy Carter's endless "energy crisis". --Uncle Ed 18:57, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * My problem with massacre is that the event is much more. It simply ended in a massacre. V V  09:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Every massacre starts with a lot of other stuff. I don't think this is materially relevant.  The "massacre" title is accurate; because of how things turned out, the massacre is the reason this incident will be remembered.  Tempshill 20:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Agree with VV. Also, we can't know that the massacre was the outcome intended by the terrorists (the title might suggest this to be the case). - pir 10:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * (a) The numerous reports of kids being shot in the back makes it pretty clear that there was intent to massacre them. (b) The original intent, which I guess you're talking about, doesn't matter; they did massacre the victims.  Tempshill 20:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the evidence suggests this was not the intent. Rather, they were trying to force political concessions out of Russia by taking hundreds of children hostage, knowing anything that went wrong would be a serious egg on the face for the leadership.  To this end, they were willing to massacre the schoolchildren, but I don't see that as their intent.  (In contrast to 9/11, where the intent was to kill thousands.)  There was a Beslan school massacre; it just happened at the end, while this article is about the whole incident.  However, I will add that I do like the word school in the title, as the casual observer may not have any clue what Beslan means without it, and may not associate the name with the incident. V V  00:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe siege should be reserved for situations where the besieged had not intended the static confrontation to happen. Rich Farmbrough 22:59, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That differs with the ordinary, dictionary definition of 'siege'. Tempshill 20:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am moving the page back to Beslan hostage crisis, to avoid the title Beslan school massacre. My justification is as follows:
 * "Beslan massacre" has extremely negative connotations that are against Wikipedia's NPOV goal (just consider this: why has "massacre" been preferred over more neutral terms, such as "killings"?). Furthermore, as User:Pir said, "we can't know that the massacre was the outcome intended by the terrorists."
 * Why in the world is the terrorists intent germane? Did these people die by accident while they were being given a seminar on Chechan culture? -- Cecropia | Talk 20:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "Beslan tragedy" also does not work as this title makes a value judgment as to whether the incident was "tragic."
 * "Beslan terrorist attack" might be the term used most often in the media and on a Google search. However, the precedent established by September 11, 2001 attacks on Wikipedia is that we avoid using the term "terrorist" in titles of such incidents.
 * "Beslan attack" is extremely vague, and the entire incident was really only an "attack" at the beginning and the end; in the middle, both sides did a lot of waiting.

In response to the criticisms of the title "hostage crisis": "It's not a crisis any more; it's over." So what if it's over? Just because it's over doesn't mean it wasn't a crisis; see, for example, the article Cuban Missile Crisis. No one disputes that there were hostages held in this incident and that this incident was a "crisis" of some sort. Beslan hostage crisis avoids the POV-nature of titles like Beslan school massacre. And why is it that the terrorists "massacred the hostages" instead of "killed the hostages"? And even supposing they did, the massacre was only at the end of the incident. The incident as a whole was a "hostage crisis" that turned out very badly.

The other title besides Beslan hostage crisis that I feel is fairly NPOV is Beslan school siege; I think either could be acceptable, but Beslan school massacre goes against Wikipedia's NPOV policy and is not.

--Lowellian 22:33, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree with portions of this analysis. I don't consider massacre to be POV.  There was a massacre.  My objection is that only refers to the closing minutes of the crisis.  As I note above, I feel having school in the title is a big plus.  The objections to terrorist attack on the 9/11 page were mostly absurd, and it was won largely through the exhaustion of its proponents (against Wik, among others) and sockpuppet voting, but again while this was carried out by terrorists, it was not a "terrorist attack" nor really an "attack" at all.  I'm ambivalent about siege; I guess that word has pretty broad meanings these days.  So, I favor either Beslan school hostage crisis or Beslan school siege or some single word which stands in for "hostage crisis" and is more accurate than "siege". V V  00:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think both Beslan hostage crisis and Beslan school hostage crisis are acceptable titles. Move it to Beslan school hostage crisis? --Lowellian 05:54, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with VV, but that's because I'm a humanitarian. As a Wikipedian, I have to support Lowellian. My heart wants the article to express the POV that the terrorists were wrong, but my head acknowledges that NPOV policy requires the Wikipedia not to endorse that POV. Who knows? Maybe I'll fork one of these days and make my own Absolute Values Wikipedia! (Until then, I gotta go along to get along; sorry, VV, we better adhere to policy while we're here: Lowellian is right, like it or not.)


 * Please explain. I have this sneaking suspicion you paid little attention to what I actually wrote. V V  02:05, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The reason you're wrong is that massacre is not a POV word. A massacre occurred; I don't think anyone would disagree with this.  "Massacre" in the title is far preferable to the dainty "crisis" that doesn't even acknowledge that there were any deaths.  Tempshill 19:01, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Article rename (again)

 * 1) This was a massacre. At least as many died here as at My Lai, and we have no problem calling that article My Lai Massacre. princeton.edu defines massacre as "the savage and excessive killing of many people." Show me that this is not what happened. Would motivation make it not a massacre?
 * 2) This is no longer a crisis. A crisis is "an unstable situation of extreme danger or difficulty." The crisis ended with the massacre. The medical definition of crisis is perha;s even more germane. A crisis is the medical event where a patient either recovers of dies. The patient died.


 * What is it about Wikipedia that we have no problem whatsoever describing something the US does as a "massacre" or "atrocities" or "war crimes" (as in Winter Soldier Investigation) and others. But when a group of armed people take hostage over a thousands completely innocent children, teachers and parents, and murder hundreds, shooting people in the back, we have to soft-pedal it? -- Cecropia | Talk 20:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"My Lai Massacre" is the name most often used by the media for that event. "Beslan school massacre", however, is not the name most used by the media for this event. If anything, it's "Beslan terrorist attack", but that has its own set of problems. As to your second point: just because the crisis is over does not mean it can't be called a crisis, in the same way that just because World War II is over, it was still a war; again, I cite Cuban Missile Crisis. The naming of this article has nothing to do with anti-Americanism. --Lowellian 01:48, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * But with the Cuban Missile Crisis, the crisis, i.e., the showdown between major powers, was the story. If Cuba had resulted in nuclear war, the article wouldn't be entitled Cuban Missile Crisis.

I have a reputation for not being anti-American, but I prefer the crisis naming still for the reason I noted above, that the massacre was the end of the crisis, but the article is about everything (the hostage-taking, etc.). Certainly, I'd have no problems with saying the crisis ended in a massacre, but the story is larger than how it ended. And yes I think the CMC point is not correct. For instance, we can say the Iraq disarmament crisis is what led to war. V V 02:03, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Certainly. This article isn't just about the ending of the event; it is about the event as a whole. --Lowellian 02:08, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * Lowellian said: "Beslan school massacre", however, is not the name most used by the media for this event. If anything, it's "Beslan terrorist attack"


 * Google search:
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 19,100 for beslan-massacre
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 6,360 for beslan-crisis
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 4,760 for beslan-hostage-crisis
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 3,330 for beslan-school-massacre
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 3,210 for beslan-school-crisis
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 2,570 for beslan-school-hostage followed by any word
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 2,130 for beslan-atrocity
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 2,050 for beslan-terrorist-attack
 * Results 1 - 10 of about 627 for beslan-terror-attack
 * -- Cecropia | Talk 02:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I do agree with you (Cecropia) about the anti-American/etc. biases on the 'pedia, of which some comments above may be in line with (cf. the hyper-PC'ers who disputed that 9/11 was a terrorist attack or that bin Laden is a terrorist), but I don't see that as the main issue. I don't believe this was a terrorist attack. The goal was not to shoot and kill hundreds of children, although obviously that was an outcome they did not object to, but rather to force political concessions from the Russian government by holding them hostage. (Of course, I'm repeating myself, as I said this above.) I'm not sure what to make of the Google test, except that "Beslan massacre" could as I said be used to refer to what happened at the end. For what it's worthy, I do feel "hostage crisis" rather understates the case, but I haven't been able to think of a way around that. The word siege comes close. V V 02:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * To repeat: Lowellian's assertion was that "Beslan school massacre", however, is not the name most used by the media for this event. If anything, it's "Beslan terrorist attack" And I've demonstrated that this is wrong. 23,860 references refer to a massacre and another 2,130 as an atrocity which is even stronger, whereas 14,330, about 40% fewer, use "crisis" in the primary description. "Terror" or "terrorist" attack is a dismal third with fewer than 3,000 hits.


 * And my complaint with Wikipedia isn't anti-Americanism per se, it is that when it comes to the US or the west in general, people have no fear to use harsh and often unjustifiably judgmental characterization, but when we're dealing with actual brutality against total innocents, we get all warm and fuzzy and NPOV-ish. I'm not going to question the sincerity of those who feel they're being NPOV, but there is a matter of editorial equality, without which any credible source is inherently compromised. If people who can't call Usama a terrorist or Beslan a massacre think that they're defending Wikipedia's virginity, they should know that the Wiki has been a little bit pregnant for a long time. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:28, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hm, I'm worried we're talking past each other. Most of what I wrote did not pertain to that conversation between you and Lowellian, except for the part when I conjectured that the word massacre in those Google hits might be referring merely to what happened at the end.  In any case, I think your analysis of use of terms is basically right; indeed, I suspect a lot of anti-Americanism exists because the large American editorship is trying to be "fair". V V  08:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh, okay, I've repeated your Google test and confirm your (User:Cecropia's) results. It seemed to me that the media was using "Beslan terrorist attack" more often than "Beslan massacre", but I guess I was wrong about it. I still think that the article should be named "Beslan school hostage crisis" over "Beslan massacre" because I don't think "massacre" describes the event as a whole, just the end, like User:VeryVerily said. Why not just let the article give the facts and let the readers decide whether it was a massacre or not? --Lowellian 04:36, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

More Google results:
 * "beslan siege" gives 14,100 results, almost as many as "beslan massacre"
 * "beslan school siege" gives 82,700 results, far more than any other name we've tried above

--Lowellian 04:40, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * How about Beslan school siege and massacre? -- Cecropia | Talk 04:45, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Is just siege not strong enough? (I'm concerned about brevity here.) V V  08:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * For brevity? I really don't think so. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:24, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's put this to a vote. Although last time I saw this happen, it had the shameful and embarassing result of "terrorist" being removed from the title of September 11 Terrorist Attacks. The My Lai massacre title is important for those who somehow think "massacre" is NPOV. Tempshill 16:35, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That was indeed shameful and embarassing. Wik's arguments were absurd, and the "vote" was fraught with sockpuppets.  But oh well. V V  22:50, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Massacre" is unacceptable, for two reasons:
 * 1) Wikipedia's usual naming policy is most common name. "Massacre" is not the most common name.
 * 2) To force such a name onto an article when it is not the most common name is a POV action. (My Lai is a different situation because there "massacre" is the most common name for the event.)

Careful of 'school'
I'd be careful about listing the word 'school' in the title - it's liable to be listed for deletion. The Recycling Troll 04:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can we vote?
Yes, provided we understand it's just a survey. V V 06:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * IOW, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? But maybe it is broke. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:56, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No, what I mean is the survey should ideally be used to help us reach consensus, rather than being simply a "winner takes all" poll. V V 21:03, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Current Title
 * 1) Mostly what VV said. It's not the best title, but it's the best I can think of at the moment. --Conti|✉ 15:42, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) This is my first choice. I've explained why above. --Lowellian 22:13, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Some variation of siege (ex.: Beslan school siege)


 * 1) V V  06:07, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)  Although I very much identify with the complaints about double standards, and think Cecropia hit many nails on the head, I find siege both (a) has the necessary connotations of violence so as to not require massacre to "really make the point" and (b) can refer to the whole event (hostage stage and massacre stage) in one word.
 * 2) Second choice. --Conti|✉ 15:42, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Although there are Munich Massacre and Deir Yassin massacre articles, other articles somehow remain "soft-pedalled". There are pages on Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not Annihilation of Hundreds of Thousands), Night of the Long Knives (not Criminal In Power Night), 2003 invasion of Iraq (not The 2003 Crusade), Irgun (not British Police Killers), Lehi (group) (not UN Mediator Killers), KGB (not Bloody Dictators' Fortress).  My point is that many deeds become more clear when labeling is avoided.  I believe only authoritarian regimes tend to spread the "righteous" labels, "helping" the readers to understand the events.  Note that such labels are never totally false, but rather appeal to revenge.  This way, many fine details are lost.  I wonder if labeling the events emotionally will make the details look insignificant.  ilgiz 17:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe the problem with your analysis is that you are putting too much freight on the concept that massacre is judgmental. The simple definition from dictionary.com is: "The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly." This certainly fits the bill. More died at Beslan than at My Lai, and with even less provocation, if that's possible. I was in the U.S. Army when My Lai happened (no, I wasn't there) and if anyone could understand the emotions and circumstances that allowed it to happen, I could. But a feeling of defensiveness for my service or my country does not translate into any objection whatever to describe My Lai as a "massacre." So my question is: what exactly makes Beslan not a massacre, while we can say that My Lai "is", all in the same *cough* NPOV Wikipedia? -- Cecropia | Talk 18:15, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would also point out that language seeks its own level. You don't need to embellish some descriptions with an adjective, because it is historically understood, so that a euphemistic title like Kristallnacht need not be called Kristallnacht Riots or Kristalnacht Murders and Destruction because it is well understood what Kristallnacht was. In fact, I find the newer German name for the event Pogromnacht to be more descriptive but actually more objectionable. Same with Holocaust or Auschwitz (which is, after all a place name). The Beslan Massacre has not reached that level of recognition and may never. If we had gotten to that point, we could simply call the article Beslan. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:25, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) This would not be my first choice (that would be "Beslan school hostage crisis"), but I could accept this as a second choice on the basis of the "most common name" policy of Wikipedia. --Lowellian 22:13, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) In that case, I support this option, following the 'tyranny' of google's majority... Krupo 23:58, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with using the "most common name" policy. (But I have no objection to keeping the name as it is.) Mateo SA | talk 05:08, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Switching vote to "siege" as this seems most common and the most NPOV compromise. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:39, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Some variation of siege and massacre (ex.: Beslan siege and massacre) (do not vote for this option if you think only either the word "siege" or "massacre" should be used, but not both)

Either sounds okay to me. Krupo 17:50, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Cecropia | Talk 17:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 1) pir 10:23, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand this option, it's "siege and massacre". If you want to vote for either siege or massacre, you should chose the options below and above. --Conti|✉ 17:59, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Some variation of massacre (ex.: Beslan massacre)


 * 1) Maximaximax 04:53, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Mateo SA | talk 15:20, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC) &mdash; "Massacre" seems to be the phrase most commonly used. I think the best way to achieve "NPOV" is to use the phrase that is popularly accepted, whatever emotional connotations it may (or may not) have.
 * 3) * "Massacre" isn't the word most often used. It's "siege", as shown by the Google results discussed above. --Lowellian 22:13, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'll switch my vote. Mateo SA | talk 05:08, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me - but 330 is not accurate death toll, even according to Russian media initial reports it was at least twice as much - I dont know what are the sources for this number - chechen rebel sources put casualties at 400 - 700; and Putin's state run media is unreliable in giving straight facts - so I would like a second inquiry into casualty count and breakdow - (I will also do myself)

Me again, the #1 troll who thought it was an inside job. New news, supposedly:
 * Beslan's...residents were told [by the parliamentary commission] yesterday [Jan 28] that high-ranking Russian military officers who "were still at their posts" were suspected of helping Chechen militants seize the town's school last September.
 * Two men holding a rank "higher than a major and a colonel" were said to be involved in the plot and had apparently deliberately not fulfilled the functions for which they are paid...
 * It is known that several policemen readily accepted bribes to turn a blind eye. Kwantus 22:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Anniversary & FAC
In less than 1 month will be the 1 year anniversary of this terrible event. Let's see if we can bring the article current and up to standards to Featured article candidates. Any takers? --Noitall 20:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm up for it, no hard feelings between us still, right? Fresh start ;) Sherurcij 08:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hostage-takers had lethal amounts of Heroin, other drugs <<Would be great if you could write a few lines, or a paragraph, about that Sherurcij 10:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've removed the "Why Beslan?" part since it really offered no information - it was also outdated given the investigations since the tragedy Sherurcij 18:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Great. I have not taken a look at this page for awhile. I'll let you know later this week. See ya. --Noitall 22:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Identities of hostage-takers
I've spent several hours searching the web trying to piece together the various reports, as well as Nur's testimony at trial (You'll notice I made him his own page, as well) - however even still we're looking at only 17 out of 32 names. (Be careful when looking, some of them, especially Polkovnik have multiple names listed for the same actual person). Would appreciate any help on this. Also, while I'm sure it's completely fruitless, I've collected every image I could find of the actual hostage-takers themselves and tried to sort them based on nuances in their clothing, so far I can offer at least partial images of 8 distinct hostage-takers, though I can't really think of any way of telling who is who, especially since all but one wore masks. Sherurcij 08:11, August 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * k, odd find here, but apparently Hanpashi 'Khan' Kulayev had his right arm/hand amputated three years prior to the assault, which may have even been a cause for his bitterness and participation. Basayev speaks of him only carrying a pistol, and Nur-Pashi said at trial that Hanpashi was the only carrying a weapon (a pistol) in the Gaz-66 on the way to the school. However among all the images on video, and now the lot of high-rez images of dead hostage-takers I've got sitting my HD, I can't find any that appear to have been missing an arm. Would love if somebody else could examine images and video to try and spot the one-armed bandit Sherurcij 19:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Pretty good edits, the only question is why you think the following should be deleted:
 * 1) motivation of Basayev in targeting children
 * 2) Nightline interview of 28 July 2005, Basayev
 * 3) why the hostage-takers targeted North Ossetia and Beslan

Can you list your source for the identified hostage-takers? --Noitall 04:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * They're coming from a slew of different sources unfortunately, the former Soviet Union isn't quite the United States, who you'll remember had their own troubles identifying the 9/11 hijackers, so any attempts to identify them are rudimentary at best...especially that Ali Taziyev guy =\ Some places say he was the main leader (Polkovnik?), others say he had a tertiary role, others still say his identity was stolen, or it was just an alias used by either Magas or Khodov.


 * I felt the "Why target Beslan" section wasn't helpful since it couldn't offer any actual information, just personal guesses as to why they may have done it. (The fact it was a short drive from where the majority of hostage-takers came from, was in fairness probably a deciding factor, and a crime of opportunity, they had a person on the inside for the Beslan school construction that summer, so they exploited it.    The "motivation in targeting children" section seemed similarily unneccessary since it was the stereotypical "Terrorist says he will kill your children, because you killed his people's children" tit-for-tat.  As per the nightline Interview, it may go well on Basayev's personal article, but we shouldn't have an entire section devoted to a single "Special" connected with something as huge as Beslan that had thousands.  Sherurcij 05:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I've removed the part reading some of the mothers with two children were forced to choose one to take with them, and leave the others behind., since that's a tad POV and untrue, it was all nursing infants and their mothers released under Aushev - so there was certainly no agonizing choices about which kid to take, older children had to be left behind. Sherurcij 17:20, August 8, 2005 (UTC)