Appearance of attackers

Here is the source https://x.com/yarotrof/status/1771240938418958800?s=20 PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be better to wait for a more concrete source on this, but thank you. CommissarDoggoTalk? 18:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 18:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reliable WP:SOURCE Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
better source, for a video of the attackers: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-68642036?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=65fdd41fb26acd1fbf32f7b7%26Watch%3A%20Gunmen%20walk%20through%20venue%2C%20gunfire%20heard%262024-03-22T18%3A56%3A01.043Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:03f429c5-b465-41a0-8513-e8d929a21530&pinned_post_asset_id=65fdd41fb26acd1fbf32f7b7&pinned_post_type=share Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the video shows pretty clearly they look like Jihadists of some kind PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 19:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You got all that from a grainy video shot from three floors up? Please focus on reliable sources and don't use this space for speculation. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are like 20 different videos of the attack. This one is one of them that indicated Jihadists: https://files.catbox.moe/pe0wq7.mp4 PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 19:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
files.catbox.moe is not a reliable source Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its a file hosting platform. https://twitter.com/narrative_hole/status/1771238686933307733
Besides, its not an article or a statement, its a video. Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
twitter is also not a reliable source. whether it's a video or a statement is irrelevant to whether we include it in the article; only reliably-sourced information can be added. sawyer * he/they * talk 20:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PalauanLibertarian: Calling them jihadists based on video is original research. Everything in the article should remain stating descriptions provided in RS: they were masked and wore camouflage fatigues. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a video of the attackers published by the official telegram channel of the KP russian newspaper : https://t.me/truekpru/148701
I think it would be safe to use this one. Kamaz939 (talk) 05:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special forces entered

Special forces are apparently storming the Concert Hall. https://twitter.com/Megatron_ron/status/1771245378639171731 Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not RS Jebiguess (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

U.S Embassy Warning

It should absolutely be mentioned that the U.S Embassy warned of an attack, as despite the age of the warning, it is still relavant by occuring in short time afterwards. Don't see why any mention of this is being removed, even when it is made clear the warning was on March 7 with an original 48 hour warning. The embassies page posts terrorism warnings very rarely, meaning this holds significance on it's own. Including the information does not automatically force a conclusion. DstressATL (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's there Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's just being edit war added and removed constantly. Will remove topic once page stabilizes DstressATL (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The date of the embassy's warning should be given in the article and that it referred to "plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts": https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-68642036 2A00:23C5:BA8A:BF01:8486:552C:1201:CA63 (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should it not also be mentioned that the warning was only for the subsequent 48 hours, and that it is unknown whether or not it has any relation to this attack? BalotelliNanaimo (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a good addition to me - in fact, John Kirby says it is unrelated https://www.axios.com/2024/03/22/moscow-shooting-concert-russia-40-killed Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added - thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The roof is beginning to collapse

The roof of the hall is beginning to collapse. https://en.trend.az/world/3877163.html Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

added with https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/mar/22/moscow-concert-attack-crocus-city-hall-shooting-russia-live-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-65fdd7a08f08214a64619ba7#block-65fdd7a08f08214a64619ba7 Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move

@Dunutubble: I've reverted your move to Crocus City Hall attack for now. Per WP:NCWWW, in the absence of a common name, the title should say "when, where, what". Please start a requested move. Thanks, queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 19:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024

Because I have a few important sources that are not classified in the wikipedia page Sagersister (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the template above and file a proper request. CommissarDoggoTalk? 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So...list them here then? If you want them to be added? Sadustu Tau (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs warning

Considering the UK embassy and US warning being added, I think adding the Norwegian MFA would also be fair. Source: https://www.nrk.no/urix/meldinger-om-skyting-i-konserthus-i-moskva-1.16818242

This source is in Norwegian, but the important parts I've tried to translate: "Norwegian citizens are encouraged to avoid mass gatherings, stay aware and follow advice from local authorities, the MFA wrote on their websites.", "It's not known if tonight's shooting has anything to do with these warnings.", "In the beginning of March the USA and Sweden went out and warned their citizens of possible terrorist attacks in Russia the next 48 hours." ItGoesItGoes (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norway was among a bunch of countries that issued similar warnings following the U.K. and U.S., so unless they said something new or different I think it's fine to just say "other countries issued similar warnings." Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair if multiple countries came out with the exact same warning ItGoesItGoes (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dmitry Medvedev

Should we include Dmitry Medvedev's post on Telegram, it reads as follows: "To the families of those killed in the terrorist attack - sincere condolences, sincere strength to all the loved ones of the victims.

Terrorists understand only retaliatory terror. No trials or investigations will help if force is not countered by force, and deaths by total executions of terrorists and repressions against their families. World experience.

If it is established that these are terrorists of the Kyiv regime, it is impossible to deal with them and their ideological inspirers differently. All of them must be found and mercilessly destroyed as terrorists. Including officials of the state that committed such atrocity.

Death for death." Also this: https://www.barrons.com/news/russia-will-destroy-kyiv-officials-if-linked-to-moscow-attack-medvedev-78300d91 Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, it's mere posturing and sabre rattling in my mind. I'm fairly certain there's policy on this somewhere but I'm not remembering it. CommissarDoggoTalk? 20:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should exclude, he regularly makes inflammatory statements like this and more senior Russian officials have commented and will likely comment soon. PaulRKil (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2024 (2)

Ommit the or change "On 7 March 2024, the FSB announced that it had neutralized a terrorist cell linked to the Islamic State (IS) in Moscow, which intended to attack a synagogue in the city." Right now there is no known connection between the Islamist extremist raid and the warning of the more vague "extremist" action made on the 7th; All referenced sources so far specifically do not indicate which sort of extremists the US made a warning about on the 7th. Connecting these two events is misleading unless some connection actually becomes substantiated (for example, if it comes out that Islamist Extremists were actually behind this attack, which we currently do not know, but the current version of this article implies). 2A02:A451:1F0B:1:8048:B771:3014:793C (talk) 20:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: I would keep the statement to provide context to the new attack to relate it to what has been happening recently in Russia regarding violent crime. However another editor who wants to remove this should do so. Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Staraction, you forgot to mark this as answered. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 20:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone else ended up removing it - but I wanted to keep it open in case someone did do that. Would that be okay? Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i've removed this as there has been no reports that even link the two events RedAuburn (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RedAuburn looks like someone placed it back (edit conflict?); feel free to remove again Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
confirmed it was an edit conflict, removed again 👍️ RedAuburn (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Sadyr Japarov, President of Kyrgyzstan

According to RIA Novosti, in a telegram to Putin, Japarov said that "Kyrgyzstan condemns the terrorist attack in the Moscow region and declares support for efforts aimed at combating terrorism." https://t.me/rian_ru/237194 Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait until a news outlet picks up on this somehow to add it to the article instead of using the Telegram link directly. But definitely should be added Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should focus on nations with a level of relevance to the matter. We should avoid a country soup of 150 countries giving boilerplate statements condemning the attacks and sending condolences. Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, USA, UK, Moscow's leadership, Chechnya and similar subnational entities etc. would be worth inclusion, not peripherally involved nations like Kyrgyzstan unless there was a connection to the country. PaulRKil (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

officials of Ukraine reaction

According to Ukrainian intelligence statement: "This is the deliberate provocation by Putin’s special services that the international community warned us about. The Kremlin tyrant started his career like this, and he wants to end it the same way: committing crimes against his citizens." ERZKIK (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

already included - see 2024_Crocus_City_Hall_attack#International Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ERZKIK, do you have a reliable source that says this? queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, nevermind. queen of 🖤 (they/them; chat) 20:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
already added into the article. ERZKIK (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This information has been deleted. Please return it to the article. We need to make sure it is not deleted again.

[1] [2] [3] Xx1973 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Translations / LLM Experiment

Doing a note for others that I translated (Russian to English) the Background section and Attack section. This was done amid an LLM experiment, meaning A.I. was used during this translation. Noting that one translated sentence received a CN tag due to the RU article citing a deprecated source. I may do further LLM experiments (most likely verification tests) after the editing dies off some. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Country responses to incident

There was a comment left that stated the reactions should be focused on nations with relevance to the story. However, there are other articles (see International reactions to the Charlie Hebdo shooting for instance) where terrorist incidents have garnered an international reaction, where international reactions have been listed. I took the Wikipedia:Be bold of adding the international reactions, which was reverted; I am wondering - why shouldn't they be included? Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive Please do let me know for future reference - thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editors despise the flag icons, the list formatting, and the unencyclopedic nature of sickening politicians mouthing platitudes. Abductive (reasoning) 21:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The corresponding section -- Charlie Hebdo shooting#Reactions -- has reactions that go far beyond boilerplate "we're sorry that happened" statements from diplomats. That's all I meant to encourage by the note. If something really goes beyond "We strongly condemn this blahblahblah" then it should be added Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Reaction" sections turn into giant lists of groups saying the same thing over and over with no substance. Citing "other articles" means that bad practices that are accepted in one article spread like a virus to others, when it was never determined if it was a good idea or not. It's just fluff and should be trimmed. Stick to meaningful events in the aftermath section. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. https://twitter.com/Amirabdolahian/status/1771265507989033094 Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 21:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess, they strongly condemned the attack? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreameditsbrooklyn it probably is. We need to avoid boilerplate reactions from countries with no connection to the attack. PaulRKil (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean no connection to the attacks? If were going by "connections" to the attacks, no countries have a "connection" to the attack, but they still are relevant in regards to it. Iran is important because it is a part of the so-called "Axis of resistance" against the US, which is a very relevant party here. Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for others, but connection means something tangible and ongoing. Like the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. It's a slippery slope. Should we include statements from officials in Cuba condemning the attack? Russia and Cuba have a long history, but it's not relevant to these events. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreameditsbrooklyn Bingo. It should go without saying that a country like Brunei’s response to this is not relevant to the article and should not be held in equal weight to Ukraine or a NATO Country’s reaction or Afghanistan, where ISIS-K is based out of. PaulRKil (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreameditsbrooklyn @PaulRKil I've added the UN reaction - let me know if that isn't important enough to be added as well (they simply "strongly condemned" the attack) Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the U.N. reaction is significant enough to be added. Thank you for adding it. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UN would be perfectly acceptable. As would NATO and the EU. PaulRKil (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting sections

Would it be worth it to split 2024 Crocus City Hall attack#Attack into "Attack" and "Emergency response" or something similar? CommissarDoggoTalk? 21:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS claims responsibility

ISIS claims responsibility on Telegram account according to NRK [4]https://www.nrk.no/nyheter/is-hevdar-dei-star-bak-angrepet-i-moskva-1.16818428 Mikal N (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that independently verified? I've seen rumours that that ISIS claim was fake. Would be important to really be sure about that info. Alexis Coutinho (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I attempted to remove it, I doubt the veracity of the claims and the original claim came from Twitter from what I understand. I'd rather hear it from a reliable source that doesn't boil down to a single sentence like the source from The Guardian. CommissarDoggoTalk? 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In a similar vein, this comes from the BBC live coverage "The report has not been independently verified. The group, also known as ISIS, has carried out attacks in a number of countries, however BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera notes that the group has at times in the past claimed responsibility for attacks that it had nothing to do with." We need to wait until this is properly verified. CommissarDoggoTalk? 21:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its fake according to Rybar. Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Rybar a russian Telegram channel? Doesn't seem too reliable to me. Arslan35 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is, it doesnt disprove it. No ISIS-affiliated groups in Telegram have actually claimed responsibility for the attack, and even if they did, it wouldnt mean much since ISIS has been fading into obscurity and has taken responsibility for other attacks in the past which they havent actually done. Also, the template that the screenshot of the message hasnt been used for several years by ISIS. Albaniandemocraticnolist (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's original research, despite how fake it may seem we have to wait for sources. Arslan35 (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From everything I know now: all versions of ISIS involvement are based on ONE screenshot of a “message from ISIS” in Arabic, whose authenticity is unknown. I think that we need to find out more details before inserting ISIS into the infobox. PLATEL (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PLATEL: Wrong. See source, it is CNN. Do not make hasty reverts please. Ecrusized (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the name of the source, but this source also relies on the same “message from ISIS”:"The terror group took responsibility for the attack in a short statement published by ISIS-affiliated news agency Amaq on Telegram on Friday. The group did not provide evidence to support the claim." I just want to see more evidence of ISIS involvement rather than taking the word of publishers based on unreliable sources. PLATEL (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Such is usually the case but that is not up for Wikipedia editors to determine. CNN and other MSM are considered reliable sources and we stick with that. Ecrusized (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the telegram account in question? mentioned in this article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/mar/22/moscow-concert-attack-crocus-city-hall-shooting-russia-live-updates?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-65fdfa8f8f08214a64619d2b#block-65fdfa8f8f08214a64619d2b Mikal N (talk) 21:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know that it was specifically IS-Khorasan province? It seems weird that it'd be the branch from Afghanistan instead of IS-Caucasus which operates inside Russia. 2.212.191.150 (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
US officials have corroborated the report: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/world/europe/isis-moscow-attack-concert-hall.html?smid=url-share
Is that enough to include it in the infobox? @Dangeredwolf Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dangeredwolf - apologies, the ping did not go through Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Staraction Apologies, I was not aware of this discussion existing before I made the change. It's good that at least there is more than 1 source corroborating this now, not sure what the standards are for including it in the infobox itself. At the time I removed it, I only saw CNN reporting it. dangered wolf (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're good, don't worry - I think I'll wait for more information before I re-add. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 2024

I think the "2024" part of the title should be removed because an attack on Crocus Hall has never happened prior to today, and is not likely to happen again. Do you support or oppose my opinion? Quake1234 (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:2024 Crocus City Hall attack#Move. CommissarDoggoTalk? 21:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They started a requested move, nothing wrong with that. Kline • talk to me! • contribs 21:53, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not at all, I was more mentioning that a move had previously been reverted. I probably should've made that more clear in all fairness. CommissarDoggoTalk? 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose Crocus City Hall Massacre in my opinion. RossoSPC (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a common name, and doesn't seem to be neutral. Arslan35 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care if it is renamed, as both names suit the incident, this name change is not a big deal in my opinion. KeymasterOne (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think we should focus on keeping up with the latest news and then we can discuss possible name changes once everything is more calmed down. OneMoron (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we can wait -- especially with naming it a "massacre", "attack", etc. We do not have enough information yet to determine how it should be classified. As for the year, I'm not sure if there's consensus. Sometimes, an event without a year will direct to an event with a year, such as Saint Petersburg Metro bombing redirecting to 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add back mention of previously planned ISIS terror attack on synagogue

Russian FSB said they stopped a planned ISIS terror attack earlier this month. The background section used to mention it, but it got removed for some reason, given that they've taken take responsibility for the attack according to multiple reliable sources, it should be added back. 2403:580D:8038:0:30C3:69AA:FE8F:783F (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done - thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:22, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i removed it before due to no sources linking the two, and before the claimed responsibility. Thanks for re-adding it now that it's been mentioned in sources 👍️ RedAuburn (talk) 22:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death count

Many news Telegrams have been reporting 120/130/145 deaths now, and from the videos there looks to be well more than 40 people trapped in the theater. Should we update the death count considering the Moscow Health Ministry recent put it at 145 and released the list of victims? PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 22:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PalauanLibertarian: Do you have a reliable source that states those numbers? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Moscow Health Ministry report from the Guardian. Arslan35 (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 22:10, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what 112 News is reporting at the moment, but I don't speak Russian and don't know if any English news sites have updated their death count PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 22:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PalauanLibertarian: Please check what you're adding. That says 145 injuries, not fatalities. Ecrusized (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone fix all the injury counts in the page? Some of them still show 100+ injured, and I don't know how to re-use citations in source mode. Arslan35 (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 2024 (2)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: SNOW close against move to massacre, consensus to remove the year. (non-admin closure) Geardona (talk to me?) 06:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


2024 Crocus City Hall attack → Crocus City Hall massacre – Remove year because no other attacks have happened at this location, include massacre in title because large amount of deaths and casualties from attack with multiple types of weapons. MountainDew20 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose renaming to massacre, as the incident was not only a massacre - there were also other activities, such as arson, involved. The arson can be classified as an attack, but not as a massacre. Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Terrorism, WikiProject Disaster management, WikiProject Current events, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Serial Killer task force, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject Russia have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Looking at the related List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State, the article titles either specify the type of attack (e.g., bombing) or simply say 'attack'. In this case, it was not a specific form of attack, as Staraction stated. Further, the articles tend to keep the year in the title regardless of whether a previous attack occurred. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming to massacre: As mentioned other similar events are titled attack - 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel, September 11 attacks. However unsure if 2024 in title is needed. Lacanic (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It is unnecessary to make the distinction between mass murder/attack and massacre in this case AlmightyGoose (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The idea that this lurid title is being widely used needs to be reliably sourced. City of Silver 01:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose using term "massacre" per Staraction and AlmightyGoose; support removing "2024" per request. Luke10.27 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose proposed title, per above; weak support of the title ‘Crocus City Hall attack’ due to the issue with having the year in the title. –Gluonz talk contribs 01:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose removal of year doesn't qualify under WP:NOYEAR. No opinion on the other proposed change. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming to massacre, but support removal of year. RPC7778 (talk) 01:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: as others have stated, the vast majority of similar attacks are not labeled as "massacres." Spjag (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose usage of massacre per others, support removal of year as there has been no prior "Crocus City Hall attack" - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 02:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reasons mentioned above, but from what I understand most people would support the name Crocus City Hall Attack, but my only issue is that it might be hard to find in the future, as Crocus City is not really known by many. Just my opinion though. Ulysses Grant Official (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support removal of year per WP:NOYEAR, oppose "massacre" until sourced dominantly. 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming to massacre for the reasons other users have described above, support removing the year under WP:NOYEAR. Puhala,ny (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both removing the year and changing the title to massacre per WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles. Pilaz (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a move including the word "massacre." WP:NCENPOV has article title requirements for controversial topics. Per the policy, we should use 1) the common name for an event; 2) if not common name exists, a generally accepted word used when describing the event; or 3) if there is no generally accepted word, a descriptive title that avoids POV implications. Right now, sources are calling this an "attack." If sources broadly shift to using the term "massacre," we can reconsider a move. Weak oppose on removing the year; many editors are invoking WP:NOYEAR, but this only states that some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it (emphasis mine); it is not a requirement to remove the year from article titles if the year is unnecessary, as they can still be helpful. The page gives examples of other articles which do not require the year but nevertheless have it as a "useful identifier." ---Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 03:04, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming to massacre but support removal of year. would keep the word 'attack' though, thus renamed "Crocus City Hall attack" 47.199.186.89 (talk) 03:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming to "massacre." Pages on other similar incidents include the word "attack," (e.g. November 2015 Paris attacks and Westgate shopping mall attack) while the word "massacre" is used on pages about mass execution-style incidents (e.g. Camp Speicher massacre and 2016 Mosul massacre). Christophervincent01 (talk) 04:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose massacre since its tabloidy. Support removing year per non-frequency. Borgenland (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ISIS...

I think we shouldn't be so quick to cement ISIS as the culprit of this.

Refraining from sounding like a tinfoil hat, why would ISIS attack a country that directly serves and enables the interests of other Muslim countries, specifially, a country that has been aggressively pro-palestine?

I think we should assess the entire situation considering the current political climate, instead of quickly taking sources as fact when they may have demonstrated otheriwse recently, otherwise we may get another "40 beheaded babies" hoax like situation. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Government has stated that the attack was committed by ISIS-Khorasan. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/22/world/europe/isis-moscow-attack-concert-hall.html Just because the Russian Government has occasionally supported Muslim nations and movements doesn't exclude them from terrorist attacks, one could also point to Russia's actions in Chechnya and the Middle East as reason for ISIS to target them. Other than the US Government, multiple sources point towards either ISIS or lone-wolfs acting on behalf of ISIS to be the culprits such as the BBC, TASS, and CNN. Using all of the available information everything points to it being conducted by the Islamic State, and there should be no change on that being the official stance of the article unless new information is put forward. OneMoron (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The United States government is capable if lying to secure its interests.
It has done so numerous times these past three months alone.
We should say "The United states accuses [Nation] of..." and such. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious. Is there any primary source for the claim that the US has confirmed ISIS's responsibility, or is that just coming from an unsourced sentence in the Times? Brooklaika (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably coming from @Israel or @Mossad, which passes as a reliable source according to Wikipedia Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any credible source or any justifiable reason for claiming as such? Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like an American official told CBS news something similar: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mass-shooting-music-venue-crocus-city-hall-moscow-picnic-concert/ Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS themselves have claimed responsibility for the attack (see various sources provided throughout article) Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think your point about waiting to cement ISIS as the culprit is well-placed, but I would like to refute some of what you have said in this post. ISIS is an extraordinarily extremist form of Islam (if it can even be considered as Islam), and almost always has concentrated its attacks in Muslim countries and frequently against Muslim governments (Iran, Syria, Pakistan, etc.). Furthermore, ISIS has historically opposed groups like Hamas and views any nationalistic struggle as opposed to the true religious fight. And, of course, Russia bombed ISIS into the dirt in Syria and Iraq, killing thousands of ISIS fighters; that wouldn't be remembered fondly by the group. Brooklaika (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, to not sound like a tinfoil hat, there's reason to believe ISIS may be behaving to serve the interests of Mossad agents and such.
They were practically dormant until that military commander in Iran got rocket sniped and they show up out of nowhere claiming responsibility.
Like, why Iran? Wouldnt an extreme sect of Islam want to unironically enact a White Genocide? As revenge for oil grubbing wars and such? Why are they attacking the enemies of Israel and the United States?
But like I said, due to the nature of that information, it's unlikely any source wikipedia considers "Reliable" will admit this and remain in business. I was told to be bold, so I boldly say that we should not follow rules to the exact letter in something as serious as this if it prevents us from telling the truth or remaining neutral. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would cautiously say that Wikipedia includes things that are verifiable, not necessarily the truth: Wikipedia:TRUTH Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that ISIS has been dormant is quite strange. While their attacks on Western targets reduced significantly (notwithstanding the 13 US soldiers killed during the retreat from Kabul) ISIS cells outside of the Levant have continued their attacks, especially IS-KP and cells in East Asia and Africa. Regardless, you would need a reliable source to back that up. Brooklaika (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why wouldn't anyone need a reliable source to back up what's being said already. It looks like some people feel the ISIS claim isn't even backed by a reliable source itself.
Regardless, we should all be interested in what Russia itself has to say about this. Vladimir Hunter (talk) 00:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ISIS hasn't been "dormant" at all, they're still an active player in places like West Africa, Yemen, the Levant, and Afghanistan. They might not be as active as they used to be, but they are very much still a power in the region with many groups not directly tied to them working with them. I also don't see why you need to bring in the Mossad and other very politically charged wording that you're using here. What you're saying is bordering on conspiracy theories of ISIS being controlled by the Mossad and the US Government, and have no place in a discussion about the perpetrators of a terrorist attack. OneMoron (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, boldly offer some reliable sources Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As others have stated, the claim that ISIS is dormant is odd considering the evidence found here: List of terrorist incidents linked to the Islamic State. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that stating in wiki voice that it was ISIS is incredibly premature, but more so because the actual men who perpetrated the attack have yet to even be identified. They claimed responsibility, and the US govt said that they'd been planning an attack in Moscow, and that's about it- to say that it was specifically ISIS-K when the attack happened less than 24 hours ago and information is still flooding in is very premature. "Claimed responsibility" should be appended to IS-K.
I dont agree with notions of Mossad and US. That makes zero sense and isn't borderline conspiracy theory, it crosses it - presidentofyes, the super aussa man 01:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think at this moment in time this discussion should be closed, all available sources and evidence point towards the Islamic State being the culprit, the original poster in the thread clearly has a political bias that goes against the neutral nature of wikipedia and is pushing conspiracy theories about state actors supporting ISIS. At this time unrelated political events in the Middle East should have no bearing on the articles position that the Islamic State was the sole perpetrator until any contrary evidence is put forward. OneMoron (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM for our own theories, speculation, and analysis. They are to make specific improvements to the page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Said comments should have been removed as WP:DENY in the first place. Borgenland (talk) 04:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Victim list published by Russia

The Ministry of Emergency Situations published on its website a list of 99 victims of the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall in the Moscow region. Should we update the death count to 99 or keep it at 60? PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 01:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Article linked is a bit vague and only mentions the list of 99 victims in the title, I'd say we should wait until further sources can confirm a higher count before making the change out of caution. OneMoron (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The list is real however I think the website is down. The list has been posted on Telegram however PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the list: https://mchs.gov.ru/deyatelnost/press-centr/novosti/5238780 PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 02:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think the page is down right now. I would say it might be possible to make a section pertaining to claimed losses again until more sources come out with a higher number. Maybe something like "64-99" however that would probably have to go through a vote. OneMoron (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some claims of at least 70 deaths: https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/world/russia-moscow-concert-hall-terror-attack-death-toll-injuries-islamic-state-group-claims-responsibility-ukraine-zelenskyy-us-president-joe-biden-update-2024-03-23-922846 Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undue theories

Under perpetrators section there is a theory citing a the Russian source Kommersant implying it was the [[Russian Volunteer Corps]. Russian sources should not be used for this article, namely because the country lacks a proper free press. They are ranked 164 on the World Press Freedom Index and the deterioration of the free press in Russia is well documented. Therefore, since no reliable sources cite this, this theory is WP:UNDUE. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Rossa Primavera source, which has some questionable ties, including their Twitter account which looks...questionable at best: https://twitter.com/NewsFromDonbass, and very obviously anti-Ukrainian coverage, such that extreme biases are evident: https://eu.eot.su/2024/02/23/liberation-of-avdeevka-why-is-this-victory-so-important/.
Kommersant is "generally reliable" according to Wikipedia:RSP; however I was unable to find them actually reporting on the issue.
Meduza is also an acceptable source, but the way their post is phrased implies that they are not getting the information from Kommersant directly either. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found the line everyone was referencing https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6592262 - reads like speculation to be honest, but I am using browser translation so here goes nothing:
"Some sources - assumed that the terrorists could be members of the banned in Russia organization "Russian Volunteer Corps." Its participants periodically carry out attacks on settlements in the regions of Russia bordering Ukraine. Just on the eve of the terrorist attack, the FSB detained in Moscow a whole group of their supporters who were going to fight in Ukraine, and still committed small sabotage in Russia." Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if these may or may not be "generally" reliable, no one else is reporting this. WP:WEIGHT is determined by the quantity and quality of WP:RS. We have literally hundreds of articles in English speaking sources alone covering this event, and none of them mention this theory. In contrast, we may have a single source attributing to it. Secondly, it appears to be full on speculation with poor sourcing, and it does a disservice to our readers to put this on par with United States State Department analysis, like these two sources are on equal footing. Again, I'm citing WP:UNDUE which is designed specifically to not elevate speculative poorly sourced theories on par with quality reporting. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm just noting that the actual content of the articles is unreliable (probably) as well. I agree w/ you on the Wikipedia:UNDUE argument ... just waiting for others to input their opinions as well. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reaper1945 this discussion may interest you Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the more that you look at this and the deeper you go, the worse it gets. So supposedly the source is some Pro-Russian propaganda twitter? And this is put on par with proper sources like the New York Times? This information has no place on Wikipedia. Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a denial from the RVC and the FRL. Borgenland (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This theory has some basis, albeit very small. It was reported just 10 hours before the attack that FSB has uncovered a RVC cell in Moscow and "7 young males who discussed attacks on soldiers, police officers and foreigners were arrested".
https://www.rbc.ru/politics/22/03/2024/65fd47419a79479f78021d2f 93.81.37.232 (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Picnic or Piknik?

Sources are conflictant. 2804:14D:5C32:4673:2A3:C7B3:3403:56F8 (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with Picnic (band) since that is the name of the corresponding Wikipedia article Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of language, more specificity in language.

"...masked gunmen in combat fatigues opened fire on the crowd using automatic rifles." in some footage it is shown they are using AKM rifles, or at least AK style rifles. I think it would be better to have that replace "automatic rifles", like so: "masked gunmen in combat fatigues opened fire on the crowd using AK-pattern rifles." 78.60.80.59 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did they ever find the Band member?

"The musicians of Picnic later posted on Instagram that they and their management were "alive and safe," though they later said that they were unable to contact one of the band members."

Did they ever find the band member? Mercer17 (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories