This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Attempted removal of initial response by Russian officials and media Synotia ( moan) 19:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of a "cover up", no personal attacks. In this revision, the subsection highlights the Russian assertion, the Ukrainian denial, the stance of the US, and denials from relevant militant groups. There is a talk page discussion above about needless details, which is what I was referring to. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – ( Thanks ♥) 19:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the (third?) time this user has made a personal attack on this page. @ Synotia We aren't all working for the Russian FSB just because we removed info because it detracts from the focus of the article. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 19:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Their attempt at framing this as being related to Ukraine is crucial to understanding this response, and your pretext of protecting readers from "disinformation" is absolutely laughable. Synotia ( moan) 19:58, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Then learn to work normally through consensus instead of hiding or removing information because you don't like it. Synotia ( moan) 20:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The consensus is against you. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

2 vs 1 is not a consensus Synotia ( moan) 20:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Read the talk page discussion about it..... It's not 2v1 and only you are diehard about keeping the full thing in..... calm down. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 20:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

STOP trying to remove information about the Kremlin media coming up with prefab deepfakes right after this attack. Synotia ( moan) 19:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am a stones throw away from going to ANI about you. Please. Get your senses calibrated. I don't want to, but I will. Cease edit warring and your personal attacks. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 20:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't say "learn to work normally", practice civility. The sentence Latvia-based Russian news outlet Meduza reported that pro-government and state-funded media in Russia were instructed by the Russian government to highlight possible "traces" of Ukrainian involvement is still in the article, which maintains the crucial information you want to keep. Let's go over what's being contested:

• NTV and Kommersant are not state media
• Dmitry Medvedev is not alleging Ukrainian involvement, he is just stating his opinion on if there's involvement.

These are irrelevant details and do not tie into Russia/Ukrainian state assertions. There is no cover up being done by editors. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – ( Thanks ♥) 20:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no media freedom in Russia and NTV has long been referred to as a pro-Kremlin TV channel. [1] As for Kommersant, it cited anonymous government sources who tried to blame the attack on pro-Ukrainian Russian fighters before the actual Tajik attackers were arrested. -- Tobby72 ( talk) 20:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

We don't know yet what Tajik attackers were arrested or if they are the perpetrators. No claims from the Kremlin should be treated as fact without reliable sources also saying so. FailedMusician ( talk) 00:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@ FailedMusician: I removed the paragraph you added because it's inconsistent with the two citations you provided: 1) the names on akipress.com don't match with those who have been arrested; 2) The article from timesca.com says that the Tajikistan’s foreign ministry asked media to “rely on “official information” distributed by Russian authorities”. Thibaut ( talk) 10:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

After reading this article from nv.ua, I reinstated the paragraph and tried to clarify it.

I think more up-to-date reliable sources are needed. Thibaut ( talk) 11:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

the actual Tajik attackers were arrested.

We don't know if they are the attackers, they have not even been tried. Synotia ( moan) 11:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Read my edit summary Synotia ( moan) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Synotia: Given that there are disagreements about whether the information should be included on the page, please discuss here before re-adding it as this could be considered edit-warring. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 20:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be the other way around, though? To not remove something unless there is consensus? I wonder if there's a rule regarding this. Synotia ( moan) 20:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

At present, multiple editors believe the information is irrelevant and detracts from the article. The information has been placed in an invisible comment until a consensus can be found. In this case, not including the information is more neutral than including the information. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 20:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

In the parts you commented out there was also information about ISIS's relationship towards Russia that had been lost in the "fog of editwar" Synotia ( moan) 20:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to which information you're referring to? Nothing in the commented section discusses IS's relationship with Russia. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That whole part about the attack at that parade in Iran, along with the past bombardments of ISIS by Russia in Syria. Synotia ( moan) 20:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with that, and it's not in a hidden comment anywhere. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 20:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

there you go Synotia ( moan) 20:41, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I propose keeping the subsection as it appears here. It covers Putin/FSB's allegations, Ukrainian rebuttal, US denial of involvement, militant denial of involvement, and notes that the Russia government is attempting to use state media to push the allegations. I am opposed to including comments by Dmitry Medvedev because they are not allegations. I oppose including the assertion from a Ukrainian politician that this is a Russian false flag because Telegram is not a reliable source, and such a heavy accusation requires coverage from reliable sources. I moved information about the NTV deepfake to the disinformation article as it is more relevant here. I don't find this detail notable but if we want to readd information about the perpetrators initially suspected of being Slavs, I would suggest adding it to the " Investigation" section. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – ( Thanks ♥) 20:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you can guess :-) that I find my version the best.

Comments by Medvedev or the Ukrainian politician should remain appropriately paraphrased, of course. As a footnote it is worth noting that Telegram is merely a medium, it's like saying that television is not a reliable source. Organizations like Nexta primarily use Telegram. Synotia ( moan) 20:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I am saying that the Telegram comments need coverage by reliable sources if they're to be used. Also, Medvedev made no allegations so why include what he said? Do you mind explaining what makes your version best rather than just linking to it? Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – ( Thanks ♥) 20:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Medvedev's statements don't need to be included at this time given that they're speculative (i.e., if Ukraine is involved...). This is very different from the claims made elsewhere that Russia is asserting that Ukraine is involved. However, I'm open to opinions about whether to include claims about Russia asserting that Ukraine was involved. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 20:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Russia's allegations that Ukraine is involved and Ukraine's denial should be included in the article in some capacity due to its widespread coverage by reliable sources. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – ( Thanks ♥) 20:54, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Medvedev's comments are not that relevant in of themselves, they were merely swept with the rest in my copypasting.

What is relevant to note is the inconsistency in initial reporting about Slavs and the Russian legion in Ukraine, that later somehow culminated in some Azeri guy having his bloody ear shoved in his mouth.

And furthermore, there is the chef's piece: the deepfake with Oleksiy Danilov. That they right away had a deepfake ready for this, at the time the victims were not even counted yet alone put in body bags, says a lot about the motivation of the Russian media and the people pulling the strings behind them.

These paragraphs carry with them the entire clumsiness of the Russian security apparatus in pointing towards a culprit. And it is very important for readers to know this. People are smart enough to figure out what is sketchy and what is not, they are not children with fragile minds to protect from "misinformation", especially if paraphrased appropriately and not bluntly shown as the holy truth. (which we never did in the first place) Synotia ( moan) 20:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying they right away had a deepfake ready for this, at the time the victims were not even counted yet alone put in body bags, says a lot about the motivation of the Russian media is speculation, editors aren't meant to speculate about motivations and pre-made deepfakes. If NTV was state media, I would maybe support its inclusion, but it is not. Editors can not make their own connections between the NTV deepfake, the investigatory inconsistencies, and the Russian state media campaign ( WP:SYNTH). Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – ( Thanks ♥) 21:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have merely highlighted what I deem is important, not even posited my personal opinions on the events. And even if I did, I'm on the talk page, it does not matter. Synotia ( moan) 21:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Nice4What's solution as is: Notes the topic of Ukraine being accused, but not making it the subject, which I find respectful and balanced compared to loading an article involving the devastation of hundreds of lives and livelihoods with multiple paragraphs that amounts of geopolitical finger pointing that lacks a direct connection to reality. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 21:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding respectful coverage, as a wise man once said, womp womp. There is zero room for emotion in (attempted) objective political analysis of our oh so complex mondo cane.

By the way, a while ago I watched the documentary Hypernormalisation, by Adam Curtis. He is a virtuoso in finding the right images and taking the viewer on an interesting journey through the mind-bending relationships between world leaders, epochs, tragic events,... that seem unconnected at glance. If you have time, it's worth it, in order to get you more of a picture of what I am trying to convey. Synotia ( moan) 21:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

......What? Are you trying to attack me, insult me or something else? This article isn't about the war in Ukraine directly, if at all outside political chit-chat, it's about people from IS shooting up and subsequently firebombing a bunch of Russian citizens. Ukraine is barely relevant here, and something tells me it will stay mostly irrelevant outside of Nice4Whats paragraph and nothing notable will happen with Ukraine because of this. ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 21:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

"editors aren't meant to speculate [...]"

I did not try to insult you in the slightest, and the fact that you even interpreted my friendly suggestion for your next popcorn sesh as an insult is a sign you might need to get off the computer and get some fresh air. Perhaps my brash way of working played a role in this, I'm sorry for that. Synotia ( moan) 21:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry il rephrase for you: I cannot speak the language you are currently speaking. You jumped from saying 'womp womp' linking to a YouTube video(?) to saying I shouldn't care about the fact people died because I edit Wikipedia (are you quite litterly saying 'chicken meat is cheap'? Just because this is an encyclopedia doesn't mean we are all emotionless hills) to some English filmmaker talking about something (no I'm not checking because I couldn't care less what a stranger on the internet sends me). In your reply, you quote from somewhere (idk where), mention something about popcorn, move on to say I should log off my computer (Despite being a mobile editor), and then mention some sort of apology.

In Summary, what on earth are you trying to say to me? ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 21:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems that having studied political science has led to a gap between me and Joe Average.

I say that in political analysis, there is no place for emotions, and that the feelings of the victims or their relatives is entirely irrelevant and should play no role whatsoever. Synotia ( moan) 08:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I shouldn't care about the fact people died because I edit Wikipedia [...]

Not that way. It's tough to control your feelings, we are human after all. However you can prevent them from corroding objectivity of coverage in order to not get useless schmaltz no reader has any use with. Synotia ( moan) 08:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

You have a very rude tone, and you should stop with it. It's completely unnecessary, and so are your personal attacks. WP:RUDE, WP:PA. It is not difficult to be civil. Abandonee ( talk) 22:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I know it very well. On this website, we are all names on a screen next to chunks of text. No visual, auditory, non-verbal input. Therefore pushing it with the assertive tone is my way of underlining online what I deem of importance in the wake of a huge attack that will have important socio-political repercussions. Synotia ( moan) 09:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility. Perhaps simply stating your point without the assertive tone would get you a little farther if/when all engaged editors come to an agreement. Staraction ( talk | contribs) 22:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Support Nice4What's solution: As ASmallMapleLeaf stated, this article should focus on the tragedy with brief mentions of the allegations. I would also be OK with adding perhaps another sentence about the allegations, too. While it's relevant in geo-politics that Russia has allegedly tried to frame Ukraine, that does not need to be included here. However, it is relevant to the linked article relating to the war. Significa liberdade (she/her) ( talk) 21:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about Ukraine alleging that the attack was a false flag operation, as a counter-allegation against Russia. This was reported on by Mother Jones and Bloomberg, both considered reliable sources at WP:RSP. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – ( Thanks ♥) 22:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

my version merely had another paragraph, far less than the bickering on here about it ;) Synotia ( moan) 09:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, this is better as a separate section. As about the evidence of the Ukrainian involvement, I am sure they will find something, no matter who actually committed the attack. My very best wishes ( talk) 21:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  Actually, shouldn't this be mentioned in the 'aftermath' section, since it's more of a consequence than something related directly? ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 15:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Note: people seem to love ignoring this discussion and have continued adding and removing text from the section being discussed here. Can we please keep this to consensus and not constantly change the section in the mean time? ASmallMapleLeaf ( talk) 23:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

ISIS claims responsibility on Telegram account according to NRK [2] https://www.nrk.no/nyheter/is-hevdar-dei-star-bak-angrepet-i-moskva-1.16818428 Mikal N ( talk) 21:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. CommissarDoggo ^Talk? 21:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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. CommissarDoggo ^Talk? 21:45, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Its fake according to Rybar. Albaniandemocraticnolist ( talk) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't Rybar a russian Telegram channel? Doesn't seem too reliable to me. Arslan35 ( talk) 21:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

That's original research, despite how fake it may seem we have to wait for sources. Arslan35 ( talk) 21:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

@ PLATEL: Wrong. See source, it is CNN. Do not make hasty reverts please. Ecrusized ( talk) 21:51, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Wikipedia article about Amaq agency claims it's an unreliable source Sitlar ( talk) 23:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@ Dangeredwolf - apologies, the ping did not go through Staraction ( talk | contribs) 23:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@ 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)

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)

Does the protocol on naming suspects apply here? Borgenland ( talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME or WP:BLPCRIME? I would say that both appear to apply at the moment. As long as they are living individuals who have not been convicted and are only notable in connection to this incident and the exclusion of their names doesn't cause major issues of context, then the criteria for both appears to be met. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

At least one of the attackers has confessed on a video published by Russia.

https://www.hln.be/buitenland/is-eist-terreuraanval-moskou-op-dit-weten-we-al-van-opgepakte-verdachten~a724deea/ Pat2dv ( talk) 19:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, both apply. No one's been convicted of anything, Russia doesn't have the best investigation and human rights records. Suspects should be treated as suspects. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 12:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and most Western media reports name them, however I think at this moment per BLPNAME only the person who pled guilty (Dalerzhon Mirzoev) and the person who pled guilty to some charges (Saidakrami Murodali Rachabalizoda) at their arraignment should be named. NAADAAN ( talk) 23:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

CENSOR applies more to content that itself might be objectionable or offensive‍. Names themselves are not either. But, yes, sources are naming the suspects and we have two suspects pleading guilty or similar. I am not entirely sure if that would allow them to be named or not. This might be a noticeboard question, but it seems that a plea could count despite not being a conviction yet. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 23:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Didnt they capture all 4 of them? Why does the article say 2 of them died? 2603:8000:E203:922:4C43:2C3F:8D89:8B34 ( talk) 23:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

One died in the hall and another died in Bryansk Oblast. Please see Crocus City Hall attack#Investigation. CommissarDoggo ^Talk? 23:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Apparently that was potentially a mistake based on one of the discussions above as the claim was removed from the English version. Should we change or remove it? -- Super Goku V ( talk) 23:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(EC) Based on this discussion, it seems to be a mistake. Will look into. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 23:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a mistake, they captured all 4 of them alive. At some point there was a rumour that some attackers may have been killed but it was corrected. Pat2dv ( talk) 23:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I've looked into it too and the two dead looks like a reporting error. The source used in this article likely wasn't verified at the time of reporting. Using Google Translate: "A BBC source familiar with the operation to find the attackers at Crocus City Hall claims that at least two of the attackers were killed. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 23:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the very last sentence in the "Investigation" section: A third appeared in court in a hospital gown with his eyes closed and his right eye missing while being transported on a stretcher. I sounds quite odd and nonsensical. Please rephrase it. Thanks. 32.209.69.24 ( talk) 03:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

done NAADAAN ( talk) 04:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. 32.209.69.24 ( talk) 04:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• The terrorists left Crocus City Hall at 8:13 p.m. 3 hours and 17 minutes after the terrorist attack, their car was stopped at 11:30 p.m. During this time, they managed to travel about 380 kilometers
• OMON is located on the other side of the road, 3 kilometers away, but arrived at the scene of the terrorist attack an hour and a half later.

Nothing surprises you? 91.210.251.11 ( talk) 03:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The part with OMON doesn't really surprise anybody who ever has to drove along the Moscow Ring Road. It's possible that traffic jams there are literally the worst in the world. 93.81.37.232 ( talk) 06:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

"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)

Information is likely out of date - they found them and it wasn't a big enough story to mention, or they did not. Either way dig into it. If the person was a victim it'll be mentioned in sources about the band. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 06:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've WP:BOLD removed the info as no other reliable sources seem to carry it and even TASS, of all refs, reported them intact. Borgenland ( talk) 07:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Re-added with this source: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/23/world/europe/piknik-russian-rock-band.html Staraction ( talk | contribs) 18:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Пока не могут связаться https://regnum.ru/news/3876315 - на 9:31 MSK (6:31 UTC). Lesless ( talk) 07:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Одного человека нашли (он вместе с саксофонистом пробирался через подвальные ходы), а вот помощница администратора погибла https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6593084 One man was found (he and the saxophonist were making their way through the basement passages), but the administrator’s assistant died. Lesless ( talk) 16:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

  Her name is present in a list https://mchs.gov.ru/deyatelnost/press-centr/novosti/5239133 (Кушнер Екатерина Геннадьевна = Ekaterina Kushner). Lesless ( talk) 05:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Reported by Ukrayinska Pravda, but unclear how reliable they are. (Do we have the statement by Picnic' director?) -- Super Goku V ( talk) 05:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

  Sure. Sources above. Lesless ( talk) 07:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to Crocus City Hall attack has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Current version (the Investigation section):

In another interrogation video released by Russian state media, Shamsidin Faridun, a 25-year-old suspect, said that he participated in the attack in exchange for 1 million rubles ($10,800), half of which he claimed to have already received by card transfer from individuals who contacted him on Telegram and whose identities he did not know.

In the video the suspect says "half-a-million rubles" was offered, half of that he received. Correct figure here: CNN. Although it's him in the video, I haven't found articles that also mention name and age, likely because his identity hadn't been officially announced at the time the video was released, but at least the number must be corrected.
Xly4 ( talk) 07:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This sentence in the background section appears to be synthesized. The cited sources are dated prior to the attack and references have not made such a distinction between the Russian reaction to warnings by different administrations. Ecrusized ( talk) 12:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• Removed. We need reliable sources from 2024 after the attack, linking the past to the present. Not sources from 2017 and 2019. [3] starship .paint ( RUN) 13:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I have my doubts whether this source ^[1] is reliable. No third party news organisations seem to have ever mentioned it (in English at least) and the founder is affiliated with a separatist movement. Pieceofmetalwork ( talk) 08:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

He also works for Radio Free Europe... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordi2023 ( talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@ Nice4What: the English word for "Allah" ( Arabic: اللہ) is "God". We don't refer to God in the Russian Orthodox church as "Bog" ( Russian: Бог), or in Greek Orthodoxy as "Theos" ( Greek: Θεός); we translate those words as "God". To suggest, for example, that Russian Christians "worship Bog", or that Jews "worship Yahweh", would simply be wrong.

I know some Christians like to make the distinction for religio-political reasons to suggest Muslims worship some sort of false god, but there really is no distinction; all of these religious groups profess to worship אלוהים, the god of the Torah. He would have said " Allahu Akbar!", but that actually means "God is the greatest!"; that is to say, praising God.

To anticipate an objection: exactly how these various religions conceptualise and worship the God of the Torah in different ways is not relevant here; if you want to assert that the singular God of the Muslims is different from the triune God of mainstream Christianity, you must necessarily also assert that the God of mainstream Christianity is different from the singular God of the Torah; something mainstream Christians would find highly heretical.

Your discomfort with this is not relevant: please see endless discussion in Talk:Allah for this. Please change this back. — The Anome ( talk) 14:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@ Nice4What: I see someone else has already undone your edit. Please discuss here before reverting again. — The Anome ( talk) 14:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

cctv image of the suspect's car was originally time stamp 17:27, I have this photo frame to prove that this was not taken after the shooting 82.12.44.182 ( talk) 15:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@ Harizotoh9 keeps removing claims by Ukrainian HUR that it was a false flag operation by Russian special services. He says its undue, but I think it is important enough to keep in the Article. Added info back in. F.Alexsandr ( talk) 13:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's likely useful to include and not Wikipedia:UNDUE because, according to some sources, this will become a point of contention in the future, being repeatedly referenced by high-up Ukrainian officials: "Ukraine's president also alluded to a dark theory raised earlier by his military intelligence agency - that the Russian authorities themselves were linked to the Moscow attack." Staraction ( talk | contribs) 14:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

After a major event, there's a lot of fluff and sensationalist reporting, and we don't have to include all of it. Our opinions on what should or should not be included in articles is irrelevant, but sourcing. This angle has barely been reported, and some of it is traced to Ukranian sources (which like Russian sources shouldn't be used at all). The WP:WEIGHT is that this is an IS attack, and claiming it was a Russian false flag is actually a WP:FRINGE theory at this point. Some Ukraine officials in hte heat of the moment on telegram said it was an FSB attack, but isn't an official investigation or even an official government stance of Ukraine, it's a post on telegram made in the heat of the moment. Zelensky made an official statement on the attack, and he didn't include any such claims, and instead offered more mild critique. Zelensky and Putin's official statements on the matter should be included since they're widely reported. Not the false flag statements by some guy. Likewise, Medvedev's statements were removed also citing WP:UNDUE for similar reasons: not well reported on.

Ukraine's Defense Intelligence (HUR) claimed the shooting was a "planned and deliberate provocation by the Russian special services" at the behest of Putin.

Also as written this is actually literally factually wrong. This is NOT an official position or conclusion of HUR at all. A representitive of HUR in an unofficial capacity made this statement. Secondly, it's sources to questionable sources: a Ukranian source and a Turkish source. We should be using the highest quality international sourcing. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 14:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• It is supported by sources. For example [4]: Earlier on Friday, Ukraine’s military intelligence services had gone farther than that, posting a statement calling the attacks “a planned and deliberate provocation by the Russian special services at the behest of Putin. Its purpose is to justify even tougher strikes on Ukraine and total mobilization on Russia.” Here is the link to the official post [5]. Should it be included? I am not sure. Yes, this is a part of official Ukrainian response. But it was not supported by any evidence at this point. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Russian and Ukrainian sources should not be used at all for this article. Additionally, low quality sources such as Vox and Mother Jones shouldn't be used. High quality sources, and the weight they attribute to information is what guides the article. This is seemingly a one off event, and it isn't the direction Ukraine is going for thus isn't something that should even be mentioned. It's both WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM (more detail than needed for a recent event). As I said, both Putin and Zelensky's statements in contrast WERE heavily reported by high quality sourcing, and thus that is what should be included. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 16:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If you noticed, I removed this statement, but it was restored [6]. Let it stay for now. One thing is certain: it can be reliably sourced, and the original statement is right there, on the Ukrainian government site. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:54, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's about sourcing. A lot of things are true, but sources determine what is important and what is fluff. This amounts to fluff because it isn't covered extensively in high quality sourcing. Not all sources are made equal. And Ukrainian sources should be avoided at all costs. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just checked what experts are saying. Here is (Russian), Sergei Aslanyan, who is a great expert on the military subjects, analyzed all the available video and other data and came to a strong conclusion that the perpetrators were either Russian special forces or other people trained by them, who brought several Tajik " patsies", and the operation was coordinated with Russian police and OMON. All of that sounds very convincing. Perhaps Ukrainian HUR war right, after all. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

His Wiki article says he is an expert on cars, not on "military subjects". And he works for Khodorkovsky, therefore he isn't really a neutral observer here. 93.81.37.232 ( talk) 11:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki is not an RS, but I agree: he and a lot of others can be wrong. Hell knows. Any way, a YouTube interview, even with a good expert, is a weak source. My very best wishes ( talk) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is there the "not to be confused" tag at top? is anyone confusing them? They happened at different decade and (kind of) different motives, the article names are entirely different. - Karel Bílek ( talk). 19:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The user probably meant "see also". My very best wishes ( talk) 20:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

BBC live online

One of them was killed in the Crocus City Hall itself and the other one in Bryansk region (shot in their car). It means there were 6 attackers in all. 93.81.37.232 ( talk) 20:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Likely some error in reporting or translation? All photos and videos of the attacks and arrests show the same 4 attackers. See the videos ISIS posted filmed by the attackers themselves.

Pat2dv ( talk) 11:08, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No error in translation for sure, because Meduza reposted this.

https://meduza.io/news/2024/03/23/bi-bi-si-dvoe-uchastnikov-napadeniya-na-krokus-siti-holl-byli-ubity (BBS says two perpetrators of the attack were killed, it's written right in the URL) 93.81.37.232 ( talk) 11:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's no longer in the BBC English article that was referenced. And I haven't heard of confirmation from anywhere else. There was a lot of confused reporting in Russia on the day of, including (iirc) the mistaken identification of a taxi driver in Tajikistan as a suspect. 142.112.220.202 ( talk) 14:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• It still exists on the Russian language BBC web site. Based on provided details (they had a copy of the passport of the killed person), this is not a simple error. But this needs to be clarified by the BBC (perhaps they did it already?). My very best wishes ( talk) 20:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Claims are not proof of responsibility. Yet this article is treating it as such.

This incident is still in rather early phases of investigation. 174.240.216.151 ( talk) 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What specific changes do you suggest ("...") ? My very best wishes ( talk) 21:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Very minor change, but I think it would be an improvement. BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne ( talk) 19:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Please file a Wikipedia:Requested moves. Staraction ( talk | contribs) 21:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot work on the premise that Russian investigators are lying and that everything that Russian authorities say is a lie. It cannot refer to proven facts as "part of a Russian propaganda effort". This is Wikipedia, not a NAFO troll Twitter account. There is an empty "further reading" subsection which doesn't tie to anything called "Disinformation regarding the Crocus attack" which is uncalled for. Claiming things as basic as the terrorists found on their way to Ukraine cannot be editorialized or construed to mean "Russians are trying to lie". There is an investigation underway, all lines of investigation are open. That is all Wikipedia needs to say. Not take sides in the propaganda war. 78.21.160.236 ( talk) 15:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reporting on what reliable sources say, not to try to find middle ground between reliable sources and pure lies. Jeppiz ( talk) 19:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

What is "reliable" to you? Does it have to be from an outlet from a NATO country? 174.240.216.151 ( talk) 21:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

You are free to read WP:RS for yourself. Jeppiz ( talk) 21:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't this just simply state 'in Arabic'? Traumnovelle ( talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done You're right; I've fixed two instances of "subtitles" where it doesn't fit. GnocchiFan ( talk) 21:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it's because the terrorists are Tajiks (speaking Tajik?) and the video was published by the IS-affiliated Amaq News Agency, which added the Arabic subtitles? Human Transistor ( talk) 22:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The article in its present state seems to confirm that 1. the Russian narrative is nothing but lies, and 2. the only perpetrators named by reliable sources are ISIS-K.

If this is actually the case, shouldn't we make it a bit more explicit that Russia's claims are false? At the moment it's simply presented as "they say this, they say that", but if we're already concluding in the infobox that it was definitely ISIS-K and not even remotely Ukraine, we should clarify that the Russian narrative is false. There's also no mention of Russia's narrative in the first few paragraphs, or that it's a false one. I think that would be a relevant and important piece of info for people to see as soon as they find this page. 106.69.220.173 ( talk) 16:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, the video ISIS officially posted on their website doesn't really leave much room for doubt, but that debate is probably beyond the scope of Wikipedia. It's not up to Wikipedia to take sides in a conflict. Pat2dv ( talk) 18:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but do we have a proof that the people on these videos are the same people who were arrested? My very best wishes ( talk) 21:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

They were arrested wearing exactly the same clothes they wore on their selfie and the attack video. In first instance it would seem they are the same people.

It's up to the Russian authorities to compare frame per frame the video to what was found after the attack. Some details (like the guy getting his neck slashed on the ground with blood making a long line) should be very easy to prove or disprove.

BTW, Putin just said in press conference that the arrested attackers are Islamic extremists and not Ukrainians. It's on the Belgian news. Pat2dv ( talk) 21:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. On the video (like here [7]) the faces of the attackers are blurred and their voices are distorted. I am asking because a number of independent Russian-speaking commenters, such as Sergei Aslanyan ( [8]), and Vladimir Osechkin ( [9]), say that based on their analysis of available info, there were probably two teams of attackers: one that "professionally" did the job, and another that was brought as "patsies" (4 Tajiks arrested). If that's the case, then of course providing same clothes and blurring the faces would be must. I do not suggest to include this to the page though. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

It is probably beyond the doubt that the attack was organized by the ISIS-K, but there are many strange details. It is not clear how many terrorists took part in the attack (some say up to 20), why Russian police and FSB forces were so incredibly slow to respond, and so on. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The terrorists received a fine for speeding on the highway. And 500,000 was promised not to each terrorist, but for the entire group,, that is, 125,000 rubles to each, which is a little more than $1,370. General scheme: https://cdn.iz.ru/sites/default/files/inline/02_Теракт_Крокус_Сайт-01.jpg via https://iz.ru/1671075/iana-shturma-stanislav-kuchushev-valentin-loginov/chisla-zveria-za-krovavuiu-raspravu-v-krokuse-terroristam-poobeshchali-500-tysiach-na-vsekh Lesless ( talk) 05:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

This article in Izvestia says that four main suspects were not ISIS members, but random guys who have been recruited [probably by ISIS] for money just a couple of weeks before the attack. That may be true and included if confirmed by other sources. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Please add:

On 24 March 2024, Turkish Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya announced that security forces had detained 147 suspects during synchronised raids in 30 cities.

Sources:

• https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2024/03/turkey-expands-crackdown-isis-after-russia-attack
• https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20240326-turkey-detains-scores-of-is-group-suspects-in-nationwide-raids

Thanks, 91.54.11.182 ( talk) 11:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

They aren't suspected of having been involved in the attack, but suspected of having ties to ISIS. This news is relevant to the article because Turkey did the crackdown in response to the Crocus City Hall attack but the distinction of what they were detained for is important. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 21:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for sharing the articles. Saucysalsa30 ( talk) 22:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)