Talk:December 2013 Volgograd bombings

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the December 2013 Volgograd bombings article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Russia Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Bolding

Currently the page is; "On 29 December 2013, a suicide bombing took place at the Volgograd-1 station in the city of Volgograd, in the Volgograd Oblast" however it should start of like, "The 2013 Volgograd station bombing was a suicide bombing which happened on 29 December 2013 and took place at the Volgograd-1 station in the city of Volgograd, in the Volgograd Oblast" Just a thought, however the message states 'Per MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE, neither the article's title nor related text appears in bold'. ///EuroCarGT 17:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the aforementioned guideline section and supplementary page, MOS:BOLDTITLE and WP:SBE. —David Levy 17:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@David Levy: Okay, never knew that! That text was quite confusing! ///EuroCarGT 18:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So instead you jerkoffs do nothing at all to bold the relevant parts? That's better? Brilliant.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintetsubuffalo: I didn't edit the page. ///EuroCarGT 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are nonconstructive. —David Levy 05:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kintetsubuffalo: no need at all for that kind of response. Perhaps you were tired or perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of the lead? There's no requirement anywhere to bold anything in the lead. I would have expected an editor of your experience to be fully aware of that, and calling other editors "jerkoffs" is entirely unjustified. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New attack

Should we make this article into the December 2013 Volgograd attacks or have separate articles for the two attacks? Iselilja (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the {{current}} template, quoting its documentation. As explained there, "as an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day". "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence."

Iselilja undid my edit, with the summary "There has been a new attack now, that maybe should be incorporated in this article; please see talk"

I'm confused as to how this concern, expressed above, has any bearing on whether the {{current}} template should appear. Can you please elaborate, Iselilja? —David Levy 06:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was mainly relating to what the notice says: "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses" I interprete this as a notice to readers that the article may be unstable. At a moment where we just had news about a new attack, the template seemed very adequate. But if you think otherwise, please do remove it. Iselilja (talk) 06:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. In that respect, the template's wording can be misleading (as it's intended to be used in articles that are changing rapidly). I'll remove it for the time being, but it would be entirely appropriate to restore it if the emergence of details about either or both bombings leads to that type of situation.

Thanks again! —David Levy 06:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetrators

Russian sources say Pechyonkin was the station bomber, not trolleybus. Ain92 (talk) 20:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to take you word for it since I don't speak or read Russian. If you genuinely believe the article to be in error, feel free to fix it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you use the automatic translators, you'll see that the first version of the article stated "trolleybus", but lower the editors apologized for the mistake. Ain92 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double suicide attack

The article currently states that both suicide attacks were performed by Pavel Pechenkin.

Could someone please clean that up? I would do it myself, but any, each and every edit I do regarding this topic gets reverted by the The Rambling Man, and quite frankly, I am too much sick an tired of that to touch this topic any more.

Also please feel invited to weigh in on the issue of the Russian terrorism infobox here. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do participate in a discussion to gain a consensus before trying to make major edits to high visibility templates. Much appreciated. And no, I only reverted your edits on the template, not this article, so please do not state falsehoods. But yes, the confusion over the perpetrators needs to be cleared up, we need someone who can wade through the most up to date Russian-language sources and unpick the current mess. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although there're a lot of contradicting reports, as far as I understand, the most recent official version convince Pechyonkin for the station bombing, and either an unknown suicide bomber, remote- or timer-controlled bomb for trolleybus. The situation might become clearer several days later. Ain92 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions

Why is the reaction from the Chilean government included? Should we keep the reaction section to countries/organizations/people that are relevant? ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 04:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so for the sake of general logic and consistency in an encyclopedia what are the countries/organizations/people that are relevant, and why? As a comparison there's a whole Wikepedia article for the Reactions to the 2005 London bombings with many reactions and among others from Cyprus, Iceland or Panama.In fact what is a topic in itself is how little room is given to that double bombing in Volgograd. Ie. the lack of media and political reactions, in the anglosphere. Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen.: Your argument falls short per Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Now, the problem I have with the Reaction section is that most countries around the world will simply say that they are shocked by the bombing and offer their solidarity. Spamming the section with the "reaction syndrome" and using excessive quotes are not needed. I could care less what Chile's or Mexico's president have to say about the bombing. Now, if there's a country that instead of offering its condolences said that they were happy of the attack, then you'll probably have a case. Let's keep the section short and relevant. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 07:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you miss the point: I don't need to argue by the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. I pointed to the Wikipedia Reactions to the 2005 London bombings not as a valid argument in itself, but just as way to remind of another islamic bombing in another big european city, which got a very different media attention and treatment. A fact which is easy to document. Also it's not about your problems with the reactions section (I quote your sentence :"the problem I have with the Reactions..."), but rather about the event itself. There are official reactions, as expressed by different governments and organizations.The wordings of the reactions, depending on who tell them, can be of interest in itself. To not mention existing reactions is in fact quite weird. Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen. (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Men alt dette er ikke begyndelsen.: Exactly my point. The reaction section should stay, but we should keep them relevant. How? It "[depends] on who tell[s] them", like you said. I still don't understand how the reactions from Chile and Colombia are relevant and of interest. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 17:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is Chile just an example, or are Colombia and the USA deemed more relevant? —rybec 01:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@rybec: It's an example that can be applicable to other countries. Please explain why/how Chile's reaction is relevant to the subject matter. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 07:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with ComputerJA on this and think only USA, NATO, Al-Qaeda and EU reactions are relevant. But (just in case somebody wants to use it) Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych's reaction can be found here. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual for a national government to comment on a crime that happens in another country. I think the statements are noteworthy. The section is only two paragraphs; if it becomes too long, shortening it might be in order ("the governments of Chile, Colombia, Israel, the Ukraine and the United States issued statements condemning the bombings, as did NATO"). —rybec 16:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@rybec, it's not that rare, actually. We've seen that many times and now that we have social media outlets like Twitter. We've argued for and against it plenty of times on Wikipedia too. To say that it's unusual is inaccurate. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 02:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

It seems that these days every single event involving terrorism or any kind of minor conflict is getting its own page. I understand that there is a certain impetus thanks to the "In the News" section, but in the long run the chances that this (and other) pages will grow into anything substantial once the media interest dies down is unlikely. Wouldn't it be more sensible to incorporate this article into an overarching one (Terrorism in Russia for example), which would cover everything important while also being in a significant enough page to ensure considerable improvement over time? After all, Wikipedia doesn't have a article for ever single terrorist attack or spree from the 19th century for example, so what makes this event "notable" other then the fact it's of momentary world interest? 60.242.210.126 (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are de-facto suggesting is a merge of December 2013 Volgograd bombings with Terrorism in Russia. See Wikipedia:Merging how to go about that. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better still, write some articles about those events which meet our notability guidelines that you have mentioned. That'd be awesome. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence here answers your question: Wikipedia:GNG#General_notability_guideline. That's the policy here. I'm sure if you could find significant coverage in reliable sources for every 19th-century terrorist attack no one would begrudge you starting pages on all of them. I, for one, would welcome it; the more the better. Ericoides (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When a random guy shoots at the White House without hitting it, it gets a Wikipedia article.[1] So I see no reason why an attack like this, were people actually died, shouldn't. FunkMonk (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Instead of a general map of Volgograd within Russia, can we get a close map of the city with markers for the two attacks to see where they happened in relation to each other? Jmj713 (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linmks

>> Russia identifies Volgograd suicide bombers(Lihaas (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]