Talk:2011 Minsk Metro bombing

Sources in Russian

For those who understand russian - sources of information: http://news.tut.by/politics/223015.html , http://afn.by/news/i/151029 , http://www.charter97.org/ru/news/2011/4/11/37611/ , http://www.svaboda.org/content/article/3553936.html 178.121.73.135 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Events of 19 December

Is it worthwhile to mention the civil unrest following the presidential election in the background section? It's cited here: [1], although there is no suggestion that there is a political dimension to this event. Nutmegger (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be original research. At this point there is no proof to suggest that the opposition political parties had anything to do with the bombing.--Avala (talk) 23:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no proof; that's why it belongs in the "background" and not in the "investigation" section. No one has suggested that there was a political motive, but the explosion did come following a period of slight political unrest in Belarus. Nutmegger (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It didn't, it came months after that so unless there is a reliable source making a connection between the two events there is no point in rushing to add it to the article. When and if the connection is made, we will add, just don't rush it, Wikipedia is not a news site, we are not supposed to be the first to report on something.--Avala (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary if it terrorism (and there is no known group yet other than the fact therat ther IS opposition to the state from the said groups), which is by definition political, then it is pertinent. Nevertheless the RS source oes draw relation and thats more than the whims of wikipedia editors, you, me, anyone

at any rate, the bit about "Belarus Independence Day celebrations on 4 July 2008" bombing is far more pov and unrelatedLihaas (talk) 19:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

[2] and [3] were removed/changed with anyexplanation. THe former of which can constitue vandalism/disrputive editing because there isa talk page discussion at that was delibaretely ignored.Lihaas (talk) 11:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just in case this becomes relevant later, here are some references to the political background in Belarus on or around April 11th: several hours before the blast, access to the 2 most radical opposition websites (charter97.org and belaruspartisan.org) was blocked [4]; on the day following the blast (April 12th), a meeting of EU foreign ministers was scheduled to discuss possible introduction of economic sanctions against Lukashenko [5]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angdraug (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

An act of terrorism

The Prosecutor General's office has described this as an "act of terrorism." [6]. Therefore, it's not crystal-balling to add terrorism categories to the bottom of the page. Nutmegger (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be surprised when it turns out to be a false flag operation like the Russian apartment bombings.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Line 1 still not open the following day; investigators coming from Israel and UK. Russian apartments were demolished right away to hide FSB involvement. Minsk, unlike Kashirskoye shosse incident, does not appear to be a false flag. If they wanted false flag, wouldn't Line 1 be open for service already. The Moscow Metro bombings last year killed 3 times more people and shut down Line 1 for only 2 hours. Nutmegger (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Deadliest act of terrorism in Belarus' history

Because this is the only known fatal terrorist attack in Belarus' history. That would also make it it's deadliest / worst. Should that fact be presentable. --Kuzwa (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, but phrases like "largest loss of life" are best used over "deadliest" and "human fatalities" over "deaths". We can avoid sensationalist language without using euphemisms. Philip Cross (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Interpol

Apparently Interpol has had a stake in the investigation of the bombings and they have issued a statement regarding matching fingerprints. I wonder if that gives any credibility to the prosecution and if Interpol should be mentioned in the article. https://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2011/PR039.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.240.255.27 (talk) 10:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

International reaction

Do we need this section? It includes pro-forma responses of the kind which always accompany attrocities of this kind and is a miscellaneous section. I suggest we cut it, and only include details of any assistance other countries give to Belarus. Philip Cross (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes for many reasons. Here is one, it shows for an example the lack of such statements from Governments and Leaders of France, USA, Germany and many other western countries which will probably be discussed in the future by external sources and it will be added to the article. It also shows some countries are sending assistance like Russia or Israel. If it is poking your eyes though it can always be split like Reactions to the 2010 Moscow Metro bombings but for the time being I don't think the section is too long for it to necessitate a split (and I doubt there will be a flood of reactions coming, it's been 2 days already, so this is probably more or less the complete list)--Avala (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to make a point according to an agenda. Philip Cross (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems that I've just caught you, your proposal was a part of an agenda since your response looks like this. Anyway, whatever your motives are, the section is legitimate, you will notice such sections in all similar articles (and if it gets too big it will be split out but no need for now) so I guess that concludes it.--Avala (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Belarusian State media while it may be prone to spreading propaganda in general is still a valid source for statements and news regarding the bombing. When they publish a quote of Lukashenko there is nothing wrong with adding it to the article with clearly stating that it is his quote. Changing "He said that arrests were made" to "It's been alleged that arrests were made" actually gives more legitimacy to the statement, since that is your issue. Needless to remind you that Belarus is a very centralized presidential system so the President decides on pretty much everything.

An attempt to discredit all Belarusian sources regarding the event in Belarus would leave the article empty (because most of the foreign media just repost what Belarusian media writes) so please refrain from such purity that damages the article.--Avala (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your admission that the Belarusian media "may be prone to spreading propaganda" is a reason to be sceptical over the validity at those sources. It is usual to allow The New York Times to stand without identification, but fringe or contentious sources have to be identified. While it is true the western media will be reliant on the the state media in Minsk, our media don't have an interest in boosting perceptions of Lukashenko. For example, any alleged abuse of due process in the treatment of the suspects is likely to be reported by our media in due course, this cannot be said of the media in Minsk. Philip Cross (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

However Philip Wikipedia must be neutral therefore we must even be skeptical that Western media is not just trying to advance their own government positions. Such as when the U.S. media basically refused to publish Wikileaks documents because their government kicked and screamed. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am aware the situation is not perfect but let's not make it even more difficult. We work with what we've got.--Avala (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Crackdown begins

So Lukashenko is putting is foot down on the oppositon, military, police and church and purging them of conspirators supposedly: see [7] . There really wasn't any doubt this was going to happen. --Kuzwa (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Facial composites

The facial composite posted by lifenews.ru and currently linked from the page is was first confirmed by KGB chief Zaitsev [8], and later retracted by press secretary of Minsk GUVD (city police department) [9]. Next day (on 13th), Lukashenko has announced that the perpetrators were detained, and two new facial composites were published [10].

I suggest we remove the link to facial composites altogether until there is more definitive information about the detained suspects. --Angdraug (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I've removed the link to facial composites from the article. --Angdraug (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Perpetrators

The sources cited in the Investigation section only go as far as to say that Belarusian authorities claim that perpetrators were caught and that they confessed after 6 hours of interrogation. The only evidence released are several extremely low-res CCTV stills published by BelTA [11], these are not enough to identify a person, and there's no photographs of the detained suspects to compare it with anyway. It's also worth a mention that a suspect can't be called perpetrator until their guilt is proven in a court of law.

Furthermore, in the case of the 2005 Vitebsk bombings Lukashenko also claimed that suspects were found and they confessed [12], however, subsequently the suspects were proven innocent and released, and the case remained unsolved [13].

The article at the link following this statement: "Following the arrests he said that the third version was now considered the correct one, that the attack was an act of an unhealthy person" actually says that Zaitsev refused to comment on possible motives or involvement of suspects in any organization. Instead, it cites his claim that the explosive used in the bombing "was the same type as used in the 2008 Minsk Independence Day bombing. ... It may interest foreign intelligence agencies, because this type of explosive is virtually unknown in the world". I think I've seen the claim that the suspect acted alone elsewhere, but I can't find a reliable source to confirm this. Anyone?

--Angdraug (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article states Three suspects were said to have confessed to their involvement in the bombing, yet only two apparently were tried, Vladislav Kovalyov and Dmitry Konovalov, (bizzarely unnamed anywhere in the article). What became of the third suspect? RashersTierney (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Lone wolf

Why is there a link to Lone wolf in the infobox? The details seem unclear at this point. Has the suspects' involvement in a larger group already been ruled out? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand either. The perpetrators have been arrested but unidentified. There is more than one so it is not a lone wolf but we still have to wait for their names and motives.--Avala (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Individuals haev claimed responsibility (after their arresT), so as long as we have one responsible party without a group...mind you groups are bnot the only typoes to partake in these type of attacks.Lihaas (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a fact, it's a claim by one of the investigators, and these investigators have retracted their claims before (examples: the first facial composite, the first suspects in the 2005 Vitebsk bombing). --Angdraug (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

do you have a source on tht? the current souirce claims otherwise and theres no RS discussion to ist unreliable. unless youc an priove otherwise its OR/synthesis to argue witht he RS source.Lihaas (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See my comments in the above two sections (Facial composites and Perpetrators), I've provided sources for both cases of backpedaling by Belarusian investigators. --Angdraug (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Victims section

12+0+0+0+0=13? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.92.234 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the injured died in the hospital today, I've updated the numbers for Belarus in the table and added a reference to an article in Russian. --Angdraug (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

15+0+0+0+0=14 and 195+5+1+1+1=204? Not sure which is the right figure, but the numbers don't add up. 85.226.10.189 (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Missing trial section

The article mentions the date of the execution but nothing about the trial of the suspects or when they were found guilty. Seems like a whole chunk of story is missing. --Hooperbloob (talk) 06:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)