Talk:Shamil Basayev

Update

Someone should go through and change all of the present tenses to past, considering his recently deceased status. All the "is"s to "was"s and such. user:awaggener

Media citation

Hey, take a look, this page was cited by CNN! [1]

Yeah, and that's a worry considering the article has no references section. For all we know the authors could be making stuff up (though I doubt it). Please provide us with a reference section! It looks bad when the news media publishes information from our website without a reference to where you guys gathered the information from. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:03, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't the "outhouse" speech (not the "shithouse") pronounced much much later?Gaidash 4 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)

No, the article is correct - the outhouse speech was made when Putin was still prime minister, i.e. between August and December 1999. Incidentally, "blasting in the outhouses" ( literally, "soaking in the outhouses" ) is a preexisting Russian idiom - some meaning is lost in translation. --Itinerant1 22:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Current event

BBC on power outage claims Pravda on power outage claims Marked as currentevents - Does the page need to be backlinked to from the current events page? Mrzaius 19:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

How to edit

Here is your edit I reverted:

Among the Chechens and their supporters he is a "separatist", for fighting to separate from Russia; but he is, unequivocally among the greater part of Russians, a "terrorist".

Wiki is a worldwide encyclopedia. He is notable not just to Chechans and Russians, but worldwide. And "unequivocally" is very very rarely used as it is POV. And yours does not define what a separatist is or why he would be considered a terrorist. --Noitall 04:57, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• • IMPORTANT NOTE: In a recent TV interview by ABC (yes, he gives TV interviews to American television networks and yet somehow the Russian authorities can't find him to shoot him dead), he called HIMSELF a terrorist. Cite: [2] Take that as you will, but since he calls himself a terrorist, it is definitely NPOV to call him what he calls himself. Russians DO consider him a terrorist, and he calls himself that openly. Xaa 07:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I see what Wiki is now, yes. And what Wiki will always be. And I see now that politics isn't and will never be Wiki's domain.

Do you notice, out there in the West, that the East Europeans behave differently? That they laugh a little at this NPOV, that it seems ridiculous to them? Have you ever thought that this is not a whim, but a result of certain differences?

I'm not arguing for anything. I'm wondering how you can congratulate yourself when you've fallen into meekness? When "information" has become, for you, as slippery as oil? When, instead of acknowledging two sides with dignity - or acknowleding none at all - you would insult your reader and offend him by diffusing every cup of coffee until it is water?

I say again: do you need to define "terrorist"? Is the motto of Wikipedia "you can't ever REALLY know anything"?

As to the Russians and Chechens. For God's sake, this is the Russians' and the Chechens' article. Whom in heck does it concern what the others think? Look around, and you'll notice there is no such thing as a "supporter of Russia" - only a Russian. Is that an accident? --VKokielov 16:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll substantiate this by recommending that you grab a style manual for any encyclopedia and see for yourself whether "some" and "others" are good words. I will wager anything that you'll be told to run from them like from fire. --VKokielov 16:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you don't understand Wiki or proper editing, I can only point you in the right direction. Your assertion that "For God's sake, this is the Russians' and the Chechens' article" is entirely wrong, it is a worldwide article. And the fact that you argue that terrorists do not need to be defined because you, VKokielov is both false and not useful to Wiki readers. A person does not have to support Russia in any action to call Basayev a terrorist. --Noitall 21:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's start a catfight, shall we? Or should I accuse you of "original research" in retaliation? --VKokielov 02:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Where did I say that "terrorist" doesn't need to be defined? I said, "Would you really define". What in the world could I possibly mean? Surely not that, if the blue link is still there. --VKokielov 02:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I highlighted your statement arguing that you don't need to define terrorist because you already know it. And I have no idea how your original research statement has any relevance to this discussion. To be frank, if you agree with the POV that Basayev is a terrorist, it is much more powerful to discuss why he is a terrorist (killing women and children) and that it is not just the Russians who think so. --Noitall 04:24, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

This article is going to be forever plagued by the competing POVs of "insurgent" and "terrorist" - but let us not define terrorist so succintly as "killing women and children" or shouldn't we point out the gassing by the FSB and subsequent deaths of women and children makes them terrorists?Ranieldule 12:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory

"When Communist hardliners attempted to stage a coup in August 1991, Basayev allegedly joined supporters of Russian President Boris Yeltsin... A few months later in August 1991, the Chechen nationalist leader Dzhokhar Dudayev unilaterally..."

August 1991 can't be a months later than August 1991. Kaldari 06:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed second "August" to October. MaxSem 05:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Another contradiction: "...considered by some as the undisputed leader..." If only some consider this, he's not undisputed.

Basayev's ancestry

It used to was "Russian", now it's "Chechen" - and I heard he's actually Avar. Who is he, really?

Hmmm, does he have an offical biography or something? Maybe it would say there. —Khoikhoi 19:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

He is from the Benoj (Беной) Teip according to teip, but as teips can consist of both Chechen and other peoples, this unfortunately doesn't bring us any further. But I guess Avar probably refers to his idol Imam Shamil. --Hardscarf 23:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

How I know he's a half Chechen, half Avar.

It says on the main page that he's of russian ancestry. Surely however his russian ancestors from centuries ago must have mixed with chechens or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.163.232.175 (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hero or not?

I wonder if "Chechnya's most famed contemporary national hero" is not a bit overstated. Considering that (at least) not all Chechens support his wahabistic view and not all support his actions, and the fact that Aslan Maschadov was also high valued among them, leaves me wondering if this info is correct. (I did not remove this statement earlier btw) --Hardscarf 12:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Not enough to win the presidency for sure (but he came as a second). Right now he's much more of, ahem, a "controversional figure" (fear above all I think, also both hate and respect, even from Ramzan if Ramzan's opinion on anything matters). --Kocoum 13:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know his wahabistic views came under influence of e.g. Khattab in the end 90s, so I wonder if the incidents in the Second Chechen War did affect his image negatively, which he had when Ichkeria was still in place (for for instance his victories in the Battles in Grozny). Fear and hate, I guess, do not make up very good points for receiving the 'hero' status. But perhaps respect outlasted the Second Chechen War and fear and hate. --Hardscarf 23:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"But what proved absolutely unexpected for me and my colleagues was that 24% supported the candidacy of Abdul-Khalim Sadulayev" as legitimate head of state, the newspaper's editor, Islam Tekushev, told Radio Liberty last week. Basayev earned 1% support in the poll. << Right now a widespread support for the separatist cause still, but very little for Basayev personally (at least as for a "legitimate head of state"). But he was a huge hero in 1995-96, especially during the temporary ceasefire after Buddyonnovsk and the Operation Jihad (Grozny 96). Then he was blamed for effectively starting the CW2 and more.

He's not hero. People in Chechnya don't think so. I live in Russia and I know that. Chechens hate him. Because he was the organisator of Beslan terract. Now people in Chechnya dont want to separate. Moscvitch 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yer but the Russian government stuffed that up, maybe the chechens hate the russian and vice versa. Enlil Ninlil 05:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. It is rather difficult to find out what people in Chechnya think. The most NPOV version would probably be that he was once considered a hero, but that he became controversial not after Beslan, but much earlier. Only problem with that version is that the guy is dead. This article needs some major editing because of that. But anyone who tirs that out piecemeal will see his work undone in a few hours by secessionist POV editors. That is why this "acclaimed as a hero" thing is still here. It is plainly nonsense, but it keeps some people happy and stops them from performing worse vandalism. And I am one of those who tried to correct it. --Pan Gerwazy 12:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I added template message "Neutrality" Moscvitch 19:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Intro Seemed to be pro-Chechen POV

The introduction should be a basic outline of what is most pertinent about Shamil Basayev. It completely omitted the fact that he is wanted for terrorist actions that have caused mass casualties to civilians, which almost anyone reading up on Shamil Basayev would want to know about. Instead it calls him a Chechen national hero, which I left up because I don't know how popular he is in Chechnya. I changed the intro to include the fact that Russians and most Western countries view Basayev as a terrorist due to his numerous bloodbaths. --Bbcrackmonkey 5:16, 17 June 2006

"Mass casualties" - he didn't gas to death these civilians in Moscow or burned alive the kids in Beslan, the Chekist "federals" of the former KGB did. For example, the terrorists killed only 2 non-hostage unarmed persons in Moscow (both came from the outside, through the "security cordon" - odd, isn't it?), and also wounded 2 hostages in an accidental shooting (after which they were evacuated). Then, the gas attack by the FSB killed 130 or more and disabled hundreds, and they also executed all surviving terrorists including unarmed women with a point-blank shots to the head (talking about "ruthlessness" and "bloodbath").

He didn't gas those civilians but he is responsible for their deaths through his actions. He sent a large squad of terrorists armed with bombs, machine-guns, etc. into the theatre and gave the Russians no choice but to either acquiesce to his politically unfeasible demands or have the people in the theatre killed like the children in Beslan were. The Russians basically had no choice but to storm the theatre and their controversial use of sleeping gas is covered in the article of the Moscow theatre siege. Despite the fact that the Russians caused the casualties, they were not trying to kill their own civilians but were instead trying to rescue the patrons of the theatre. The execution of the terrorists is also covered in the article, but I would like to know how you would deal with dozens of sleeping terrorists who had several kilograms of explosives wrapped around their bodies, who could concievably wake up and detonate themselves during the evacuation of the unconscious civilians. This is not an article about Russian atrocities in Chechnya or a staging ground for pro-Chechen views, it is an article about Shamil Basayev and he is mostly famous for the Moscow theatre siege and Beslan school siege. I will remove the words "ruthlessness" and "bloodbath" from the introduction. --bbcrackmonkey

The "suicide" explosives were all fake. The real was the big bomb, but it was not live (lacked a detonator). Is it not in the article? One terrorist was actually executed outside of theatre, because he was evacuated by mistake (it was filmed). Also one hostage was executed because he was mistaken with a terrorist (in fact he was a Russian Army cadet). His father found him only after days of search, on the heap of terrorists' bodies in morgue (the bodies were then all destroyed, as were their families' houses and in at least one instance a family killed).

It was not the Russians' fault they didn't know that the suicide bombers had fake explosives on them. I have not heard this before, and I would like a source for this accusation. If you feel strongly enough about it, perhaps you should make some edits to the page on the Moscow theatre siege if you can provide credible sources for your content. I read that instead of destroying the bodies, they were buried wrapped in pigskin, but this was never verified.

• I think the best way to maintain a NPOV would be to refrain from declaring what the opinions of people or groups of people are, even in the general, without scientific evidence (or at the very least, reputable polls) to back it up. It's best to stick to discussing the objective facts, which is is to say, who he is and what he has done. That alone will probably be enough fodder for people to argue over in this article. No need to discuss what people think of him and, given that this article discusses current events (more or less), it's probably not an appropriate point for an encyclopedia entry. --Rumplefurskin 17:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Again morons coming to wiki and editing everything to make it anti-russian. Come on wiki, please place restrictions for editing, these guys will never stop, all terrorists are heroes for them.

Confirmation of death

It would be nice if there were some confirmation about this s***bag's death before we jump for joy. I am happy thought at the prospect he's finally in Hell. Queereyes 14:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)~

Fallen for his country in the fight against imperialism.80.186.100.180 17:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations to FSB for a job well done! It's about time this scumbag met his maker. This is a great day for all mankind, I hope this is confirmed soon. --Eupator 14:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It is said in press the FSB (russian spec-ops) exploded a Kamaz brand heavy truck as a bomb when a convoy of four Lada cars loaded with chechen gunmen passed by. They were en route to a place of ambush where they were hoping to capture an arms shipment. Basayev was in one of those cars and his head was nearly fully severed by debris. Russians visually identified him based on head, especially his beard and also because of his prosthetic foot. The 10USB blood bounty was reportedly paid to "foreign informators" who were instrumental in locating him. Good riddance, anyhow. 195.70.32.136 15:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

is the date correct? all other sources site July 10th. 17:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the pictures of the incident site available on newsru.com show the tail end of an S-8 rocket, the kind fired from Mi-24 HIND's it may be that a HIND attacked his convoy and set off the explosives in the truck that way.

http://images.newsru.com/pict/id/large/869185_20060710180701.gif

Maybe as well some unexploded munition from the KAMAZ. They were rigging various rockets for a ground launching since the beginning of first war for sure.

Vandalism in Death section

I doubt he was performing fellatio on a friend as stated in the article.

Russian Coup of 1991?

"When some members of Soviet government attempted to stage a coup in August 1991..."

I know this might sound like splitting hairs, but there is no historical record of a "coup" attempt in 1991. The white house in Russia -did- come under siege, but if you look at the history it was Yetlsin that was attempting the coup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Post-Soviet_Russia --66.227.111.238 14:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Harold

The siege of White House BY Yeltsin was in 1993. The 1991 one was a coup attempt against Gorbachev by some Soviet generals. --HanzoHattori 22:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hm. Yeah, in August, actually. Generally referred to as the August Coup of 1991. Vot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_coup_attempt_of_1991

Dietwald 12:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Famous last words

Not really, probably, but it turns out that Shamil Basayev's last deed as Vice-President of Ichkeria was to ... congratulate the Iraqi Mujahideen for killing the Russian diplomats. [3] Now that is something Doku Umarov would not have liked - after all the efforts he put in to convince the West there was no collusion between Chechen "freedom fighters" and Iraqi "terrorists".

Since User:Karkachev's main contributions seem to be to put axisglobal links everywhere (I am not the first one to notice: [4]), I think I should replace that one with the Kavkaz Center one. I hope no one will delete it as a terrorist, or Al Qaeda site. --Pan Gerwazy 15:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Government in exile

The intro is low quality and appears to be written by someone with a bias towards him. "vice-president of the internationally unrecognized separatist government-in-exile of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, Islamist guerrilla leader."

if they are a government in exile, how are they separatists? Chechenya would have had to be independent and conquered by the Russians. Think the Free French in WWII. 67.10.243.230 22:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It was pretty much so. They had no Russian Federation troops, police, government offices, border guards - except on border with Russia and from the Russian side (and vice versa, there were no Chechnya deputies to Duma etc). They were even recognised, even if only by Yeltsin's Russia and OSCE. The only Russian flags they had were on the posters from the 1997 peace treaty (still visible on a photo from the 1999 invasion). --HanzoHattori 09:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

They're not the goverment-in-exile.They're a bunch of terrorists and war criminals.

Terrorist category

I removed this article from the "Chechen terrorists" category on POV grounds, but it was reverted by User:Dietwald with the message, "reverted to previous version. Basayev was by all accounts a terrorist." What could the source possibly be that reflects all accounts?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The article states he was a “self-described terrorist” and he has claimed responsibility for terrorists actions which are nearly universally regarded as terrorism. What more could you ask for? The man was a terrorist. Rune X2 09:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does he describe himself as a terrorist (the link above is broken)? I imagine that terrorist insurgent types might admit to being insurgents, with the caveat that their opponents—in this case, the Russian authorities—are also terrorists. However, this sort of statement becomes meaningless unless we are also going to put Vladimir Putin in Category:Russian terrorists.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 14:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I refer merely to the article. In any case, he has taken responsibility for several attacks which have been nearly universally classified as terrorism. E.g. Beslan which was so characterized by Kofi Annan/US, by the EU, USA, Mandela/SA, etc. A terrorist is one who engage in terrorism. If everybody from Annan to Mandela feels confident in calling him a terrorist, I'd say Wikipedia is on fairly uncontroversial ground by following step. Rune X2 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but you may add Maskhadov to that list. Remember what he claimed he would do to Basayev once the war was over? The quote "I am a terrorist" is from the interview that he did with Babitsky and that was aired by ABC (which caused ABC to lose its license in Russia) so it is all over the Internet, anyone who claims he cannot find that quote, is not a very good googler. [5] The quote claiming responsibility for the apartment bombings on behalf of "our friends in Dagestan" is however much more difficult to find, but I am sure he did claim it at one time, then stopped doing so, as he found out that letting all others claim the FSB did it, was more profitable.--Pan Gerwazy 19:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In that link, Basayev says, "I admit, I'm a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist ..." Would that make it appropriate to put him Category:Bad people? Why, I imagine Kofi Annan and Nelson Mandela would probably agree with that, too.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there are many categories Shamil Basayev could fit into, including Category:bipedels and Category:people staring with the letter s. What is your point? It still doesn't change that he clearly belong to Category:Chechen terrorists as well. Rune X2 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nat Krause here, there is not much idea sticking this terrorist label to everybody. I have read the English transcript, but have not seen the original (supposedly Russian) version. However, this single sentence from an interview seems simple rhetoric, trying really to stress that the "real terrorists" are Russians led by Vladimir Putin. --Magabund 13:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Kingal86 edited the text to delete "terrorist" a number of times. How anyone can describe "Shariat" as "militant" is beyond me, but later he even used the word "insurgent" - while most of their actions in Dagestan have been to stir up sectarian trouble. I haven't put "terrorist" back in the case of Shariat, because the text is not about what is happening in Dagestan. I took "Islamic extremist" from the talk pages of September 11, 2001 attacks User:Kingal86 did not have any problem with the use of the word "terrorist" there: [6] and [7]. So I kept the word "terrorist" in connection with the apartment block bombings. Perfectly similar, even to the point of the existence of a conspiracy theory.--Pan Gerwazy 01:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not a "sectarian trouble" - they never attack Shiites or anything, just the local government and members of the Russian Federation forces. Anyway, Basayev was of course a terrorist, even according to himself (while he always maintained he had nothing to do with 1999 bombings - which is irrevelant however, because he claimed responsibility for some others since then and personally took civilian hostages before). Besides, for the "perfectly similiar conspiracy theory" thing, the only people caught red-handed in these bombings turned out to be FSB agents, acting on orders from their superiors (I don't really remember any FBI agents caught while "conducting exercises" by trying to hijack any airplanes on September 11, you know).

Caught red-handed? With what? It was an exercise. Anyone who claims Putin needed the bombings to invade Chechnya, will have a problem over the timeline here: Ryazan happened on the 22nd of Sepetember 1999. By that time, the Russian army had been in Chechnya for four days. I found a quote for Basayev claiming his Dagestani friends did it, by the way: [8]. This is Maskhadov on September 21: [9]. That the separatists later tried to find a story more acceptable to the "West" is clear from the case of Alexei Galkin. No, I do not know of any CIA agent in Iraq or Afghanistan being tortured to go on Al Jazeera claiming George Bush organized 9/11.

As for Basayev's gang in Dagestan, judging from the entries in chechnya.sl, 90% of their killings are local policemen, many of whom just involved in sorting out "normal" crime (most "invaders" got killed while attacking them at their safe houses, except that one time when they blew up military lodgings, killing mostly wives of "Russian invaders"). Just looking back for the most recent event which did not only concern "the local government and members of the Russian Federation forces", the two guys who became shaheed in a Kizilyurt apartment in May, had a map of a nearby school in their possession. Strangely, explosives were found at that school. [10] and [11] As for targeting criminal police and armed attacks on money transports, whether Algerian citizen Kamel Burahlia ([12])is a terrorist or not, is a moot point. On the other hand, "terrorist" IS a word to avoid, and since here these guys in that passage are being accused of killling Basayev, I do not think they should be called terrorists there, since killing Basayed does not qualify as terrorism. --Pan Gerwazy 23:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, "Dagestanis". Why the FSB is claiming it was an "Arab" plot led by an a Karachay (very few, if any, Chechens, btw)? "Exercise" thing (of planting bomb in the basement of an apartment building). Why the Americans, somehow, didn't conduct any exercises involving people trying to hijack airplanes? Isn't it a normal thing to do in the middle of a terrorist crisis (or any time, for that matter)? These agents were arrested by the local police after a large manhunt (after they phoned for a further instructions), thousands of terrified people were evacuated in the middle of the night, the bombs were disarmed (live detonator and real explosives - don't tell me you believe FSB version of the "faulty equipment" of the Ryazan police sappers, who detected hexogen) and the capture of terrorist suspects was publicily annnounced (Ryazan authorities knew nothing of the "exercise"). But what I know. Maybe this is normal and happening in Russia all the time? Were there any "exercises" involving, say, FSB agents "exercising" a large-scale hostage takings, with no one knowing what's going on? Somehow, I don't think very many. Next, they "had map of school" and "explosives were found" because the other side (local interior minister and RIA-Novosti) said so? Maybe then Chechens did the WTC ("Jews did the WTC") too, because FSB announced they found "maps of New York" and "diagrams of airplanes" in a cave in Chechnya just after September 11? Did they? Now, they're fighting other Chechens because of the Russian policy of Chechenization. And it was happening back since 1993 already, when Russia was clandestinely supported Chechen opposition forces. Many of these Chechen policemen and soldiers are former "bandits and terrorists" too, btw (now "returned to a peaceful life" like the defections are called in the Russian newspeak). They don't necessarily kill them too, many are simply disarmed when possible (with or without beatings), like were dozens of traffic policemen and civilian Interior workers in the 2004 Nazran attack. Of course any killings are very problematic, because of the blood vendetta traditions (guess, how many of the federals were killed only in a pure revenge attacks, by people who targeted only them specifically and then returned to their normal lives?). Plus many of the police are a double agents (not to mention rampant corruption). Also, Basayev was indeed a terrorist (and the Carthage should be destroyed). --HanzoHattori 03:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Flying planes into buildings is not really the same or as easy as leaving sugar on the landing of an apartment. Patrushev at the time did claim there were other exercises. [13] I realize that my timeline is a little bit naughty: the Russian army did enter Chechnya on the 18th (according to Maskhadov and AFP) but an open and wholesale invasion only took place somewhere between September 30 and October 3. Of course, they were threatening to pursue terrorists and had been bombarding Grozny and other places for some time, even before the 18th. On the 28th, however, Yeltsin and Defence Minister Igor Sergeev admitted what everybody already knew: that there were, and had been for some time, Russian troops fighting in Chechnya. [14] I do not think they really needed another bombing or a bombing attempt in Ryazan on the 22nd still. As for the Dagestan thing - we will have to remain a sea apart there. I still think that the attacks on policemen look like they want to stir up ethnic hatred - not even necessarily against Russians - some office or administrative unit is always blamed for being corrupt and, of course partial to one thnic group.--Pan Gerwazy 04:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where this discussuion is supposed to lead, but the Russian campaign was being prepared months before the bombings started. The were incursions and intelligence work, black ops too. Dagestan is complicated, Islamic insurgents make of only a part of violence, with the clans and groups competing for power and money. Various ethnic groups toom yes. And the insurgency alone is complicated too (for example some of these guys from 1998 who seemingly attempted a coup, fled to Chechnya, lobbied Basayev for help, and in the end turned out to be just a provocatours, or at very least double agents like this one who later poisoned Khattab - even the guy who founded Sharia Jamaat in 2000 wasn't trusted anymore for a quite long time again, despite wasting dozens cops). Or the situation in Gimry, who has sharia law and shelter rebels, and is near a strategic tunnel, but is a no-go zone for federals - while the villages who declared independence in 1999 were just bombed out Chechnya-style. According to the police sappers, it was NOT sugar in Ryazan. Petrushev's claim may be well true - as he might mean the "exercises" he arranged in Moscow in Volgodonsk before. And what Basayev meant as the work of Dagestanis - it would be Buinaksk, where the troops' housing block was blown up. All the later blasts were in Russia and targeting civilians, with the propaganda campaign blaming Chechens back then. --HanzoHattori 21:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not true, by the way, that the US never had an exercise in which planes were supposed to fly into buildings. They were actually planning one at the very moment the attacks were on: "On the morning of 9/11, 50 minutes before Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, the National Reconnaissance Office, who are responsible for operating US reconnaissance satellites, had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, four miles from Dulles airport[111]." That is from Wikipedia's 9/11 conspiracy theories. As for Basayev naming the Dagestanis, well, if he knew it was his Karachai friends who did it, he was not going to give them away just like that while they were not in Chechnya or Georgia (that is where they all ended up) yet. Actually, there is also a very plausible theory that the mess in Ryazan was an organized provocation by ... Berezovsky using the FSB connections (Vladimir Rushailo) he stil had then: [15] for instance. But you do not hear much about that allegation in the Western press. Like Alexei Galkin, who usually only gets quoted on his words to a Turkish journalist while he was held captive by the mujahedin, but not on his retraction years later.--Pan Gerwazy 01:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[16]: a link quoted by ... Polish Wikipedia, of all places. If the EU thought he was a terrorist, why cannot we?--Pan Gerwazy 01:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We can think whatever we like. Nevertheless I believe an encyclopedia should not express opinions of the editors, it should state facts. Many people considered "national heroes" or "freedom fighters" today, were named "terrorists" by some other ones, like Tsarist Russia or Soviet Union. --Zalmoksis (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it is "encyclopedic" to label anybody as "terrorist", especially taking into account the people like authoritarian politicians excel in labelling this way almost anybody they don't like. The thing is, we would in most cases agree somebody is/was a "pilot", a "politician", a "writer". We would mostly agree whether somebody killed someone else or not. And we can provide a source and discuss it. But somehow the people labelled "terrorists" by Nazi Germany, are deemed heros now. Was Polish Home Army, assassinating Nazi officials and sabotaging German Army, a terrorist organization? Were anti-communist groups and organizations in Central or Eastern Europe terrorist organizations? Can any source really prove it? Because they were certainly labelled as such? Personally, I think we should avoid classifying people this way in an encyclopedia, just as we don't say somebody is a "good musicians" (even if he or she claimed it himself or herself). Let's avoid opinions (unless quoted) and stick to the facts. --Zalmoksis (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Secret wife?

Anyone catch today's NYT article about Elina Ersenoyeva? It might be worth adding. Here's the link for anyone who has the free registration already done[I know it's not something we might cite for the article, but one might look it up elsewhere as well].

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/27/world/europe/27chechnya.html?th&emc=th --r. 23:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is free: http://www.kommersant.com/page.asp?id=700100 --Pan Gerwazy 19:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's crap. The family said what the siloviki told them after Ersenoyeva was "dissapeared" and so the story started. She was kidnapped most probably because of her journalist work (she was also an UNICEF worker). If she was Basayev's wife she would be arrested as a "terrorist's accomplice" (they do this openly). --HanzoHattori 15:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm. She did write a letter to Chechen Society and some NGOs that she and her family were in trouble because she had married a boyevik who had died only a month before. And after Basayev's death they were visited by the FSB, who questioned her, her mother and her brother. "Только тогда Маргарита поняла, за кем была замужем ее дочь." ([[17]]) So, her mother understood whom she had married, not AFTER she disappeared, but before.--Pan Gerwazy 21:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories

These categories are simply POV. Basayev didn't go from village to village just killing people. Yes he's resonsible for numerous attrocities, but based on this logic shouldn't we also add the same categories to George W. Bush, for all the civilians that have been killed in Iraq? —Khoikhoi 04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Sure we should. Do that in the article about Bush. This one is about Basayev. The Belsan tragedy alone is enough to convince anyone that Basayev was a terorist, but not you apparently. Aren't you being way too biased?

Official version

"According to this official version, a detonator with a remote control hidden in one of the explosives was detonated by FSB agents..." Although some western media claims it is the official version, there were no official version at all , (Exept that he was killed in a special operation). Patruchef (FSB cheef) told in a Brifing, he (or somebody else) is not authorised to tell how Bassajew was killed.

Taking his statement out of context. That is not NPOV. The meaning is more like 'yeah yeah whatever you say I am' meaning the 'Western' definition of terrorism is whoever fights back against them. (This has nothing to do with whether or not he was actually a terrorist, I am not commenting on that).

27 November 2006

"National hero"

To quote from the citation:

“ During the failed military coup against Boris Yeltsin in August 1991, Basayev was one of scores of Chechens who joined the barricades to protect the Russian president. But when Dzhokar Dudayev used the ensuing chaos to declare Chechen independence, Basayev rushed to the capital, Grozny, to join the fledgling state. He quickly became a commander, leading several hundred volunteers fighting to help Abkhazia break away from Georgia. When Yeltsin sent troops to quash Chechnya's independence in 1994, Basayev was one of the city's fiercest defenders and became a national hero. ”

Khoikhoi 22:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As for the "self-described terrorist" part, see [18], [19], and [20]. Khoikhoi 23:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that the source does say he became a national hero in 1994. However, the source also says:

His passage from national liberation hero to pitiless extremist with fundamentalist Islamic overtones reflected the collapse of values on both sides of Russia's struggle to contain Chechen demands for independence in the post-Soviet period.

Thus, this article suggests that he had moved from national hero to "pitiless extremist". The description "national hero" is pretty loaded, especially for someone with this kind of history. Based on the citation, I think you could call him a "former national hero", but that starts to move to a different POV. So, I think the phrase should be removed. The reference to him being considered a hero after his actions in 1994 are already part of the relevant section of the article.

I do, however, agree that the sources support "self-described terrorist". -Kubigula (ave) 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but you haven't provided any sources that say he stopped becomming a national hero. Would you be able to show me some? Khoikhoi 05:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this article says, "to many of the opposition fighters in Chechnya, Dagestan and throughout the North Caucasus, Basayev was a legend, a hero unafraid to throw down the gauntlet to a nuclear power, who forced the very head of the Russian government to come crawling to him". Khoikhoi 05:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The source above, which is the one that is being cited to support the notion of the guy being a national hero, says he moved from being a national hero (when he was defending Chechneya) to a "pitiless extremist" (when he started attacking civillians). My edit to the intro was an almost exact paraphrase of the citation. I am trying to find a compromise, which is why I changed the text to so carefully mirror the citation.

I don't have any particular interest in Chechneya, but I do believe it is very controversial to call a (self-admitted) terrorist a national hero. You are basically asserting that almost every person in Chechneya idolizes a terrorist. That may be true, but you need a strong source to back that kind of controversial statement. The existing source simply does not support calling him a national hero for his actions after 1994. Your new source supports calling him a hero to the "opposition fighters", but that is much different than being a hero for the entire nation. -Kubigula (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you have a point. I've finially found a better source that says, "Basayev was Moscow's most wanted man, and a national hero for many Chechens". [21] How's that? Khoikhoi 20:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Given the very bad blood between Chechens and Russians, I have no trouble accepting a source that says he is a hero to many Chechens. That addresses my concerns with calling him an unqualified national hero. -Kubigula (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I guess (and hope) the matter is settled. :-) Do you think it's no longer necessary to use the first reference? Khoikhoi 21:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes - your new sources better support the matter asserted. The original source was more conflicted. -Kubigula (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kavkaz

No doubt the Wahhabis around here will persist in revising this article to claim that this subhuman thug was a great hero of Islam, but can we at least omit all reference to the worthless website called Kavkaz Center? (Speaking of which, there was a big roundup in Turkey a couple of days ago, and with a little luck, Kavkaz is now history.)LDH 11:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Former OMON member?

"Basayev had served in the OMON forces in the Soviet times. The Basayev brothers participated, among the Soviet troops, the fighting of the TV tower of Vilnius, against the independence movement of Lithuania. As young hotheads, Shamil and his brother Shirvani Basayev had joined the Russian military intelligence GRU in the Abkhaz War against Georgia, although Georgia was the only state around that favored independent Chechnya. To the first Chechen War, Shamil Basayev went as a more mature nationalist Chechen patriot. Then, however, having acquainted with Khattab, and especially having lost the presidential election to Maskhadov, Basayev started to define himself as an "Islamic Che Guevara", and he announced he was opposed to both "Russian imperialist colonialism" and "nationalism" of the Chechen leaders Dudayev and Maskhadov." [22]

Oh, and Shrivani needs an article too.

2003-2004

"The last attack for which Basayev claimed responsibility was the 9 December explosion near the National Hotel in Moscow and the 5 December blast on the commuter train in Yessentuki. Basayev then said both attacks were carried out by the Islamic group Riyadus-Saliheyn operating under his command.

Following the 6 February metro explosion, however, Basayev expressed concern about the tragic events in Moscow and even said he was ready to dispatch special units for protecting law and order in the capital." [23] --HanzoHattori 11:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't he wrote a book on warfare?

After the 1st war? --HanzoHattori 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Chechen script and removal of POV needed

There is russ script for this man but no Chechen script and the first few lines of the article look like POV-based to me.I dont see the need for adding that he killed russian civilians.That simple accusation doesnt belong in a bioography and goes against NPOV.One could make the same argument of the russian government attacking chechens.-Vmrgrsergr 02:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC) -

What you call "russ script", is in fact Cyrillic script, it is not language-specific. But what do you mean by Chechen script? Arabic ? - because as far as I see we are also giving his name in Latin script. Have a look at Chechen language. That Basayev killed Russian civilians is not an accusation - he admitted and even claimed so. If you think his claims were exaggerated, source that and add it to the article - but be careful not to go beyond "Due Weight". You will have a lot of problems by the way, because no one denies these facts - in fact pro-Chechen commentators in the West are now claiming that Basayev worked for the KGB all along (and that is already reflected in the article). As for the Russian government attacking Chechens - that is mentioned in several articles linked to from here. Chechnya for instance. --Pan Gerwazy 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regrdless accusations dont go in intruductions.Just as we dont introduce a biograpgy of Hitler killing people in the first few lines.That comes later.As for script Im adding Arabic script as it is historicly used by Chechens before the cyrlic.-Vmrgrsergr 07:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"conquest and racial subjugation had brought death and destruction to tens of millions of people, including the genocide of some six million Jews in what is now known as the Holocaust." is in the intro of Adolf Hitler, so? Note that if you delete the info on attacking civilians, the part about his being named Hero of Ichkeria will also have to be deleted under WP:Undue Weight. As for the Arabic script, I hope you realize that some people who feel positive towards Basayev may think that Arabic script is a provocation and I state now that I am not in any way responsible for it, though I will leave it there (surprise, surprise). Since I hope you will also add it to the introes of other Chechen leaders. Under WP:Due Weight, you will now have to add it to the introes of all the Arabs who came to Chechnya, by the way. --Pan Gerwazy 10:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I will deal with the introductions later.We should not intoduce Sharon or Putin as war criminals now should we? But anyways I am too busy right now to deal with the intros for now.As for Arabic script I will definately add for all the Chechen heros (for Arab heros are probably added) I find.I mean if you check in the top line it clearly said "russian" but no refference to his name written in Chechen so I decided to add the Arabic script (used by chechens for centuries) because after all-he is a Chechen.Regards.-Vmrgrsergr 18:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian ancestry?

Basayev is chechen or russian? We need sources for this.It needs to be varified.-Vmrgrsergr 02:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, there is a link in the article. Of course, you have to look for the relevant text and understand Russian. Here is the passage:

" Во время кавказской войны в 1840 году по приказу аварского имама Шамиля его основали русские военнопленные. Но не те, кто угодил в неволю силой. Поселок строили вблизи Ведено русские дезертиры и перебежчики, добровольно переметнувшиеся к врагу. После принятия ислама "новые чеченцы" с особым остервенением воевали против своих бывших товарищей по оружию. Русские предатели приложили немало сил, чтобы стать вайнахами. Но до сих пор, как и 160 лет назад, жители "породистой" Ичкерии насмешливо называют уроженцев Дышне-Ведено "чеченцами с русскими хвостами".

В 1965 году в Дышне-Ведено родился очередной Басаев. Его нарекли Шамилем. В честь легендарного воина-богослова."

I can assure you that this text says exactly what is claimed in the article (check one of the translating sites on the web, if you do not believe me). Whether it is all correct or not, I do not know. In any case, a) many people in Chechnya believe it b) those deserters must have married Chechen women, so any one from that place is only half-Russian. Genetically. --Pan Gerwazy 03:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually married into an Avar family. In the today Chechnya - but then everything was Dagestan Caucasian Imamate. --HanzoHattori 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why is this creature presented as some sort of hero? Someone would think that this article was written by his personal fan club. Miskin 15:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. And this comment was written by his personal hate club, right? --HanzoHattori 20:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, there may be too much BLP concern over this guy here, but I do think "Affiliation Al Qaeda" is wrong. "Political Affiliation All Qaeda" may be OK, but without the word "political", the word "affiliation" gets a completely different meaning: that Basayev's group was part of Bin Laden's network. Not proven, I think. A link has been found between the Chechen independists and the Benevolence International Foundation, but to conclude that therefore, Basayev's group, as by far the most active one, must have been financed by and therefore also be "affiliated" to the real power behind BIF, is OR - if only because money was also passed on to groups outside Bin Laden's network (see Bosnya eg). No, this must be rephrased. I do not like "Affiliation Îchkerian Republic" either, beacause Basayev worked far too independent of Maskhadov. What about "Affiliation Movement for islamic rule over the Caucasus" - or can we find something shorter? Or we could add "political", if the infobox rules allow that.--Pan Gerwazy 14:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1917 Caucasian Emirate = 4th Caucasian Imamate?

I'm not sure. --HanzoHattori 20:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Section: Basayev's early militant activities First citation needed tag can be referenced with The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror by Paul J. Murphy for publisher Brassey's Inc. page 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.220.204 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Section: Basayev's role in the First Chechen War : 1995 First citation tag regarding bombing of his village can be sourced to The Wolves of Islam: Russia and the Faces of Chechen Terror by Paul J. Murphy for publisher Brassey's Inc. page 20 Additional information includes: size of bomb - 6 tons, quantity of bombs - 2, who's home - uncles, casualty list - 6 children ages five months to twelve years, 4 women, and the uncle. In the attack, not the specific bombing, Basayevs sister Zinaida and wife and child were killed. 12 other members of his family were injured —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.144 (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Arabic name

What's the point of having his name written in Arabic? That's like having the Saudi King's name written in Ukrainian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.72.104 (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

See above: "addition of chechen script and removal of POV needed". Actually, since then the part saying "self-described terrorist" was deleted... --Paul Pieniezny 14:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Putin duel offer in 2000

I wanted to mention this, but I can't find it out now. It was among the lines "let's fight with knives, you are a judo black belt master and I am invalid". Anyone can help? --HanzoHattori (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

https://edgar-leitan.livejournal.com/152735.html

I know this is 17 years old but here's a source for the statement. 2601:245:4603:5120:FD6A:3DCF:AEB2:22EC (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Astemirov's declaration

Also, you probably know he spent the last years co-ordinating the Caucasian non-Chechen fighters (in addition to organizing hostage takings and suicide bombings 2002-2004). http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2373823 has an interesting thing about this, making him an adherent Chechen nationalist to the end:

In his long declaration, Astemirov explained why the Emirate was declared now. The KBR rebel leader revealed some details in his audio message about how the rebels prepared the establishment of the Emirate. The most interesting thing in what Astemirov had to say concerned his negotiations with the Chechen warlord Shamil Basaev in Nalchik, the capital of Kabardino-Balkaria, in 2005. According to Astemirov, Basaev met him and Ilyas Gorchkhanov, then the leader of the Ingush militants. Astemirov and Gorchkhanov told Basaev that they wanted to create the Caucasian Front in the North-West Caucasus and to initiate a large-scale militant struggle against Russian rule in the region. At the same time, Basaev said that the Ingush and KBR rebels should give an oath of loyalty to Abdul-Khalim Sadulaev, then the leader of the Chechen separatists. Astemirov said that the negotiations were not easy, because Basaev demanded from Gorchkhanov and Astemirov that they cease any hostilities against the authorities if the Kremlin agreed to have peace talks with Sadulaev. Astemirov and Gorchkhanov insisted that they would agree to this only if Basaev promised them that the future independent Chechen state would be totally Islamic, without any of the attributes of an infidel governing structure, like a presidency or parliament, and would not have the word "republic" in its name. Basaev rejected these demands and said that if Astemirov and Gorchkhanov did not agree to give an oath of loyalty to Abdul-Khalim Sadulaev as the president of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria they should not expect any assistance from Basaev and other Chechen rebel commanders. Astemirov and Geriskhanov ultimately agreed to Basaev's demands.

By the way I think Caucasian Emirate needs an article too. --HanzoHattori (talk) 21:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Grozny 1994

http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/khozhevinterview.pdf mentions "Shamil Basayev's men" in the battle of November 26. Should be added? --HanzoHattori (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

PoV pushing

We've been over the introduction already. It already says he's responsible for terrorist attacks, no need to call him a terrorist by definition, just like there's no need for others to call him a "freedom fighter" like people have been inserting in recently. In contrast, not even Osama Bin-Laden is called a terrorist in the introduction. Basayev was a terrorist in my eyes and pretty much everyones eyes, but its up to readers to decide that since this is an encyclopedia. He was also more than just a terrorist, also a high ranking official and presidential candidate. If you call him a terrorist by defenition that's the same as calling Putin a state terrorist on his wikipedia page. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edits are completely disruptive. You are removing multiple reliable sources to push your personal point of view eventhough you claim to believe he was a terrorist. Please stop removing cited information. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

YOUR edits are disruptive. I'm only removing concent from the lead not the article because you're using sources for pov pushing. I can find sources that list him as a freedom fighter as well, but I don't because then the lead becomes a mess. Please stop pov pushing. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss your edits here before engaging in an edit-war, because things are starting to point that way. I've added this article to my watchlist and will be monitoring the edits from now on. Thank you. AVand^talk_contribs 14:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha, try finding a reliable source for the "Freedom fighter" claim. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of the saying "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pietervhuis (talk • contribs)

Again, find a reliable source that says Basayev is a "freedom fighter." --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother because I don't want to add in the first place. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Because they don't exist. The current text meets the standard for inclusion. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

They do exist, but you wouldn't consider them reliable. For example the democratically elected government in exile called him so. This is besides the point though, because if you can call him a terrorist by defenition I can call Putin a state terrorist too "Vladimir Putin is the President of the Russian Federation and a state terrorist". You wouldn't like that would you? - PietervHuis (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If reliable sources exist per WP:RS to do so then yes. This is a matter of policy not personal agenda. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are many reliable sources which back that up, but nobody would be happy with that. Anyway concerning this introduction it's not about the information but about how you phrase it. For example it wouldn't be POV to say he was "responsible for terrorist attacks", that's a universal fact and is already noted in the introduction, but to name him "terrorist basayev" instead of militant IS WP:NPOV.- PietervHuis (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade is not a violation of WP:NPOV particularly when there are multiple reliable sources that refer to him as that. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I must add I agree with Pietervhuis, neither "Terrorist" nor "Freedom fighter" don't seem as encyclopedic content. Besides, this has indeed been discussed before and common practice is to simply refrain from using such terms. AVand^talk_contribs 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would agree if the case were that there were no reliable sources that directly called him a terrorist. However, that is not the case. In your interpretation this would mean that you cannot use any adjectives to describe him including Islamist, etc. Is one who commits acts of terrorism not, by very definition, a terrorist? Is not a person who espouses conspiracy theories a conspiracy theorist? --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, I guess the proper term would be "islamic militant" as used in the Osama Bin Laden article. I just can't see why this article should be any different from so many other articles about militants of any kind. AVand^talk_contribs 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the way that article is worded either, but that article is not this one. --Ave Caesar (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you an extreme example to explain what I mean. The atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki fall under the defenition of terrorism/state terrorism. There's many people who believe this is true and many sources which back this up. However, it still not mentioned as such by defenition, because others will argue that it was a necessary act of terror to stop more bloodshed. That's how words like terrorist or terrorism are relative terms and as such best to avoid so that it's up to readers to decide. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The other article was mentioned by me solely for purpose of showing the common practice here on wikipedia in similar cases. However, I'd like to stick to the other article as an example. I am sure you could find many "reliable sources" online stating that Osama Bin laden is a terrorist but you must understand that if there is no consesus on the subject, no terms that the other part does not agree with should be used in an article, that's the very definition of a free encyclopedia AVand^talk_contribs 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, there is consensus on this issue for this article subject among all available reliable sources. I have found no reliable sources that argue otherwise nor have any been presented. Thus, this meets the standard of inclusion laid out in WP:VERIFY. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That highly depends on your interpretation of the definition of a reliable source. That in itself is a matter of dispute. This is just another reason for sticking to the common practices here on wikipedia. AVand^talk_contribs 15:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Which of these sources isn't being considered reliable?? The New York Times? ABC News? The independent NGO's? This is ridiculous and completely void of common sense. You want to go and state what is typically done in other articles yet on the same hand you want to call the NYTimes an unreliable source when it's not disputed in other articles. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ceasar, newspapers aren't the best sources available. Better sources are books from journalists and historicans, and yes there are those which describe the mountaineer rebels as "freedom fighters". - PietervHuis (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

More sources: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]. PS, Peter, there were more sources than just newspapers. Further, the New York Times is accepted in all other articles as a reliable source. The only reason you would say it is not reliable here is in order to push a personal agenda. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the WP:RS, even extremist sources can be considered reliable. There IS simply NO consensus on this, that is the exact reason why I yet again refer to the common practices. AVand^talk_contribs 15:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that. It states that, they can be used "in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." In other words, you can use extremist sources in the context that elaborates on how said extremists view themselves. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find 100 more sources but it won't do. I already pointed out that "terrorists" and "freedom fighters" are a debate itself also having applied for this conflict as well as other conflicts. If you put a bit of effort in it, you'll find books and articles which describe these fighters not as terrorists but as freedom fighters. Same goes for example with Hezbollah militants. You can find a dozen news reports which desbribe them as terrorists, but many others which contradict this. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct and according to this interview with him he sees himself as a freedom fighter. Does that mean he should be viewed by others as a freedom-fighter? AVand^talk_contribs 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already stated that I have not been able to find any reliable sources that consider him to be a freedom fighter. However, I was creating a compromise version right before the article was protected. Hopefully this version is more agreeable. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well we clearly cannot use sources that talk about how he describes himself since he has called himself both. This is why I changed the compromise version. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are reliable sources that consider Chechens in general to be freedom fighters. No I don't agree with the version simply because it doesn't belong in the first paragraph of the lead section. The introduction already says he's 1) responsible for mass hostage takings, 2) radical and 3) responsible for terrorist attacks. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My view here: Was Nazi Germany a Dictatorship? Hitler's intro explicitly states so w/o five refrences attached. So extrapolating Petervhuis's statement that its up to the reader to decide, surely that would mean you have to remove all adjectives from all articles starting with Hitler being an anti-Semite and ending with Elton John being bisexual...or add weasels in front of them to compensate this. Seriously this is nonsense, and there is a WP:COMMONSENSE, which states that if there is an international consensus that Basayev was a terrorist, if the are personal statements by himself that he is a terrorist, than he is a terrorist. And those who want the article to challenge that should read WP:POINT . --Kuban Cossack 15:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also many personal statements by himself that he's a freedom fighter, you wouldn't like that in the introduction either, as in "freedom fighting terrorist". - PietervHuis (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That's one source against many others. Further, I have changed the new version in order to reflect that. --Ave Caesar (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well it's still not optimal. It's said so in the first paragraph instead of chronologic order. In the first few years of his military career he hadn't attacked civilians. Like I've said before he was more than just a terrorist. He also had a long reputation of attacking military targets, and in 1997 was a succesful presidential candidate of a de fact independent nation. For example watch this preview of a documantery about him before the 2nd war[30], there he's not mentioned as a terrorist even though it was after the hospital siege. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said above I don't like WP:WEASELing, one think is when you claims the other is when you have international consensus already in place. Here I think its just enough to state that he is a terrorist w/o many consider him as such clutter. --Kuban Cossack 15:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Except neither the EU, the US, the UN and Russia branded him as a freedom fighter. Nor did the Chechens, who launched fireworks in Grozny upon learning of his death. --Kuban Cossack 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

International consensus? Is there a statement somewhere regarding this? I'd like to see what countries "internationalized" the "consensus". And in your very own edit summary you called him a pig. There are certain policies about this, including WP:CIVILITY and WP:ETIQUETTE. My view on this is that it violates the NPOV AVand^talk_contribs 15:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I quote from your code: My view on this is that it violates the [[WP:POV|NPOV]] So does it violate POV? Or NPOV? And have you just not stated that your view... hence your V is that it violates one of the two... I understand that English is not my native language, but I am having rather difficulty following that. And internationalized consensus wrt your question is if the majority state that Kiev during the course of the Battle of the Dnieper was liberated, then it was liberated irrespective if some nationaly conscious Ukrainian users like to consider it occupation and wish to thus forge an NPOV on replacing liberated with something else per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Well have a look into the archive of the talk page and see their failure. Same here, if you want a medcab/com go for it, but you are wasting your time. --Kuban Cossack 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I made the comment above only because your edit summary expressed a POV on the subject, something that is not accepted in an encyclopedia. AVand^talk_contribs 16:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Kuban you've more often admitted to being biased, in your profile you claim you fought Basayevs forces without regret, that doesn't make you very objective does it? Yes there are people who considered Basayev a freedom fighter, both in the past as today, both abroad and in the caucasus. Let me remind you that almost 25% voted for him in Chechnya's presidential elections (although he was less extreme back then). It's not up to us to decide what to label him, only to inform readers of his history and activities and stuff like that. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And you moved articles such as Caucasus War to Russian Invasion of the Caucasus. Why should you be more objective and neutral than me? Vladimir Putin also gained more than 90% of the Chechen vote in the 2004 elections (which is higher than 25% ;). --Kuban Cossack 16:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya I thought it was a more populair title, if I was wrong or not it was a long time ago and doesn't prove anything. Also you must be pretty naive to believe that Kadyrov actually received 98% of the Chechen vote. The 97 elections were closely monitored and considered fair by international observers, the elections in Chechnya are considered "deeply flawed". I have to give your state credit though, it didn't seem as obviously flawed as Saddam Hussein's 100% vote. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Who said Saddam's 100% was a flaw? He was the only candidate on the ballot! If he got less than 100% then it would have been flawed because its physically impossible! He even had people observers who stated that there were no irregularities on the elections and all ballot countings were conducted orderly and w/o violations. --Kuban Cossack 18:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, the only label you objected to was the terrorist one, you didn't care about the Islamist label, however. Don't give us that objectivity crap, your edits are clearly attempting to push an agenda in spite of reliable sources simply because you don't like it. --Ave Caesar (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care much about the islamist label much no because it's not really a controversial topic. But ya, he expressed in an interview he his nr.1 reason to fight is nationalism and freedom, and the nr.2 reason is Islam, so that could be removed too or eleborated on. That I'm following a personal agenda are unfounded allegations, I'm an editor here because I enjoy history, honesty, and good written articles. I might as well accuse you of following a personal agenda too. Also please remain civil, calling my arguments "crap" and stuff isn't appropriate. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I prepose we follow the WP:DR step-by-step as there is no resoultion to this on the horizon. It would also be a good idea to add a {{POV}} tag to the article. AVand^talk_contribs 16:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Although Basayev was a terrorist, one should prove with sorces that he also was an islamic terrorist or had anything to do with Islam. I agree with the initial note by Pietervhuis when he uses Osama Bin-Laden article as an example of WP:NPOV policy. This is a good article about Bin-Laden, and we can use it as an example. The initial version of this article fits WP:NPOV much better. I also agree with last comment by AVand. There are two highly opinionated editors here who combined forces to conduct edit warring. This should stop.Biophys (talk) 16:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I take umbrage at your accusation of being "highly opinionated." I care very little for this topic. I have done nothing but argue the lines of policy against editors who seem to disregard WP:RS and WP:VERIFY entirely. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is extremely unproductive. Please do not waste your time and nerves, relax and do something else.Biophys (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To add an extreme example to that, since someone mentioned nazi's, not even the page of Adolf Hitler has an adjective like "state terrorist", especially not in the first paragraph and thats a nice article too. It does say he's responsible for genocide, in chronologic order, just like this lead initially said Basayev was responsible for the deaths of many civilians. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I reverted back to the cited version since this is an NPOV issue and articles shouldn't be reverted directly after unprotection. The discussion should be refocused so that it centers on the NPOV issue rather than over whether or not he is a terrorist. Right now, the text is factual and well-cited. --Ave Caesar (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're never going to agree on this it seems, I'll make a compromise. The problem with the previous version is also that it's not chronologically, was he a terrorist when he fought along with the abkhazians? This article details his entire life and career, not just the dark parts. I swifted it so that it fits in chronologic order, but can stay in the introduction - PietervHuis (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the entire article thus encompassing a generalized version of all the subsequent material. Please stop edit warring. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhm yes thats why it stayed in the lead. Also I made a compromise thats not edit warring. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing cited text is edit warring bordering on vandalism doubly so when you do it right after protection expires. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What cited text did I remove then in my last edit? Please tell me. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the fact that you removed it from the lead (ie the first sentence or two - not the subsequent paragraphs). Further, he wasn't born an Islamist militant either but rather became one over time just as he became a terrorist over time. Your point doesn't hold water. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually he became a terrorist years after his military career started. Also the lead is not just the very first paragraph but the entire introduction. Your point that I deleted sourced content is thus false. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, he became a terrorist over time just as he became a militant over time. Again, he was not born as either of those things. You are simply picking and choosing which you put into the first sentence because of your personal point of view while claiming that it's not in "chronologic order." As it is now, the first two sentences encompass a general description that includes all phases of his life - particular his actions for which he is best known. --Ave Caesar (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is he hasn't always been a terrorist. He wasn't factually a terrorist when he defended grozny and chechnya in the first chechen war. After the first war he wasn't consider a terrorist by everyone but a "former terrorist"[31] [32]

The lead should be in chronologic order, why did you change it back? You accuse me of having a "personal point of view", why do you desperately want to have it in the first paragraph? Because of YOUR personal point of view? It shouldn't be because it has to be in chonologic order, that's a good argument yet you still want to go on with the dispute. - PietervHuis (talk) 02:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The word you are looking for is "chronological" not "chronologic" which isn't even a word. The reason I put it back is because that sentence encompasses a general description of all phases of his life, not simply one.--Ave Caesar (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ya and that's exactly a violation of point of view. You consider him a terrorist in all phases of his life, but that's your opinion. All the sources youve shown are from after 2002. I already showed you reliable sources from points of time during his lifetime career where he wasnt universally considered a terrorist. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Oy, I never said that I consider him to be a terrorist in all phases of his life. I think there is a language barrier here. What I said was that the sentence reflects how is remembered in a general sense. The body of the article works to give more nuance to the subject. I really don't know how to put it any simpler. --Ave Caesar (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes and that's exactly what my version told[33]. The first sentence shouldn't tell how he is "generally remembered" but an introduction of what his profession was. The rest goes further down in the lead in chronological order. - PietervHuis (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this prolong discussion is ridiculous. Just tell that he was "a Chechen warlord". This is it. If you start to discuss how he "was remembered", this never ends. Do not waste your time here.Biophys (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The point is accuracy and the fact that the text fits the standard of inclusion set in WP:VERIFY. --Ave Caesar (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My version included your text but in chronological order, a compromise, as a gesture of good will. It should be fine like that. - PietervHuis (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What an odd argument... did you all miss the policy WP:TERRORIST? Even the article on Osama bin Laden doesn't say "Osama is a terrorist". 129.215.37.74 (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Death - controversy

Can I ask why in Shamil_Basayev#Death sources of Chechen terrorists is given prevalence, yet the Russian version of events is entitled "Controversy"? --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I have consolidated Russian official version together and removed the controversy header. Is it better now? Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Friendly request: could you stop your usage of the word terrorists? Unless your goal is to encite ethnic hatred, you're only provoking an argument, but I don't want to be the one to yell "the only terrorists are the Russian agressors" here. Akhmed Zakayev himself confirmed that Basayev died because of an accident. I don't mind omitting the word controversy, but currently only the Russian sources seem to prevail about this "mission impossible" assassination plot. What the Chechen forces had to say is as good as what Russian forces had to say, so currently undue weight is given to this Splinter Cell plot. and looking at western press reports, they give both versions an equal amount of weight. Grey Fox (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In regards to your request, I will not stop using the word terrorist to describe Basayev, those connected to him, and the ideals for which they stood for. You may want to participate in hug-a-terrorist day, but that is not something that I am willing to participate in. And I am not introducing my POV into the article, so I see no reason to comply with that request. My reason for questioning this, is that the Russian version of events is automatically being branded by POV-pushing editors as "controversy" - and the basis for doing so is that the terrorists POV differs from what is also reported. This is Wikipedia, not Westernpaedia, or NATOpaedia, or EUpaedia, or Propagandapaedia, and a key policy of WP is WP:NPOV; and that policy states that we write articles neutrally, do not give weight to one POV over another (the Russian POV is not a fringe view, as it was widely reported), and the use of "Controversy" to describe Russian POV is to direct readers that this POV is not to be believed, by giving absolute precedence to the terrorist/rebel POV. I've called it, Alex has fixed it, and I will continue to call people on it in future too. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Basayev, but the entire Chechen forces, which aren't considered terorrists per se. Per WP:TERRORIST terms like terrorist are non-neutral, and wikipedia is not a forum so you may place such opinions somewhere else. There's also a civility policy called WP:ETIQ. It reminds me of the arguments people have on Israeli-Arab conflict pages with both sides constantly accusing each other of supporting (state)terrorism. Such childish behaviour makes discussion pages unpleasant to work on.

As for the word "controversy" disappearing, like I said I have no problems with that. Grey Fox (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Supreme Military Majlis-ul Shura of the United Mujahideen Forces of the Caucasus

Here is a quote from Asia Times that says he headed two groups that are not mentionned in this article, but also mentionned elsewhere on Wikipedia, so that is probably worth adding.

"two Chechen groups - the Supreme Military Majlis-ul Shura of the United Mujahideen Forces of the Caucasus, headed by Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev, and the Congress of the Peoples of Ichkeria and Dagestan, headed by Basayev and another Chechen separatist leader, Movladi Udugov." Nicolas1981 (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Children?

Kommersant July 18 2006: "Basaev's first wife, Abkhazian Indira Jenia, is known to be alive. Chief of the criminal investigation department of the Abkhazian Interior Ministry Murman Gegia told Kommersant that she had been living in her native village of Duripsh, near Gudauta, but left with two children, a boy and a girl, for either Azerbaijan or Turkey. There are reports that they are now living in The Netherlands."

http://www.kommersant.com/p690813/r_1/Investigators_Slip_on_the_Blood/

This LA Times article mentions a son. That's the child that was killed along with his Chechen wife in the bombing of their house in the 90's, right?

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-01-22/news/mn-23083_1_caucasus-mountains?pg=1

Also, I'm getting a 404 from the reference to the Moscow Times article talking about experts positively identifying his remains. Did they positively identify him through DNA analysis? DashaZPK (talk) 09:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Early life / military service

Quotation: Chechens were usually kept away from the combat units - Eh ? Maskhadov was a career officer with the artillery, and Dudayev served as career officer with the strategic bomber force, to mention the most prominent Chechens. Is there any justification for this statement about chechens serving with the Soviet Army ? --129.187.244.28 (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Basayew is Avar - not Chechen

Some Avar tribes forced to migrate to Chechenia in 1945 by Russia. His tribes' name is Botlikh. About 5000 people are Botlikh Avars in the world. Those Chechens say lie , he was not Chechen , He was Avar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.99.46.170 (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sources? What sources say this? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Source

• "Shamil Basayev." The Economist. 13 July 2006.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Shamil Basayev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061016222317/http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3848&article_id=2371430 to http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=416&issue_id=3848&article_id=2371430
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061107203042/http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20060714.russia.radu.shamilbasayevdeath.html to http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20060714.russia.radu.shamilbasayevdeath.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090122100428/http://www.chechenpress.co.uk:80/english/news/2007/12/31/01.shtml to http://www.chechenpress.co.uk/english/news/2007/12/31/01.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Shamil Basayev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090827150331/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/world/europe/russia-planned-chechen-war-before-bombings-727324.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-planned-chechen-war-before-bombings-727324.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Shamil Basayev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080918223149/http://www.jamestown.org:80/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2373424 to http://www.jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2373424
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090114034635/http://prima-news.ru:80/eng/news/articles/2005/3/11/31434.html to http://prima-news.ru/eng/news/articles/2005/3/11/31434.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110829202922/http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1277191/RUSSIA-THE-FSB-VOWS-TO.html to http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1277191/RUSSIA-THE-FSB-VOWS-TO.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080223161118/http://www.afpc.org:80/rrm/rrm1192.shtml to http://www.afpc.org/rrm/rrm1192.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Shamil Basayev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040919040430/http://www.abc.net.au:80/news/newsitems/200409/s1201684.htm to http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200409/s1201684.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060521033328/http://www.themoscowtimes.com:80/stories/2006/03/13/014.html to http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/03/13/014.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090120180001/http://www.themoscowtimes.com:80/stories/2006/12/29/019.html to http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/12/29/019.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Shamil Basayev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090827150331/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-planned-chechen-war-before-bombings-727324.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-planned-chechen-war-before-bombings-727324.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://prima-news.ru/eng/news/articles/2005/3/11/31434.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110829202922/http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1277191/RUSSIA-THE-FSB-VOWS-TO.html to http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1277191/RUSSIA-THE-FSB-VOWS-TO.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107203042/http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20060714.russia.radu.shamilbasayevdeath.html to http://www.fpri.org/enotes/20060714.russia.radu.shamilbasayevdeath.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090908151525/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/world/europe/chechen-fighters-kill-nine-captured-russian-soldiers-719431.html to http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chechen-fighters-kill-nine-captured-russian-soldiers-719431.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151018193027/http://www.1tv.ru/news/world/99581 to http://www.1tv.ru/news/world/99581
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928020301/http://www.runewsweek.ru/theme/?tid=73&rid=1229 to http://www.runewsweek.ru/theme/?tid=73&rid=1229
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928020301/http://www.runewsweek.ru/theme/?tid=73&rid=1229 to http://www.runewsweek.ru/theme/?tid=73&rid=1229

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shamil Basayev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article478220.ece
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kommersant.ru/doc/689415

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Shamil Basayev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140101173754/http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2005/09/16/4074.shtml to http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2005/09/16/4074.shtml
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article478220.ece
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726062612/http://www.fplib.org/friends/news/omri/1997/12/971218I.html to http://www.fplib.org/friends/news/omri/1997/12/971218I.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://kommersant.ru/doc/689415

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Shamil Basayev. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5cI8esWSU?url=http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/russian/07(17)AM.pdf to http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/russian/07%2817%29AM.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

stadium beheadings

I have removed any mention of the executions of prisoners in a stadium by Shamil Basayev, the Report of a UNPO mission to Abkhazia, Georgia, and the Northern Caucasusm which states "The Mission was particularly interested in investigating allegations of atrocities by Abkhazian troops in Gagra at the time of the recapture of that city from Georgian forces. The delegation was able to find absolutely no evidence to support two major allegations: One was the story that hundreds of Georgians had been driven into a stadium and killed; the other was that Abkhazian soldiers had gone to the hospital and killed doctors and patients there. " http://www.abkhazworld.com/Pdf/AbkGeo1992Report.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.232.68 (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

'Terrorist' in the lead

Use of the description "terrorist" is supported by multiple instances and sources in the article itself. It's axiomatic that one man's freedom fighter/hero is another man's terrorist, but when external reliable sources to the specific demographic also describe the recipient as a terrorist, then it can be taken as a suitable label. Furthermore - just removing the term from the lede does not ultimately change the article itself - there are over 20 instances of the the term "terrorist" in the article, all of which would need to be examined as well as just the first lede sentence. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

People in Nazi Germany elected Hitler. So do we consider what he done was legit and had nothing wrong? I don't think so. As you can see, things change regarding to time and place. Consensus is not the truth for all the time, is not a criteria to reach the truth, and sources you rely on may not be relied on by someone else. Akh of an akh (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is in effect - and a lot sooner than expected too. Your post makes no sense. However, they are not the sources that I rely upon, but those that Wikipedia relies upon. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

If deciding one's reliability is up to some random guys on the top of Wikipedia, then Wikipedia is not neutral. But they are claiming to be, because they know neutrality is attractive and will urge people to trust them. Anyway, if they claim to be neutral, I can question their rules, because their rules are to stop certain actions from happening and to spread the actions they want. Rules might be rightful, but they are never neutral. So, if some people and his buds have a little piece of honor and dignity, they would stop claiming to be neutral. That is impossible for any human to do. All aside, even God is biased towards His believers. Akh of an akh (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Random lurkers: Use the WaybackMachine to check out this article's "evolution" for a good laugh. I love the removal of "terrorist" after a war the editors dislike erupted (escalated). I guess hundreds of dead children just don't cut it anymore, not if it happened in Russia. Also never mind the countless references to Basayev as a terrorist all over the world over the years. Wikipedia is run by literal freaks. 109.93.177.159 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ola Tønningsberg: Please actually discuss instead of trying to edit war. This has been discussed before and you have no consensus for your edit. Mellk (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Mellk To start of, I must say that this article has big problems when it comes to WP:NPOV and WP:OR, with the article largely not following Wikipedias guidelines on neutrality as well as no original research as some other users have pointed out. Lets start with the issue regarding the word "terrorist" in the lead of the biography.

• Firstly, it's a violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral perspective. You don't assign someone the word "terrorist" as a factual statement. Not even figures like Osama Bin Laden is attributed the word terrorist in his lead.
• Secondly, it does not follow MOS:FIRSTBIO. The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person... avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
• Regarding your sources, the first provided source is some dubious german newspaper article. The second source doesn't mention him as such. The third source doesn't even mention what is stated, which is a violation of WP:OR.

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, WP:NPOV does not mean you have to write about everything in a neutral manner. If most sources say something, then it will be reflected as such. You will find that there are actually biographical articles that include "terrorist" in the first sentence. Why is it not there for the Osama bin Laden article? I don't know but probably that is the consensus there and not relevant here. However here there is consensus. There was even invisible text for it. It also mentions sources throughout the article and this is sourced in the body. Per MOS:LEAD the lead does not need to be sourced and the citations can be in the body instead. But your edit warring is not appropriate at all. You're right, WP:BRD is not policy, it is a method of reaching consensus. You however have no consensus and trying to force your changes through edit warring IS against policy. This has been removed before but these get reverted because the consensus is clear. Mellk (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

And it probably can be improved, but your way is not the right way, also please remember about the discretionary sanctions. Mellk (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the opening paragraph of WP:NPOV? As per WP:NPOV, All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia MUST be written from a neutral point of view. This policy is as per the official guidelines: non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. This in turn means whatever consensus has been previously established holds no ground in this case. Which biographical articles describes the noted person as a 'terrorist' in the opening line? The two most probably notable terrorists in modern times, Osama bin laden, doesn't have 'terrorist' in his opening line, neither does Abu bakr al baghdadi. This designation only appears later, in which case it uses the in-text attribution as per MOS:TERRORIST, which this article already does a few lines down as per my most recent edit. You can also find enough citations where Basayev has been described as a freedom fighter. However, as per MOS:FIRSTBIO, you avoid subjective or contentious terminology. There are enough sources which describes him as a politician and author among other stuff. The invisible line does not matter in this case. Leaving the article as it was in the previous state is a violation of several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. These are not my rules, neither is this edit warring. You being unhappy with my edits just sounds like a WP:JDL. Even in this state the article does not satisfy the Wikipedia standard.

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, neutral point of view. Did you complete that paragraph? If all RS describe someone as a terrorist, then they can be called a terrorist in wikivoice. Anders Breivik is called a terrorist because RS call him a terrorist. Your argument is basically "Osama bin Laden isn't called a terrorist in the first sentence of his article therefore it means it is against NPOV to call someone a terrorist". It does not hold up at all. You do not have consensus so I suggest to self-revert instead, there is no valid excuse to not follow this. Please go ahead and find WP:RS for "freedom fighter" in the meantime. Mellk (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

As per Mellk arguments, and WP:EW, continually removing valid, sourced and referenced material from the article - especially when previously reverted - is against policy and may well end in blocks. There is nothing wrong with discussion, but forcing a revised version while discussion is ongoing is not tolerated, and will only quicken breach of 3RR.

In short - to be neutral means reporting without prejudice or sensationalism what the reliable sources say, and not skimming or ignoring statements because you don't like them, or because they paint a bad picture. If the bad picture is reliably sourced, then there is no breach of policy by including it. As the lede summarises the article, it's proper that it describes Basayev as a terrorist as that's what the article describes him as. In fact, sources are not necessary because the lede summarises the article, and the article is sourced to show this statement - but sources have been added in anyway. All bases have been covered, and the fact that Bin Laden is not described as a terrorist is simply WP:OTHERSTUFF - although it should be noted that the lede does say "His group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Union, and various countries" and "His involvement in terrorist attacks landed him on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's lists of Most Wanted Terrorists and Ten Most Wanted Fugitives". Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see an issue with including "terrorist" in the lead for someone who was behind terrorist attacks. This is reflected in RS[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. Clearly it is possible to include "terrorist" in WP articles, it is not against NPOV. It is possible to discuss a potential rewording but completely removing this in a bold edit without consensus and then telling others to use the talk page before it can be restored is not how it works. I also do not understand why "separatist" was removed. Apparently this is a term "coined by Russia".[41] I really don't know how to even respond to that. Mellk (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This is also someone who called himself a terrorist... Mellk (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

If you bothered to read what I wrote overhead, then you would realize that what I removed is not "valid and sourced material". Firstly, the three sources provided are simply comical to say the least. The first source is a dubious German newspaper article, the second doesn't even mention him as a terrorist, and the third is a text-book violation of WP:OR. This as well as my aforementioned reasons makes my edit therefore completely valid. This, along with the fact that the state of which the article was in is a violation of several guidelines and policies only supports my argument. The fact that "terrorist" is constantly being removed and added back in a tug of war for the past 14 years explains enough about this issue. Your willingness to ignore it further proves your agenda.
Furthermore, I've repeatedly gone through every mention of 'terrorist' in the article, and the only mentions of this word are attributing him to have committed such acts. I'm not against him being a terrorist, I'm against it being in the lead in the way it is today which violates Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The lead already mentions him being responsible for hostage takings and terrorist acts. It also describes him as a terrorist in accordance to MOS:TERRORIST. There are sources which refer to him as a hero[42][43][44] page10. However, including this would also be incorrect, as per MOS:FIRSTBIO and WP:NPOV.
As far as the Bin Laden article goes, I've already explained that the terrorist designation appears after in accordance to Wikipedia policies MOS:TERRORIST using the in-text attribution that is key to achieving the neutrality standard that Wikipedia strives for. This article also followed this policy and Wikipedias manual of style in my latest edit until you decided to revert it. It's not an issue of WP:OTHERSTUFF, as this policy mainly applies to deletion of articles, and not always about the content. Quoting: "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement. It's normal to look at better articles and try to mimic it's style.
I'm all up for reaching a consensus here, although I don't appreciate what seems to me as blatant POV-pushing. I'm tagging the most recent editors on this page @Chaheel Riens:, @LuckyStrike007: and @Sextus Caedicius: for their input. They recently edited this page as well on this topic.Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

There are sources which refer to him as a hero.. Let's see, this says "Shamil Basayev became a national hero in Chechnya", this says "a national hero for many Chechens", this says: "To many of the opposition fighters in Chechnya, Dagestan and throughout the North Caucasus, Basayev was a legend, a hero unafraid to throw down the gauntlet to a nuclear power" (while at the same time it says: "But Basayev was not always a successful – and cynical – terrorist. In Nov. 1991, the name of Shamil Basayev meant nothing to veterans of Islamic terrorism.") These sources don't call him a hero, that is a complete misrepresentation of the sources, they merely state that he was seen as a hero to a certain group of people (and being seen as a hero does not mean someone is not a terrorist). Meanwhile sources do call him a terrorist, not simply "to the Russian authorities he is seen as a terrorist". The only sources that probably would call him a hero are some fringe extremist sites that are obviously unreliable and do not met WP:RS. A terrorist who was behind terrorist attacks and RS refer to him as a terrorist is not a controversial label in this case. Let's see, this says: "'Definitively eliminated' were the words Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov used to describe the death of Russia's most wanted terrorist, Shamil Basayev". "Moscow has again lashed out at the decision by Britain's Channel 4 News to air an interview with Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev" this says. And the other sources you ignored. Your willingness to ignore it further proves your agenda. – please WP:AGF, you were already told about discretionary sanctions so making such comments after the alert is not a good look. Mellk (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And you keep referring to the bin Laden article as some kind of proof that it is forbidden to include "terrorist" in the lead when it was already shown that this is not the case. Mellk (talk) 00:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

And why did you not ping other recent editors if you decide to ping at all to bring people into your dispute (this is not necessary, a noticeboard maybe if it goes nowhere)? Mellk (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

You just ignored every argument I made in order to cherry pick two of the four sources that was cited for the sake of a NPOV argument. this is a Russian source quoting a Russian official and this is quoting the Russian defence minister. I didn't cite this and it had nothing to do with my argument. My point still stands though. People view him differently.

Anyway, you just deviated the topic from the main issue to focus on something unimportant that was made for the sake of a POV-argument.

On a final note, I pinged the recent editors that edited this page regarding this specific topic. Ironically, these edits happen to be the only ones for the last month, further proving there is an issue with this page. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

No these are different sources. I cited several ones in the reply before that one that you didn't acknowledge. None of these are "Russian sources". Yes some neo-Nazi extremists view Anders Breivik as a hero, that does not mean the terrorist label does not apply. Mellk (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens, LuckyStrike007, and Sextus Caedicius: Not sure if I'm pinging correctly so I'll try again. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

My point still stands though. People view him differently - exactly right, and that's why we report all sides to the story - including those that show people in a negative light, such as in this case. That is what neutrality is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Ola, it's probably best to try to reach a consensus here before participating in endless edit wars, I'm thinking of Chaheel Riens and LuckyStrike007 in particular. I think the discussion here is focused off-track, I'm not necessarily interested in proving or disapproving whether he was a terrorist or not, I'm sure we can go through countless RS sources endlessly. I think the question is whether the word terrorist should be in the first section of the lead and written in a way that is unusual for Wikipedia, and in this regard I'll have to say that I agree with User:Ola Tønningsberg. The word "Terror" and its variants are mentioned 20 times(exluding the References) in Basayev's article already, moreover we have this quote from the lead also: "ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world."which also is in the lead. This is more than ample mention, & representation of the RS that describe him as a participator in terrorism in my estimation. It should also be noted that this article does not exist in vacuum, but it is more broadly connected to the Russian-Chechen conflict in the 20th century, if we are to look at Vladimir Shamanov's Wikipedia article for example it simply mentions his Military and Political occupation in the lead, even though countless RS sources describe him as a war criminal(but it is still mentioned in the article overall, which is also what I think should be the case here). (~~~~) Sextus Caedicius (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Sextus Caedicius - can you clarify please, you seem to be saying that because the term "terror" (and variants) is used 20 times in the article, including a quote from ABC describing him as a terrorist, the term should not be included in the lede? You seem to be supporting the opposite - there is significant and major use of the term to describe him as a terrorist, and given that the lede summarises the article - it seems even more appropriate to do so, and to continue to do so. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I can, the claim that he is a terrorist is already in the lead, "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world." from ABC news. The lead you and Mellk are arguing for is highly unconventional for Wikipedia, and moreover doesn't fit into the general style of lead's as it relates to the Russo-Chechen wars, and subjects/persons related to terrorism overall. So that's my view, the view that he was a terrorist is already in the lead, and that is even generous when compared to other articles. Should we get a noticeboard going on this? I'm also interested in the input of @Calthinus: as he has some experience on these topics.(Sextus Caedicius (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC))

You still seem to be supporting inclusion. If it's agreed that he's a terrorist, indeed "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world", then it's perfectly acceptable to keep it in as it is. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not put words in my mouth Chaheel, I'm trying to have a discussion in good faith here. Read through my replies carefully. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC))

I'm not putting words into your mouth at all. I'm saying that your arguments against inclusion are equally - if not even more - effective as arguments for inclusion of the term. You accept - twice - that "the claim that he is a terrorist is already in the lead" and "So that's my view, the view that he was a terrorist is already in the lead", but are trying to use that as an argument to not use the term in the lede. Additionally, you say "It should also be noted that this article does not exist in vacuum, but it is more broadly connected to the Russian-Chechen conflict in the 20th century..." - that's irrelevant. This article is about the person Shamil Basayev, and although it may touch on other aspects, it is about him, and thus about how he was described in reliable sources. We are all agreed that he is described as a terrorist, and that the term is already used in the article - and that Basayev calls himself a terrorist: "a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist ..." so why is it unreasonable to do so at the beginning of the lede? Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to argue that Basayev described himself as a terrorist? I assume you don't speak Russian? The ABC article you posted didn't translate the full quote.

В разговоре с журналистом Басаев был довольно откровенен, поскольку уже давно знает журналиста. «Мне очень дорого чеченцы, чем покой в мире. Это понятно?» — начал Басаев. «Я признаю себя плохим парнем, бандитом, террористом, кем вы тогда назовете их (российские власти)? Если защитник конституционного порядка, если антитеррористами, то я плюю на все договоренности и красивые слова», — заявил Басаев. «Именно русские являются террористами. У нас идет борьба за нашу национальную независимость», — заявила боевик.

Here is a rough translation:

In a conversation with a journalist, Basayev was quite frank, since he had known the journalist for a long time. “The Chechens are very dear to me than peace in the world. This is clear?" Basaev began. “I recognize myself as a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist, what will you call them (the Russian authorities) then? If they(Russia) is a defender of the constitutional order, if they(Russia) is an antiterrorist, then I spit on all the agreements and beautiful words, ”Basayev said. “The Russians are the terrorists. We are fighting for our national independence,” the militant said.

I didn't believe you were biased to begin with, although now I have my doubts. It seems as though you just searched ' Basayev, terrorism' in google and utilized the first link you came across, instead of familiarizing yourself with the all sources first. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)) Sextus Caedicius (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe (as I clearly state) I used the article itself, where the above quote and source is used? Second Chechen War, 2005 section. And yet even so - you are still confirming that he describes himself as a terrorist. If we're going for tit-for-tat schoolyard commentary - why don't you use CTRL-F to check the article, after I've said that a given phrase is already in the article?

Even though Basayev had a $10 million bounty on his head, he gave an interview to Russian journalist Andrei Babitsky in which he described himself as "a bad guy, a bandit, a terrorist ... but what would you call them?", referring to his enemies. Basayev stated each Russian had to feel war's impact before the Chechen war would stop. Basayev asked "Officially, over 40,000 of our children have been killed and tens of thousands mutilated. Is anyone saying anything about that? ... responsibility is with the whole Russian nation, which through its silent approval gives a 'yes'." This interview was broadcast on U.S. television network ABC's Nightline program, to the protest of the Russian government; on 2 August 2005, Moscow banned journalists of the ABC network from working in Russia.

But that's by the by. The issue here is that once again you have confirmed that not only is the term terrorist supported by multiple sources present in the article, but that Basayev does indeed describe himself as a terrorist, even if it's to drive home his own point of view. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

hmm I don't know what else to do than to reiterate what already has been said. As confirmed in my previous reply, Basayev did in fact not describe himself as a terrorist, what he did say was essentially "If I am supposedly a terrorist, what does that make the Russians then", simple as. You are moving goalposts Chaheel, first you talk about RS then you somehow try to prove that Basayev gave the title of terrorist to himself. It's about time we get a noticeboard going. (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC))

I have gone through every mention of the word 'terrorist' in the article, and to put it mildly, most mentions of this word are either unsourced or original research. Others are made by Russian newspapers or officials. Regarding OR, I have taken appropriate measures to correct this. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

And I've reverted - with one exception which was validated - because you have replaced all the terms with other unsourced terms, and the article itself supports the claims. Additionally, it is not out of context when a quote is used by the subject top describe himself. That goes for you too Sextus Caedicius, there is a difference between what somebody says, and how you see it as being essentially said. He is indeed pontificating about the Russians, but that does not lessen his description of himself. If you don't know what else to do, don't do anything. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ola Tønningsberg, please explain how you "corrected source titles" in this edit, when one of them is a 404 not found? Do you see where I'm headed with this? Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've approached this discussion with good faith and solution oriented mindset from the get-go, yet I've only been met with strawman upon strawman. I have tirelessly tried to explain to you that I'm not arguing whether he is a terrorist or not(which is an altogether different debate). But whether the current first paragraph of the lead is in accordance with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, and it is not.

MOS:TERRORIST:

Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.

In-text attribution is exactly what this is:

ABC News described him as "one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world."

All I've been arguing for is that this article is in accordance with the manual of style, and precedent overall on wikipedia. If the word terrorist is removed in the first paragraph of the lead, the view that he was one is still accurately represented in the lead. Now let be ask you: why do you think the in-text attribution from ABC news is not sufficient? you are aware that you are arguing for something very unconventional for Wikipedia I hope. Why exactly should we not follow the Manual of Style in this article, what sets apart from the other articles where the Manual of Style is applied? (Sextus Caedicius (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC))

As per Basayev, he calls himself a terrorist, as do multiple sources in the article. You'll have to explain why you think the ABC is insufficient, because I'm pretty sure that the sheer number of sources using the term qualify under unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution - and as you presumably know sourcing is not required for the lede as it summarises the article body. However, as this is contentious it does have a source, but to keep you happy I've also added the source from Basayev's own statement. This is not a single use of the term "Terrorist" for shock value in the lede, but it has multiple usage (even after Ola Tønningsberg's whitewashing cleanup) in both article and sources.

Basayev's statement is clear - even taking into account context (ie how he views others' behaviour and actions) he still acknowledges the label. And even if you still doubt that - there are multiple other sources in the text that do so as well.

This is not going against MoS. Your own quote and interpretation of it have been followed - the claim is attributed directly, and multiple times. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Came here from the NPOV noticeboard. Based solely on the MOS (I didn't review the sources), having the ABC article label him a terrorist later in the lede and not using the label in the first sentence seems to be the correct move. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It is still fine to mention the terrorist attacks, this is what he is best known for. See the obituaries on him for example[45][46]. Mellk (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The NPOV noticeboard is simply about MOS:LABEL. There is nothing there about how the entire lead should look. And you did not notify me about this discussion so I am not sure why you are surprised I was not "more involved". Mellk (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I have explicitly gone through every mention and every source that have been provided in these instances and taken appropriate action to either rephrase or remove. "Corrected source titles", means I found the actual source and saw the actual title is not the same as has been cited here. I will add the archive links. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Chaheel, do you want to explain where I have whitewashed? I've gone through all the sources and my edits are completely valid. In most cases there were no actual sources which makes it original research. To correct this a NPOV word has been added or I've found an actual source. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Lede discussion

Hello @Mellk:, why exactly are you proposing these additions, don't you think they clutter the lede? why isn't the current lede satisfactory? Sextus Caedicius (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The opening must explain why they are notable. In this case, it includes terrorism. Mellk (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2023 (UTC)