Talk:2005 raid on Nalchik

message: Calling the event a "terrorist" attack is POV and factually unsupported. Although Chechnyan separatists certainly have engaged in terroristic activities, the Nalchik event was a planned, conventionally military attack upon government security forces, not civilians or civilian infrastructure (hospitals, schools, etc).
Therefore I'm tagging this article as non-neutral until the title is changed, perhaps simply to "October 2005 Nalchik attack". --Bk0 21:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a muddy and unserviceable definition, since just about any violent act by any state has some political aspect to it. The US NCTC definition is: "[an act that is] premeditated; perpetrated by a subnational or clandestine agent; politically motivated, potentially including religious, philosophical, or culturally symbolic motivations; violent; and perpetrated against a noncombatant target." (emphasis added) --Bk0 13:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So, was the aerial attack against the Pentagon building on September 11, 2001, a 'terrorist attack'? Was the Pentagon a 'combatant' target or a 'non-combatant' one? 217.114.151.228 15:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant to the question at hand. The Nalchik event is much more obviously a non-terrorist action (according to the information currently available). Let's not go off on a tangent here. --Bk0 15:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the analogy with Pentagon is very close. Although the targets are military in essence, the attacks are not military. Dividing targets into combatant and non-combatant ones makes sense when there is a combat. The militants in Nalchik did not act as military combatants. They did not wear military uniforms with due insignia, they did not carry a battle flag. They acted in civilian clothes, they even took hostages. Actions of this kind could not be looked at as a legal warfare. 217.114.151.228 15:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I reiterate that the action—according to the information we have to date—more closely resembles a conventional guerilla attack upon government forces, rather than a terrorist action upon civilians. Just because some civilians were killed/injured doesn't automatically make it terrorism; death of civilians has to be the primary objective. --Bk0 15:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Taking civilian hostages is a criminal act and can not be classified as "conventionally military attack". During the Beslan crisis and hostage taking in the Moscow theatre there was also primarily an intention to achieve political goals rather than to simply kill all the civilians. Nevertheless nobody can claim, those two events weren't acts of terrorism. It's just not the regular warfare. --Voyevoda 15:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Attacking police forces is not the quite the same as attacking military targets. There were plenty of military bases in the region, why did they choose prison HQ and police stations then? It is parallel to Iraqi rebels attacking their own police stations (with some civilian casualties as collateral damage), does this constitute a terrorist attack or combat? Same can be said about some actions of the IRA and many other terrorist organizations. Remember policemen are not soldiers, they are enforcers of the law.(Igny 16:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You would not call 9/11 attack or Beslan attack "9/11 conflict" or "2004 Beslan conflict", would you? This attack was masterminded by Basayev, and you can't say that Russian government and US State Department are "definite minority" which are calling Basayev terrorist. So that is a terrorist attack same as attacks in Beslan, Nazran, Budennovsk, Moscow before that. (Igny 22:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Not only is the use of the word "terrorist" being increasingly discouraged on Wikipedia, but this was hardly a terrorist attack. From all reports, it was a rebel military operation aimed at the state, even if hostages were later taken. I agree with CdC: October 2005 Nalchik conflict would be more appropriate. Ambi 05:30, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that October 2005 Nalchik attack is a good compromise between "terrorist attack" and "conflict". I would like to reiterate that using "conflict" is not suitable for this, compare "Nalchik conflict" to "NYC conflict" or "Moscow conflict".(Igny 18:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I haven't seen any voting going on here - just discussion. Anyway, I hope listing this on the RFC page (see below) might help us reach a consensus. CDC (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's absolutely ridiculous how the major news organizations (and now Wikipedia it seems) shy away from the use of the term "terrorist".  These and similar attacks are terrorist, and carried out by terrorists, until these "militants" start wearing uniforms and fighting as armies have for hundreds upon hundreds of years.  It's just as ridiculous as how Palestinian terrorists and their acts aren't decried as such.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.  GreatGatsby 00:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Statements by a single person are POV by definition (especially by such a polarizing figure as GWB). You're going to have to come up with a better argument than that for the totallydisputed tag. Removing. --Bk0 23:44, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I am personally for calling a cat cat, not a domestic feline, and terrorists by the t-word, not by an euphemism. But look what we we have in Wikipedia: 7 July 2005 London bombings, September 11, 2001 attacks, 2002 Bali bombing, 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings all the articles are carefully written so to avoid using the word terrorism or terrorist. It would be strange if all those articles would be attacks and Nalchick would be terrorism. Assuming we cannot change the names of all the mentioned articles, I would be against changing the name of the single Nalchik article to terrorism. With both variants of the name of the article, I am strongly against the NPOV label based only on the name of the article. abakharev 05:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of article POV

message: I think some input from the broader community would be useful on this naming conflict - I've listed this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The fundamental issue, as shown in the section above is whether the phrase "terrorist attack" should appear in the title, or whether using that term is inaccurate or POV. A few alternatives, such as "conflict" or simply "attack," have been proposed, but possibly another name is better? CDC (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment filed

message: Let count only the opinions here:
* for "terrorist" title and/or description:
** 217.114.151.228 (Izhevsk, Russia )
** Voyevoda (Russo-Ukrainian origin)
** Igny (Russian is native language) - 4 times
** Altec-biol (no clear nationality)
** Brinlarr, 139.130.36.190 (no clear nationality )
** Dejan, 212.200.197.109 (Beograd, Serbia )
** KNewman (Russian, in USA)
** Bggoldie (Bulgarian) - keep the title as it is but use the "t-word" (terrorist) in the text. -- Goldie (tell me) 12:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local discussion results 

message: It would not help to resolve the dispute with questions like "Ah, but where's the evidence for your relatives' statement?"
Onsite but not online. Hiding on the Dark Side of the Moon to avoid being interrogated in Abu Ghraib prison or Guantanamo Bay.
Silly answer to a silly question, isn't it. Flame me for it, please.
Closer to the reality:
* a fact was brought on the table, and was questioned - "... lying three dead bodies of people who appears just were walking by ..."
*:: vote Convincing. unverifyable by the moment but does not look as FUD. Somewhat credible but needs some proof or correlation with another fact. Retelling other people's story should only be used as a hint what we may look for. -- Goldie (tell me) 06:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quality of the arguments 

message: # "Terrorists" or "rebels"
#: The discussion clearly showed disagreement over the noun used to designate attackers. One group have been formed around the term "terrorists"
#::"Terrorist" is a more loaded and POV term than "rebel". In should be noted, however, that they are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps "attacker" is a better, more neutral term. --Bk0 03:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is reasonable justification for the tag. I'm removing the warning text below it, however, since that is what this talk page is for (explaining the reasoning behind the dispute). I hope the dispute can be addressed to the satisfaction of everybody. --Bk0 03:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Comments added inline -- Goldie (tell me) 04:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely what is the problem now? Comments here please. Ambi 00:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed contents 

message: I have expressed strong support for the name "terrorist attack" above. However I am not so sure now. Below is my comments on the situation, and I apologize for not citing the sources.
The official version of Russian government (one of their versions anyway) was as follows. Several (~10) groups of armed men (up to 300) attacked several targets in Nalchik. They shot some civilians and took hostages. Some of the targets were local prison HQ, a local office of the Interior Ministry, a store(??). After 2-3 days of firefight there were about 20 civilian casualties, about 35 killed were from police and security forces, some 100+ wounded (mostly police). About 90 attackers were killed and several dozen captured or detained. It looked like a successful operation by the Russian security (compared to their mishaps in the past).
After reading different sources I think now that there is something fishy in this version. Some reputable Russian media (in particular, gzt.ru) have accumulated enough reports for opinions which differ from the official version. The following points may need some attention.
*Corruption level in Nalchik is high even by the Russian standards. A significant part of Nalchik and surrounding areas is at or below the poverty line. The crime level is high as well.
*The Northern Caucasus region is notorious for its drug trafficking. The Nalchik area has been a battlefield between the drug lords and the security forces. At some point the gangs even attacked the local office of anti-drug enforcement agency  .
*As one of the consequences,  there is always significant presence of police and security forces in Nalchik. There were reports of police brutality there in the Russian media.
*Significant part of the local population is Muslim (not as radical as the Chechens though). While I can say that mostly Russians are tolerant to the religion (there are a lot of predominantly Muslim republics in the Russian Federation), the situation in the Northern Caucasus may be different, and the police may be especially brutal to the Muslims.
*Shortly before the attack there were anti-terror excersises in the area. Security forces in Nalchik were significantly beefed up, and when attack began a significant number of troops moved in. Some have contributed this to a leak about the coming attack. However there is an opinion that the Russian were preparing for a serious anti-drug operation. There is also an opinion that the whole attack was staged by the security forces and it just went out of control, but I find that unlikely.
*Among 90 killed rebels there were a significant number of locals whose relatives claim that they have been framed  (Source: most of the attackers are Kabardians and Balkars ). There is an opinion that a number of armed civilians tried to defend their property and were killed by the security forces. They became part of this terrorist attack later in the official version.
*Basayev claimed responsibility for the attack. This claim is not proof, may be he claims responsibility for everything from traffic accidents to the hurricane Katrina. Several reports pointed at witnesses who said that they did not see any Chechens present, and some recognized the attackers as locals. Personally, I think it is important, the Wikipedia article says that it was a mixture of the Chechens and locals and says nothing about the ratio. How many Chechens were actually there?
*Some reports pointed at the poor organization of the attackers (compared to the previous Chechen attacks). There is an opinion that someone (likely the Chechens) fooled the locals using psychology and radical rhetoric. The goal of the tactics was to enlist the locals for this attack and aimed primarily at the local criminals as well as the discontent people . This may explain the possible leak, but this also means that the Russian security largely failed in Nalchik.
This is my summary of conspiracy theories. This is extrapolation of information from lenta.ru, gazeta.ru, and some others, as well as personal accounts of friends and Russian TV news. (Igny 20:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. My suspicion already got ignited. We have to consider that Caucasus is a hot place and is crossroad of many interests. Could you add source links to help us follow all those aspects. -- Goldie (tell me) 22:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nature of the attack 

message: I intend to pile here all I have found. Contributions and peer review are welcome.
"Izvestia" newspaper shows how many family bondages exist in that small republic - two cousins fought on both sides. . Hamzat Mollaev was a police officer. He was killed after the raid, next to the police post he served in. Murat Atoev was shot during the attack in other part of the city.
Few points worth noting:
* the phrase "Подался в религию" (went into religion) by general in the republic means one: someone is challenging the authorities because law enforcing agencies track such people as untrustworthy. However searching for religious guidance yound men fall easy under Wahhabits influence and become brain-washed in few months.
* despite living close to the city's main mosk Atoev considered it built with dirty money from the authorities. Having 3 more men among the attackers from the same block can even be interpreted as lack of confidence in the government. 
* journalist met by accident an anti-terrorist officer who commented in his fury that attackers' bodies were intentionally left on the street to rotten in public; grieving victims relatives demand bodies of attackers to be burned (thus desacrated).
----
Article of "Izvestia" titled "Basaev decided to become a bin Laden": :
Before the attack police have arrested a man close to Kabardino-Balkar terrorist leader Anzor Astemirov, seizing flash-card with pictures of city's police stations and other security buildings, and detailed map of the airport.
Deputy security officer of Nalchik airport was arrested few days before the attack, who admitted collaboration with terrorists and surrender of the airport map. 
As early as June security services obtained a videotape from Basaev's archive taping avioshow in Moscow airport Domodedovo, showing interest in techincal features of military transport aircrafts, small airplanes and helicopters.
On October 9th security forces discovered 500 kg of explosives hidden in the yard of a concrete components factory. Secority tightening of the airport is confirmed by the taxi drivers as early as October 10th, claiming that BTR APCs were put on every crossroad.
This comes as confirmation of the theory of Izvestia's columnist and editor of "Chechen society" newspaper Timur Aliev, who citing unnamed FSB source suggested Basaev will attempt to capture a military aircraft with friend or foe system in order to fill it with explosives and head towards Moscow.
Basaev admitted in Monday the attackers suffered big losses due to information leakage (I've seen this in more than one media).
----
"The attackers were locals who passed military training in Chechnia" .
"The security forces have blocked the city and are checking every apartment. A participant in Friday's attack refused identification and attempted to use Kalashnikov. Security forces reacted and the bandit (rem. article wording) was down" .
----
"In December last year armed people attacked the building of Federal service for drug control (FSDC, counterpart of U.S. DEA) and set fire on it. Aftermath revealed four FSDC officers on duty murdered in the basement, and over 250 pistols and guns missing. Responsibility was claimed by "Yarmuk" group."
 Another analysis results can be found there.
More can be found and needs filtering, analysis, structuring, etc. I am tired now, it is 6:40 in the morning and I need some sleep. -- Goldie (tell me) 03:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information for research 

message: sort by date.  try also this link: Google news search for Nalchik
there should be lots and lots, russian, english, fox news, indymedia, whatever, put it all in Dsol 00:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  exhaustive list of news media sources (please add more) 

message: on such a controvertial issue, every statement needs one or more sources.  it's ok to use a source many times.  when one of these gets sourced, strike it out like this, don't delete.  2005 Paris Suburb Riots provides a pretty good example.  After I do some research of my own, I'm going to start taking out unsourced facts, but not before 24 hours have passed unless I find a well-sourced  contradictory claim.Dsol 00:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: list of unsourced facts in article (please add more)

message: Ok, clearly this article is severely lacking a comprehensive inclusion of different viewpoints on what happened.  I will try to improve it.  I will leave the userbox alone for now, but obviously not everyone would call these guys terrorists and even if the userbox does so, the issue must be describe in more depth in this article. Dsol 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and that should be noted in the article.  It should not be the only view represented, however.  Even in the Russian press there is a lot of contradictory stuff to sort out about what happened and who was involved.  I'm still trying to piece it together myself... Dsol 20:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs work 

message: Insurgents is neutral world - terrorists is negative and catch-all for the enemies of the Russian government, as well as "bandits" ("freedom fighters" would be positive). Militants or fighters is also neutral and used worldwide.
This is international, English language encyclopedy, not the Russian one (I think there's a Russian national one, so you can present the official version there). 
One example of the international POV (with an example of the Russian nationalist one - "To Russian officials, her husband is a terrorist who tried to overthrow secular rule."):  (Reuters via mosnews.com)
It's not website of "Russian officials". And, as I wrote, dead bodies were classified "terrorists" and desacrated in accordance to the Russian laws, and "international terrorism" was accused of organisation of attacks.
:I agree with you, but let's improve this sorely lacking article in other ways before we start edit warring over one word.  Dsol 21:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop pushing Russian Nationalist POV 

message: Suvenoir shop wasn't attacked, just 2 wounded rebels took refugee there (they were wounded while AFAIR attacking FSB building across just the street). Some more (3?) were surroundered killed in the nearby park soon after, as witnessed by the militants and their hostages (some were released in exchange of a battle of water and told about it - remaing 2 were knocked out by the gas pumped in during storming, but survived).
There's no need for lots of links in Russian (actually anyone can google for news reports and analysys). OMON not "OMOH", it's English page.
:feel free to change OMOH to OMON.  I'm having a hard time finding anything specific in English, but if you can find the same facts with english sources, then please replace mine.  I would like to put the info you know in (about the shop etc.) but this means we need a media source for it.  On a personal level, though, I'm very interested and curious about  what happened in Nalchik and would love to hear any stories you know on my talk page etc. Dsol 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  to Dsol 

message: Ok, I need a breather...if anyone else wants to work on this for a while, try the sources above, or search on itar-tass or rian (english is possible too).  If you speak Russian (hopefully better than mine) try Нападение на Нальчик, which is the best source I've found, along with a detailed chronology.  Where possible, though it's better to cite other stuff since it's probably less reliable than izvestia, mk, cnn, etc.  The next major thing that needs work will probably be details of the hostage situation in the shop.  Till later, Dsol 23:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  taking a break 

message: From the very sources used by the contributers in the References section of this article (and not a single mine addition):
*(NBC) rebel rebels militants rebel rebel rebels militants resisters Militants militants militants
*(BBC) militant rebel attackers militants militants fighters rebels militants 
*(RL) militants separatist militants militants separatist separatist militant militant
*(Guardian) uprising militants militants militants militants militants militants militants
*(CNN) resistance militants militants militants militants militants militants militants 
See? Only "terrorists" (and sometimes "bandits") is when quoting Russian officials, and it's NOT a Russian official website, so ADJUST OR LEAVE (or, if you continue your vandalism, I'll report you). This regarding the other Wiki articles, too.
:Actually the russia news sources don't generally call them terrorists either.  The most common is боевики, or fighters.  However I think this concern is immaterial compared to how much else is lacking in the article and I wish you would both stop edit warring. Dsol 21:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fighters/boyeviki is leaning towards rebel POV (that's how they call themselves); internationally, it's now mostly "militants". As for the article, everything it needs now is at least shortly about history of Yarmuk's radicalisation (including previous skirmishes, like the drug agency raid - also causes, like closure of all mosques but official one and a police brutality) and also post-uprising reprisals (reported mass arrests/torture/deaths and dissapearances). Other than that it's fine (as far as the fighting alone goes), especially considering dozens of other comparable or bigger battles of the conflict has no article altogether, even the battles of Grozny with their massive military and civilian casaulties. As for a more recent developments, there was for example this weird incident in Dagestan, where 8 fighters confronted thousands of federals with aircraft and artillery for 3 days, inflicted casaulties greater than their own number, and fled without losing a man. So if you want, you can try and start covering some other incident than Nalchik. I don't know, maybe a general account of the insurgency in Dagestan, from the 1998 rebellion in capital to the today's "hunt for cops"? Or about the rest of the Russian North Caucasus (like a list of these house sieges, practically always ending with a building destroyed with a flamethrowers and tank fire). Unless  your interest ends in the Nalchik, that is. --Kocoum 22:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I will settle on militants.--Kuban Cossack 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not all. One of the other issues is counting casaulties - you can't take one side's figures only. Mine are minimum for the both sides engaged, with "at least" stated as these may be higher, but certainly can't be lower than that (with more numbers in the actual article). 
Also, as for the leaders of the Islamic Resistance Movement, they openly declare they fight not just for the independence but to "destroy" the state of Israel - while the leader Basayev declared he wants Chechnya to stay in CIS and a rouble zone, and to cooperate with Moscow against influence "of the third force" (one can guess it's NATO, being estabilished as close as in Georgia), and even adressed Putin as "excellency" in this letter. So much about "not burning all bridges" in a negotiations with the terrorists (officially stated reason of the Hamas' Kremlin invitation). Of course, Palestinians have everything easy by default (unlike any other "national liberation struggle" in the world), but still. 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs) 
Basaev has been listed as a terrorist. There is a category here, called "Chechen terrorists". Whatever you may read in his letters to Putin, Basaev's aim has never been an independent Chechnya, but a new caliphate in the Caucasus. He does not even deserve the title Chechen "insurgent" or "rebel". I am reverting that to "terrorist". Even though I am sure he would be the first to applaud. Pan Gerwazy.
--pgp 02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  INTERNATIONAL terminology - for the very last time! 

message: http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369822, someone may use it (also some things I heard before, but I think are unmentioned - like that Russians knew well in advance, and that there were clashes before the main attack too). --HanzoHattori (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here's a good analysys in some broader context 

message: "It was reported that the militants may have planned to overrun the city’s airport and use the aircraft there in suicide attacks similar to the September 11 attacks.[19] However, this seems unlikely since the attack was not concentrated at the airport. The target of the airport attack was more likely the army unit stationed there."
The two last sentences constitute a prime example of original research. The Guardian text also speculates about the plan with the airport, but mentions a possible hijack attempt and a possiblity that the target was Rostov-on-the-Don, Moscow being too far to rach without being shot down by the airforce. These two mast sentences must be edited to reflect this, or deleted.
Under "arrests" there is also something strange going on: "Those who died in the pre-trial prison were added to the number of those killed in the streets." where is that from? Not from the article quoted before. This is again claimed in the chapter on the bodies. It needs a good source. And an RS saying "witnesses say that" or "X.Y. claims that" should be quoted that way. Furthermore, under the same heading there is also a link to Kommersant, but not to the article where the text quoted comes from...
I also think that with all the speculation at the end of the article, it is necessary to at least try to follow the real recent events as well. We seem to follow the trial but the fact that Odizhev (and Tengizov) were killed one year later while resisting arrest should also be in the article. The guy was an ex-Guantanamo man, like Kudayev. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/14/russia.attack/index.html
** In 2005 Nalchik raid on 2011-05-25 08:02:46, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 Nalchik raid on 2011-06-12 02:17:50, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/engnews/id/1200563.html
** In 2005 Nalchik raid on 2011-05-25 08:02:46, 404 Not Found
** In 2005 Nalchik raid on 2011-06-12 02:17:56, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/10/13/4146.shtml
*:Triggered by \bkavkazcenter\.com\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2005/10/17/4156.shtml
*:Triggered by \bkavkazcenter\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2005 Nalchik raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071014212901/http://www.themoscowtimes.com:80/stories/2007/10/12/011.html to http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/10/12/011.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071224210044/http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru:80/newstext/engnews/id/1200563.html to http://eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/newstext/engnews/id/1200563.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified