This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is far from neutral. Only pro-chechen sources are used. Nomad ( talk) 16:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I take issue with edits made by a series the user Kavkaz such as these ([
[1]]). As I have explained repeatedly in edit summaries, the problems I have are as follows:
1. The use of dialogue is really inappropriate for a wikipedia article. Here, we make articles for an online encyclopedia, which are to give factual overviews of the information. We don't go into dialogue such as ""Must be bandits", smiled back Gveshiani". It's just inappropriate and shouldn't be in an online encyclopedia article.--
Yalens (
talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Secondly, there is the dropping of the fact that Gveshiani was Georgian all over the place (and now, apparently, that Beria was too). First of all, this is unnecessary. Second of all, why is it relevant? It seems to only be relevant if someone wants to push the POV that Georgians are somehow by nature anti-Chechen, and most of them aren't. Indeed, I have actually come across Georgian poetry back from the Soviet era about the injustice of the deportation of Chechens- I can probably dig it up for you if you want. The only thing that we can say about Gveshiani and Beria being Georgian is that it is a manifestation of how people from Georgia, especially Mingrelians, often held high positions in the Soviet military and intelligence. Indeed, the same thing is true of many other Caucasian peoples, including Chechens, who produced such generals as Aslan Maskhadov and Dzhokhar Dudayev. Thirdly, back then, high-up Soviets were supposed to think of themselves as Soviets and in general were rather Russified so how much they were really "Georgian" is questionable. A good example of this is Stalin, who was of mixed Ossetian/Georgian origin, but firmly turned his back on his ethnicity, even proclaiming how he despised his motherland (Georgia) and naming his daughter such a name as "Svetlana" (a very Slavic name). Anyhow, emphasizing their ethnic group is bad for all these reasons and its even a little racist, not to mention it could be construed as POV-pushing. It really doesn't belong in the article, as its not relevant. -- Yalens ( talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added a new section regarding a claim of historical falsification.
The logic behind the cited claim from Ministry of Culture of Russia is hilarious - the tragic of the mass departations and the massacre itself notwithstanding:
A German, an American and a Russian are discussing the level of technology in their respective countries:
The German says: Our archaeologists dug 1 meter and found electrical wires proving that 100 years ago Germany had the telephone.
The American says: Our archaeologists dug 1.5 meter and found electrical wires proving that 150 years ago the USA had the telegraph.
The Russian says: Our archaeologists dug 2 meters and found nothing! This proved that 200 years ago Russia had cell phones.
Lklundin (
talk) 09:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The same answer gots Poland regarding some Katyn documents and Augustów roundap. Xx236 ( talk) 07:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khaibakh massacre. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I've given the sources by mainstream scholars challenging the outdated views on the alleged massacre. One of those scholars is the widely respected historian and forced migration expert Pavel Polian, whose views are outright distorted in the current version (it is implied that he first doubted the massacre and then conceded it, whereas the exact opposite has happened). Polian is certainly not a pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin or anti-Chechen ideologue, he's known for his books exposing Holocaust denial and neo-Stalinist revisionism.
The sources cited in the current version of the article are mostly poor and/or non-scholarly, such as the Chechenpress link as well as an encyclopedia, a dictionary and a book from 1978. Only Naimark somewhat passes the mark, but he's not a deportation specialist like Polian is, so he simply uncritically relied on the materials available to him (and no critical views), nothing in his treatment (which consists in a couple of sentences reiterating the claim) challenges Polian's criticism. Polian's position, to repeat, is not denial of the massacre but rather pointing out that its historicity is unclear. -- Sergey Romanov ( talk) 21:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, in addition: the current version absurdly claims that it's the "deniers" of the massacre who "cite" an "alleged telegram", whereas it is specifically the proponents of the claim who cite this fake document. -- Sergey Romanov ( talk) 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Широкая дискуссия идет вокруг событий в ауле Хайбах. По утверждению некоторых авторов, не будучи в состоянии обеспечить транспортировку его жителей, внутренние войска под командой комиссара госбезопасности 3-го ранга М. Гвишиани IV согнали около 200 чел. (по другим свидетельствам — 600–700 чел.) в колхозную конюшню, заперли их и подожгли; тех, кто пытался вырваться, расстреливали из автоматов. Ю. Айдаев приводит (без ссылки на источник) некое «совершенно секретное письмо» Гвишиани Берии: «Только для ваших глаз. Ввиду нетранспортабельности и в целях неукоснительного выполнения в срок операции “Горы” вынужден был ликвидировать более 700 жителей в местечке Хайбах. Полковник Гвишиани»V. Этот документ мало походит на подлинный: гриф «только для ваших глаз» никогда не использовался в советском секретном делопроизводстве, один из руководителей операции «Чечевица» почему-то называет ее операция «Горы» и не знает своего воинского звания, аттестуясь «полковником». В свою очередь в официальном отчете М. М. Гвишиани об операции в Галанчожском районе говорится о нескольких десятках убитых или умерших в пути VI. В 1956 и в августе 1990 г. были созданы комиссии по расследованию этой «операции» (первая — под руководством Д. Мальсагова) VII. Однако ясности до сих пор нет. И мы, на основании доступных в настоящее время источников, вынуждены воздержаться от окончательных суждений.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is far from neutral. Only pro-chechen sources are used. Nomad ( talk) 16:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I take issue with edits made by a series the user Kavkaz such as these ([
[1]]). As I have explained repeatedly in edit summaries, the problems I have are as follows:
1. The use of dialogue is really inappropriate for a wikipedia article. Here, we make articles for an online encyclopedia, which are to give factual overviews of the information. We don't go into dialogue such as ""Must be bandits", smiled back Gveshiani". It's just inappropriate and shouldn't be in an online encyclopedia article.--
Yalens (
talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
2. Secondly, there is the dropping of the fact that Gveshiani was Georgian all over the place (and now, apparently, that Beria was too). First of all, this is unnecessary. Second of all, why is it relevant? It seems to only be relevant if someone wants to push the POV that Georgians are somehow by nature anti-Chechen, and most of them aren't. Indeed, I have actually come across Georgian poetry back from the Soviet era about the injustice of the deportation of Chechens- I can probably dig it up for you if you want. The only thing that we can say about Gveshiani and Beria being Georgian is that it is a manifestation of how people from Georgia, especially Mingrelians, often held high positions in the Soviet military and intelligence. Indeed, the same thing is true of many other Caucasian peoples, including Chechens, who produced such generals as Aslan Maskhadov and Dzhokhar Dudayev. Thirdly, back then, high-up Soviets were supposed to think of themselves as Soviets and in general were rather Russified so how much they were really "Georgian" is questionable. A good example of this is Stalin, who was of mixed Ossetian/Georgian origin, but firmly turned his back on his ethnicity, even proclaiming how he despised his motherland (Georgia) and naming his daughter such a name as "Svetlana" (a very Slavic name). Anyhow, emphasizing their ethnic group is bad for all these reasons and its even a little racist, not to mention it could be construed as POV-pushing. It really doesn't belong in the article, as its not relevant. -- Yalens ( talk) 22:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I have added a new section regarding a claim of historical falsification.
The logic behind the cited claim from Ministry of Culture of Russia is hilarious - the tragic of the mass departations and the massacre itself notwithstanding:
A German, an American and a Russian are discussing the level of technology in their respective countries:
The German says: Our archaeologists dug 1 meter and found electrical wires proving that 100 years ago Germany had the telephone.
The American says: Our archaeologists dug 1.5 meter and found electrical wires proving that 150 years ago the USA had the telegraph.
The Russian says: Our archaeologists dug 2 meters and found nothing! This proved that 200 years ago Russia had cell phones.
Lklundin (
talk) 09:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The same answer gots Poland regarding some Katyn documents and Augustów roundap. Xx236 ( talk) 07:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Khaibakh massacre. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
I've given the sources by mainstream scholars challenging the outdated views on the alleged massacre. One of those scholars is the widely respected historian and forced migration expert Pavel Polian, whose views are outright distorted in the current version (it is implied that he first doubted the massacre and then conceded it, whereas the exact opposite has happened). Polian is certainly not a pro-Soviet, pro-Stalin or anti-Chechen ideologue, he's known for his books exposing Holocaust denial and neo-Stalinist revisionism.
The sources cited in the current version of the article are mostly poor and/or non-scholarly, such as the Chechenpress link as well as an encyclopedia, a dictionary and a book from 1978. Only Naimark somewhat passes the mark, but he's not a deportation specialist like Polian is, so he simply uncritically relied on the materials available to him (and no critical views), nothing in his treatment (which consists in a couple of sentences reiterating the claim) challenges Polian's criticism. Polian's position, to repeat, is not denial of the massacre but rather pointing out that its historicity is unclear. -- Sergey Romanov ( talk) 21:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, in addition: the current version absurdly claims that it's the "deniers" of the massacre who "cite" an "alleged telegram", whereas it is specifically the proponents of the claim who cite this fake document. -- Sergey Romanov ( talk) 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Широкая дискуссия идет вокруг событий в ауле Хайбах. По утверждению некоторых авторов, не будучи в состоянии обеспечить транспортировку его жителей, внутренние войска под командой комиссара госбезопасности 3-го ранга М. Гвишиани IV согнали около 200 чел. (по другим свидетельствам — 600–700 чел.) в колхозную конюшню, заперли их и подожгли; тех, кто пытался вырваться, расстреливали из автоматов. Ю. Айдаев приводит (без ссылки на источник) некое «совершенно секретное письмо» Гвишиани Берии: «Только для ваших глаз. Ввиду нетранспортабельности и в целях неукоснительного выполнения в срок операции “Горы” вынужден был ликвидировать более 700 жителей в местечке Хайбах. Полковник Гвишиани»V. Этот документ мало походит на подлинный: гриф «только для ваших глаз» никогда не использовался в советском секретном делопроизводстве, один из руководителей операции «Чечевица» почему-то называет ее операция «Горы» и не знает своего воинского звания, аттестуясь «полковником». В свою очередь в официальном отчете М. М. Гвишиани об операции в Галанчожском районе говорится о нескольких десятках убитых или умерших в пути VI. В 1956 и в августе 1990 г. были созданы комиссии по расследованию этой «операции» (первая — под руководством Д. Мальсагова) VII. Однако ясности до сих пор нет. И мы, на основании доступных в настоящее время источников, вынуждены воздержаться от окончательных суждений.