A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 7, 2011, April 7, 2015, April 7, 2020, and April 7, 2022. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although I dislike what happened in this event, I believe it behooves us to make certain the article meets Wikipedia policies. I'm concerned that the article violates WP:NPOV and question the reliablility of sources such as www.memo.ru. I'm tagging the article accordingly. Dreadstar † 18:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's Memorial (society) and Sergei Kovalev not "sources such as www.memo.ru". I'm concerned you have no idea of what are you talking at all<rem uncivil accusation> -- HanzoHattori 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"The destruction of the majority of homes happened as a result of premeditated arson by Internal Troops and other MVD forces."
Now that the link to Memorial (society) has been provided, I do trust that source. So my objection is withdrawn. However I would like to see the comments so attributed. I'll withdraw the NPOV tag as well. HH, if you look at the citation, it is clearly 'memo.ru". Dreadstar † 21:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It was provided in the article since the beginning, and here 2 hours ago already (guess what: by It's Memorial (society) and Sergei Kovalev not "sources such as www.memo.ru" I meant it's Memorial (society) and Sergei Kovalev not "sources such as www.memo.ru"). -- HanzoHattori 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of who's correct, please, let's all be polite. Civility costs nothing, and only improves wikipedia. bfigura 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Rampage is bad, mkay. How about mass murder? -- HanzoHattori 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Rampage" is my description, but not uncommon:
Etc.-- HanzoHattori 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
True enough. But in any event, there are words that convey the same meaning in a manner that's less likely to attract NPOV complaints. It's not a matter of attempting to diminish human suffering, just to have a more professional encyclopedia. See WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone bfigura 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of the destruction in the village could well have occurred during street fighting — the destruction of homes from direct hits by tank fire and grenade launchers (see photograph), metal gates and fences pounded with shell fragments, and bullet traces on the walls of houses and on fallen gates. This damage and destruction, however, affected few houses and was concentrated in several sectors of the village. (Destruction in the main part of the village bore the marks of premeditated arson.) This corresponds to soldiers’ and OMON testimony that only a few houses were destroyed or damaged during fighting, and that only a part of the storming groups met resistance in the village.8 Indeed, this is why the majority of villagers who, during the operation were near houses located in areas where there was no fighting, maintained that no military activities at all took place in the village. [9]
Why the hell everyone calls me "HTH"? -- HanzoHattori 20:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to provide third opinion you were asking about. This massacre is a well known incident. It seems to be properly described and justified by sources in this article. Honestly, I do not see any reason for POV tag. Biophys 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Danish Institute for International Studies, DIIS, has the pleasure of inviting you to a seminar with Anatoly S. Kulikov, Member of the Duma and former Russian Minister of the Interior, who will be speaking on
Countering Terrorism: The Russian and the International Dimension [10]
No comment, I guess. -- HanzoHattori 08:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
And the next was Kulikov speaking, on going Stalin:
The March 7 issue of the newspaper Segodnya contained an interview with the former Russian minister of internal affairs, retired General Anatoly Kulikov, who is currently chairman of the subcommittee of the State Duma for legislation in the sphere of the struggle with transnational crime and terrorism. During the course of the interview, Kulikov presented his plan for the pacification of Chechnya. (...) Kulikov urges that Kvashnin's unworkable plan be jettisoned. In its place, he recommends: "Use the experience of the struggle with the national underground in Western Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics from 1944-1951.
And going further:
Although Kovalyov continues to insist that hundreds of civilians were killed in Samashki, Col.-Gen. Anatoliy Kulikov once again asserted that even Chechen fighters dismiss Kovalyov as a "political prostitute," NTV reported on 23 April. [11]
Why this guy has no article? He's a huge celebrity, going around the world, giving speeches about "countering terrorism"... -- HanzoHattori 08:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed User:Paukrus added an NPOV tag to this page without indicating what he or she is disputing about this article. So I removed the tag, it shouldn't be replaced without explanation here. -- Ace of Swords 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"While I have the greatest respect for Memorial and its efforts to meticulously research and publish its findings, its publication on Samashki is not perfect. There are errors of time and person and place. Without elaborating, suffice it to say that while Memorial accepts that the Russian command used the presence of outlander Chechen fighters from Shamil Basayev's Abkhazia Battalion attacking an armored train and sabotaging repair of tracks as the excuse to encircle and then attack the town, in fact all those fighters were local. I know because I was with them taking pictures. Memorial was not. They were not nameless Mujaheeds-they were Hussein and Ussam and Seylah and Sultan and Ali." [12] -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
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:
\bkavkazcenter\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 18:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Sextus Caedicius: Nearly entirely removing an infobox is not "making it less confusing" ( WP:NPOV is also an issue to be considered here - the Russians claim that they were fired at: whether this is true or not, it is not our place to make the judgement, we must simply report both sides (ideally using independent sources) without bias). RandomCanadian ( talk | contribs) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Also see the information given in the article from a seemingly independent source:
"Nevertheless, a lightly armed village militia of some 40 self-defense fighters, all of them local residents, resisted the MVD and fighting ensued. A group of 12 fighters immediately broke out from the village, while the other groups put a Russian tank and two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) out of action before retreating as well. Both sides took casualties; two Russian troopers and four self-defense fighters have presumably been killed in combat. Several Russian armoured vehicles were lost during their advance due to land mines."
That seems like a battle to me. Reverted to previous stable version. RandomCanadian ( talk | contribs) 21:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@ RandomCanadian: None of the cited sources are available. They are dead links, additionally the information given in the infobox doesn't say what these sources supposedly say. It is entirely reasonable to remove the questionable information given the fact that it is known that this was a massacre with negligible resistance by a handful of locals. As Memorial is in general a trustworthy source (despite the inaccessibility of it) I suggest a new edit where the infobox will say "Local self-defense fighters" for the Chechen forces and 4 Self-Defense fighters dead. Deni Mataev ( talk) 21:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 7, 2011, April 7, 2015, April 7, 2020, and April 7, 2022. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Although I dislike what happened in this event, I believe it behooves us to make certain the article meets Wikipedia policies. I'm concerned that the article violates WP:NPOV and question the reliablility of sources such as www.memo.ru. I'm tagging the article accordingly. Dreadstar † 18:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's Memorial (society) and Sergei Kovalev not "sources such as www.memo.ru". I'm concerned you have no idea of what are you talking at all<rem uncivil accusation> -- HanzoHattori 18:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"The destruction of the majority of homes happened as a result of premeditated arson by Internal Troops and other MVD forces."
Now that the link to Memorial (society) has been provided, I do trust that source. So my objection is withdrawn. However I would like to see the comments so attributed. I'll withdraw the NPOV tag as well. HH, if you look at the citation, it is clearly 'memo.ru". Dreadstar † 21:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It was provided in the article since the beginning, and here 2 hours ago already (guess what: by It's Memorial (society) and Sergei Kovalev not "sources such as www.memo.ru" I meant it's Memorial (society) and Sergei Kovalev not "sources such as www.memo.ru"). -- HanzoHattori 21:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of who's correct, please, let's all be polite. Civility costs nothing, and only improves wikipedia. bfigura 22:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Rampage is bad, mkay. How about mass murder? -- HanzoHattori 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"Rampage" is my description, but not uncommon:
Etc.-- HanzoHattori 22:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
True enough. But in any event, there are words that convey the same meaning in a manner that's less likely to attract NPOV complaints. It's not a matter of attempting to diminish human suffering, just to have a more professional encyclopedia. See WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone bfigura 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Some of the destruction in the village could well have occurred during street fighting — the destruction of homes from direct hits by tank fire and grenade launchers (see photograph), metal gates and fences pounded with shell fragments, and bullet traces on the walls of houses and on fallen gates. This damage and destruction, however, affected few houses and was concentrated in several sectors of the village. (Destruction in the main part of the village bore the marks of premeditated arson.) This corresponds to soldiers’ and OMON testimony that only a few houses were destroyed or damaged during fighting, and that only a part of the storming groups met resistance in the village.8 Indeed, this is why the majority of villagers who, during the operation were near houses located in areas where there was no fighting, maintained that no military activities at all took place in the village. [9]
Why the hell everyone calls me "HTH"? -- HanzoHattori 20:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to provide third opinion you were asking about. This massacre is a well known incident. It seems to be properly described and justified by sources in this article. Honestly, I do not see any reason for POV tag. Biophys 21:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Danish Institute for International Studies, DIIS, has the pleasure of inviting you to a seminar with Anatoly S. Kulikov, Member of the Duma and former Russian Minister of the Interior, who will be speaking on
Countering Terrorism: The Russian and the International Dimension [10]
No comment, I guess. -- HanzoHattori 08:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
And the next was Kulikov speaking, on going Stalin:
The March 7 issue of the newspaper Segodnya contained an interview with the former Russian minister of internal affairs, retired General Anatoly Kulikov, who is currently chairman of the subcommittee of the State Duma for legislation in the sphere of the struggle with transnational crime and terrorism. During the course of the interview, Kulikov presented his plan for the pacification of Chechnya. (...) Kulikov urges that Kvashnin's unworkable plan be jettisoned. In its place, he recommends: "Use the experience of the struggle with the national underground in Western Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics from 1944-1951.
And going further:
Although Kovalyov continues to insist that hundreds of civilians were killed in Samashki, Col.-Gen. Anatoliy Kulikov once again asserted that even Chechen fighters dismiss Kovalyov as a "political prostitute," NTV reported on 23 April. [11]
Why this guy has no article? He's a huge celebrity, going around the world, giving speeches about "countering terrorism"... -- HanzoHattori 08:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed User:Paukrus added an NPOV tag to this page without indicating what he or she is disputing about this article. So I removed the tag, it shouldn't be replaced without explanation here. -- Ace of Swords 23:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"While I have the greatest respect for Memorial and its efforts to meticulously research and publish its findings, its publication on Samashki is not perfect. There are errors of time and person and place. Without elaborating, suffice it to say that while Memorial accepts that the Russian command used the presence of outlander Chechen fighters from Shamil Basayev's Abkhazia Battalion attacking an armored train and sabotaging repair of tracks as the excuse to encircle and then attack the town, in fact all those fighters were local. I know because I was with them taking pictures. Memorial was not. They were not nameless Mujaheeds-they were Hussein and Ussam and Seylah and Sultan and Ali." [12] -- 84.234.60.154 ( talk) 10:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
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:
\bkavkazcenter\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf 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 18:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Sextus Caedicius: Nearly entirely removing an infobox is not "making it less confusing" ( WP:NPOV is also an issue to be considered here - the Russians claim that they were fired at: whether this is true or not, it is not our place to make the judgement, we must simply report both sides (ideally using independent sources) without bias). RandomCanadian ( talk | contribs) 21:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Also see the information given in the article from a seemingly independent source:
"Nevertheless, a lightly armed village militia of some 40 self-defense fighters, all of them local residents, resisted the MVD and fighting ensued. A group of 12 fighters immediately broke out from the village, while the other groups put a Russian tank and two armoured personnel carriers (APCs) out of action before retreating as well. Both sides took casualties; two Russian troopers and four self-defense fighters have presumably been killed in combat. Several Russian armoured vehicles were lost during their advance due to land mines."
That seems like a battle to me. Reverted to previous stable version. RandomCanadian ( talk | contribs) 21:14, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@ RandomCanadian: None of the cited sources are available. They are dead links, additionally the information given in the infobox doesn't say what these sources supposedly say. It is entirely reasonable to remove the questionable information given the fact that it is known that this was a massacre with negligible resistance by a handful of locals. As Memorial is in general a trustworthy source (despite the inaccessibility of it) I suggest a new edit where the infobox will say "Local self-defense fighters" for the Chechen forces and 4 Self-Defense fighters dead. Deni Mataev ( talk) 21:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)