Talk:Khaibakh massacre

Verification and English language links required.

Per WP:Sources the sources/references do not need to be in English. However, there needs to be quotes from the sources in the reference which are relevant to the material and can be used for verification by other users. --Ubardak (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC) (ps. Do not forget to sign your messages on talk pages using four tildas).

NPOV

This article is far from neutral. Only pro-chechen sources are used. Nomad (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

On one hand, if you have sources of other points of view (excluding Russian nationalist articles) then we can definitely discuss that. On the other, the claim that "only pro-chechen sources are used" is false. Of all the sources, only 1 could truthfully be called "pro-Chechen". In fact, half of all the sources (3 of 6) used are in fact in Russian, and 1 of these three completely disputes the account of the massacre and claims it was hugely overblown (making this an "anti-Chechen"-if we want to use that terminology- source that would certainly balance out the 1 pro-Chechen source), and this alternative viewpoint is in fact given a nod in the main article, so it's not as if that view is being excluded.--Yalens (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

On further review, I've removed the one "pro-Chechen" source from the article- it was completely unnecessary.--Yalens (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kavkas' recent edits

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 agree with your comments. --Nug (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Claim of Historical Falsification from the Ministry of Culture of Russia

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)

no documents were discovered

The same answer gots Poland regarding some Katyn documents and Augustów roundap.Xx236 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You make no sense. What do you mean?

Are you trying to say that the Katyn massacre never took place?1812ahill (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140602194904/http://www.afp.com/en/news/russia-bans-historically-false-film-stalin-deportations-chechens to http://www.afp.com/en/news/russia-bans-historically-false-film-stalin-deportations-chechens

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).

• 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) 05:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree that changes were controversial, but let's discuss.

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)

The current sources seem to be impeccable. What does Polian say exactly?--Galassi (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

An encyclopedia and a dictionary are not impeccable sources, a blog post from a terrorist-related resource is not an impeccable source, a book from 1978 is not an impeccable source, a uncritical outdated treatment of the topic is not an impeccable source. I have already quoted Polian's conclusion in my revision as well as gave the exact source with the full treatment, which is online, but let me quote the text in full also here:

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.

Footnotes:

IV Гвишиани М. М. (1906–1966) — комиссар госбезопасности 3-го ранга; в годывойны начальник УНКВД—УНКГБ Приморского края. 9 апреля 1945 г. получил звание генерал-лейтенанта. Приказом МВД СССР 24 августа 1953 г. уволен в запаспо служебному несоответствию.

V См. Айдаев Ю. Хайбах — аул, которого нет. Чеченцы: история и современность.М., 1996, С.275.

VI Сидоренко В. П. Указ. соч. С. 79–80.

VII См.: Дементьева И., Медовой И. Казнь в колхозе имени Берии // Общая газета.25 февраля — 3 марта 1999 г. № 8. С.15.

Sergey Romanov (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Sergey Romanov:, topics such as mass ethnic murder, and genocide must be treated with extreme caution and attention to details. What you currently are presenting are all sources from Russian academia, whose NPOV is questionable in regards to this, especially considering the fact that the Russian ministry of culture banned a film depicting this historical event. We have to be just as cautious when using Russian sources on topics such as these as we are when using Turkish sources pertaining to the Armenian Genocide. Currently this article has satisfactory third party sources such as "Gammer, Moshe. Lone Wolf and Bear: Three Centuries of Chechen Defiance of Russian Rule." and "Dunlop, John. Russia Confronts Chechnya: The Roots of a Separatist Conflict." as well as a cluster of other sources. These sources are neither from Russian or Chechen(if you even consider that such a thing exists independently) academia, but rather from third party sources with no affiliation to either "side". Moreover by adding the word "allegedly" you are changing the nature of this article in its entirety, this is not an article about the "conspiracy theory of Khaibakh Massacre" but rather an article about the Khaibakh Massacre. The fact that Russian academia is skeptical of this event is already included in this article, you can edit and expand on that topic if you so wish(within reason, this is a rather short article). Pinging a veteran of Caucasian topics on Wikipedia for his input as well @Calthinus: Sextus Caedicius (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, Sextus Caedicius -- I'm in complete agreement. --Calthinus (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Any and all material from the Russian Federation on this matter has an inherent conflict of interest, when the government in question has an official department for "countering" information that is "detrimental to the interests" of the Russian Federation. Indeed, as Sextus noted, see also Turkey and the Armenian Genocide.--Calthinus (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, first of all, Polian's NPOV is not questionable and neither is his scholarship and there is no comparison between him and the anti-Armenian activists. (And if we begin searching for "affiliations", then not literally belonging to a Russian or a Chechen scholarly community does not mean one doesn't have an affiliation with one side or the other, therefore the neutrality of the sources you quote is just as in question.) There is no such "department" in the RF govt; there was a commission against falsification of history for a few years, with purely advisory functions, which no longer exists. Even if there were one (and there isn't), there would be no more a conflict of interest here than when we cite a German historian on the historicity of the Holocaust (in Germany Holocaust denial is a criminal offense). Therefore a reference to Polian's article is sufficient to put "disputed" into the description of the alleged massacre. Dunlop, on the other hand, is a poor source. Here is his whole treatment (p. 65):

"In some regions, the populace was directly murdered. Thus the entire population of the village of Khaibakh - more than 700 persons - was burned alive on the orders of NKVD colonel Gveshiani. The correspondence between Beriya and Gveshiani has been preserved; the secret police chieftain warmly congratulated his subordinate for having committed the atrocity.92"

"92 For the Beriya-Gveshiani correspondence, see Zaindi Shakhbiev, Sud'ba chechenoingushskogo naroda (Moscow: Rossiya molodaya, 1996), p. 251."

That is, his only source is the fake, unsourced correspondence (see Polian's quote).

Gammer on p. 170 at least relies on two sources, from what you would call the "Chechen academia", both outdated (before the critical treatments appeared). And he, once again, specifically quotes the fake Gvishiani telegram.

Therefore the claim that Dunlop and Gammer are satisfactory is incorrect. Sergey Romanov (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)