Talk:First Chechen War/Archive 2

I (User:GreenC) am posting this WP:RM on behalf of User:Chechendemocrat1 to help them with the correct procedure. The original post is Special:Diff/1194729504/1209203020

Hardly a day goes by without an IP or red editor making biased and/or unsourced edits. I don't like Russia, at all, but the pro-Chechan anti-Russian biased editing in this article is extreme. It's so bad I wonder if it's a Russian false flag operation to discredit the article entirely ie. a "if you can't beat them, join them", strategy. -- GreenC 17:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I only saw the slow-moving edit war about the result in the infobox. I don't think that's particularly important to be honest. Were you referring to that or to something else as "anti-Russian editing"? Alaexis_¿question? 20:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

May 27

• Special:Diff/1225932485/1225946268
• Special:Diff/1225894556/1225918564
• Special:Diff/1225855422/1225859556

May 23:

• Special:Diff/1225217995/1225264475
• Special:Diff/1225264475/1225264781
• Special:Diff/1225276649/1225286719

May 22:

• Special:Diff/1224653769/1225214896

May 19:

• Special:Diff/1224516037/1224635121

May 15:

• Special:Diff/1224047715/1224049437

Some of those are the infobox results. Still, it shows multiple users and types of users are continually engaged in biased editing. It does not look like the same person but casual driveby editing. The infobox result is actually very important because it gets picked up by Google, AI etc.. as an easily digestible binary answer to "who won the war" which then has a large impact outside Wikipedia in shaping perceptions. -- GreenC 21:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Then perhaps the right course of action is to request page protection. Alaexis_¿question? 09:16, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

PP requested. -- GreenC 14:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

PP indef was implemented. They have switched to using real account names. If they continue to edit war without discussion, I will request the accounts are blocked. This page is under sanctions. -- GreenC 17:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to First Chechen War has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Result/Outcome of this War was a CLEAR Chechen Military victory - Russian Strategic Failure. The Russians WITHDREW without accomplishing any of its OBJECTIVES. It ceded same terrority back to Chechnya without occupying it. 2A00:23C8:180E:EE00:6196:2DAA:E8F7:2422 (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

No consensus for edit request. See discussions above, specifically the rules of the |result= field in the infobox. -- GreenC 22:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Completely disagree, there needs to be an objective edit. 2601:248:5181:5C70:F407:1C36:A131:1B6D (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Its usage is optional (not "needed"), according to the infobox rules. You should read the rules. -- GreenC 06:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Iask1, @Dushnilkin, please stop edit warring and explain why you want to remove/keep it here at the talk. Alaexis_¿question? 20:37, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I asked another user to create a discussion page, well, since you intervened, then fine. The source should be left, at least because it fits the standards WP:RS, there is no reason to delete it. The comment about the fact that he is a participant in the war and a Russian officer is unverifiable, at least I only found information that he has a doctorate in political science.

The aforementioned user commits several violations on this article at once.

1:The infobox article added a result (by the way, fictional, but more on that later) that does not match the parameters Template:Infobox military conflict The result window can only contain X victory or Indecisive.

2: Several violations of WP:LIE

• a) Firstly, the result window, not a single source in the article confirms this, but on the contrary, refutes it!
• b)Information has been added to the forces of the parties window, which is not in the source, here is a direct quote: The garrison of Bamut under the command of Ruslan Khaykhoroev was 800 people.¹ To capture Bamut, 2,610 people, 45 tanks, 115 infantry fighting vehicles, 17 armored personnel carriers, 12 BRDM, 75 guns and mortars, 9 anti-aircraft guns (166th and 136th omsbr, msb 324th MSP, 94th obron BB) were concentrated.

P.S. Also in the article about Bamut, Grodnensky book is the main source even before my edits, it's just crookedly framed and I did it more clearly to check the information, the user apparently didn't even bother to check it and just deleted my edits.

Thanks for creating the discussion.

1: In a later work from 2007, he indicated the figure of 1,000, so I indicated it in the infobox Dushnilkin (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Re 2a), the |result= field has been discussed in sections above. There is no consensus to include an infobox result field at all, per the infobox rules linked to by Dushnilkin. -- GreenC 21:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I cited this rule as a criticism activities of the user on the Battle of Bamut page, not here. Dushnilkin (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh OK, it's been the same problem here. -- GreenC 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

This is a book that is clearly not neutral. The author mostly describes Chechens as bandits and terrorists. Literally, the first sentence in the book is:

"There are bandit governments, can there be a bandit nation?"

And the first chapter starts:

"An evil Chechen crawls to the shore".

It spews racist, and extremist views, one of such views is about the horrific and verified historical fact about the Chechen genocide. He denies it by writing:

"In addition, another trump card for the warmongers has become the selective memory of the alleged "heroic struggle" waged by the Chechens "for freedom" during the Caucasian War, as well as the extremely mythologized memory of Stalin's deportation and "genocide" unleashed against the Chechens."

He also denies genocides committed against Chechens, such as the Samashki massacre, Novi aldi massacre, and others.

This is far from a neutral source that should be used in Wikipedia. Iask1 (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

1: This refers to the banditry that spread in Chechnya during the first war. In principle, he described this in detail, indicating that he meant the comprehensive support of the Ichkeria fighters. He claims that with the complete elimination of the militants themselves, life in Chechnya will return to normal and only a memory will remain of banditry, he never claimed that all the people are bandits: Unfortunately, one cannot disagree with Boris Kagarlitsky's statement that the mixture of terrorism and guerrilla warfare that takes place in Chechnya will "last exactly as long as certain social and cultural norms are reproduced in society, which made it inevitable."

2: Not a literal quote from the author, it's even highlighted in parentheses

3: He did not deny the deportation anywhere, an entire chapter is devoted to this, where he tries to find the objective reason for this action.

Criticism looks more like pulling information out of context and violating WP:NPOV in some aspects, for example, the rejection of a different point of view on the historical process. Dushnilkin (talk) 09:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

1. The "banditry" that spread in Chechnya according to this guy is the separatist, which makes it a non-neutral source. He also describes people who support the Chechens as "warmongerers" and "bandit supporters", how is this a source that can be used in Wikipedia? Also, he believes that banditry is Chechen culture, quote from the book: "The main means of their existence, at the expense of which the Chechen clans-teips lived, was ordinary robbery - banditry. (Even in the not so distant Soviet times, Chechens preferred to work in the sphere of trade and services or were engaged in semi-mafia industries.)"
2. The quote is from a Chechenphobic poem by Mikhail Lermontov, if he is quoting it or saying it himself doesn't matter, that is what he uses to describe the Chechens.
3. He denies it in the first chapter, have you read the book? He called the genocide, quote: "an extremely mythologized memory of Stalin's deportation and "genocide" unleashed against the Chechens" In the very first paragraph of his book, it is clear what he believes if you read his book. Not to mention him also denying other massacres in the first war.

Iask1 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

1: The certain consensus that the source comes to does not make it "not neutral" in your opinion, then Martin Gilbert, who calls the Germans criminals in World War I/II, is not neutral, this is not how it works. The coverage of certain facts builds a certain position in the reader, why the author himself cannot adhere to it?

2: Well, you answered your own question, the chapter is devoted to the history of the Caucasian war, this passage was added to show the attitude of Russian society to the events in the Caucasus at that time.There is no conclusion anywhere that he personally speaks like that about Chechens, it is WP:OR.

3: Again, it is not the process that is being refuted, but the claim that Stalin arranged the deportation for nothing (We will not transfer the topic of the dispute to this, I just explained the position of the author, I myself think that it is not very correct). If the author says extraordinary information for you, it does not mean that he is not neutral, for example, a source that denies the massacre in sribny [uk] is currently accepted in world historiography as the most reliable, and then there is a denial of the intentions of genocide, as in the cases of samashki, rather than the fact of the massacre itself.

• a) I remind you that the bias of the source in certain matters cannot be the reason for removing it from the text of the article, please read wikipedia:BIASEDSOURCES.

Dushnilkin (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

1. The comparison of this author to Martin Gilbert is misplaced. Although opinions may be raised, Gilbert is a master at source notation and presents his argument using accepted historical methods. This author, however, seems to allow a personal bias against Chechens and to pick and choose events that prove his point.

2. Your claim that quoting Lermontov's poem is mere representation of historical Russian views does not convince. The author himself integrates this rhetoric into his narrative and supports these arguments of his with claims on Chechen society. This is more than contextualization-it means lending support to such ideas for the promotion of a biased view. This fits into WP

where sources touting discriminatory or fringe perspectives cannot be considered reliable for establishing historical fact.

3. The author described the very punitive action by Stalin against the Chechens as an "extremely mythologized memory." This trivializes a grave historical atrocity which has been widely recognized by reputable historians and international institutions. While there may be many interpretations about events in scholarship, blatant denial or trivialization of atrocities when no substantial evidence exists as to its occurrence is a trademark of unreliability. This approach jettisons documented facts for an agenda; and further, it destroys neutrality on the source.

Analogy to Sribny sources that denied the very fact of genocide is misleading. Serious historiography, as a rule, makes a distinction between intentions and events-something which the author cannot substantiate with equal care but resorts to dismissive rhetoric, which, of course, cannot be put on the same page as responsible historical debate.

While WP allows non-neutral sources to be used, their usage must be contextualised and attributed and also counterbalanced with neutral or opposing sources. The level of bias herein stands out in such a way that, if included in an article, they will mislead readers unless significantly hedged. Permitting such sources to dominate an article or substantially inform an article would indeed run against Wikipedia's objective showcasing verifiable and balanced information.

Only the most blind bias and discriminatory rhetoric lead the author to make himself unreliable. Their work, properly attributed can be cited to demonstrate a point of view, but it cannot be used uncritically to provide a voice of neutrality or authority. To do so misrepresents the very principles of neutrality and verifiability Wikipedia uses. Iask1 (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

1: Let's break down the answer into points.

• a) Well, if we talk about Martin Gilbert, he uses mainly literature as a source, not archival documents, and shows an obvious bias towards the Germans during the First World War, especially in the chapters on the great retreat and the Battle of the Marna.
• b) Besides, Grodnensky also has reasons, according to your own logic, I don't think that such literature, which tries to reflect people's views, can achieve specific neutrality, so you are violating WP:NPOV right now, accepting the non-neutrality of one author, criticizing another for it. This rule was created primarily for wikipidists, not for sources.

2: Again, the chapter is devoted to historical information, the author did not add anything from himself, in confirmation of my words I will say that there are numerous references to letters from the governors of the Caucasus. In your words, there is no appeal with facts confirming the author's Chechenophobia, the topic and purpose of the book touches on very thorny issues - interethnic relations, it is incredibly difficult to avoid some biased moments at this time, I refer to Wikipedia:BIASED again. In addition, most likely in the paragraph below, you meant the battle of Bamut, I must say right away - at the moment this is one of the few literary sources covering the moments of the battle, so we have to quote it. Well, even so, I still did not see the quote directly from the author, which confirmed his marginality, etc., again, you conclude neither on the basis of a direct quote, but on WP:OR.

3: Again, you are referring to a personal opinion, if the author has tried to introduce something new into historiography, it does not mean that he is neutral, you deny the source because he comes to a consensus that you do not support. Historical science would not have developed to our modern level if the description of events in all sources was so one-sided and the authors did not try to engage in revisionism. Grodnensky in this case comes to interesting conclusions which can be considered for inclusion in the article, or discuss it on the discussion page, in any case, at least this chapter corresponds to all parameters WP:RS, with the exception of harsh statements (towards collaborators who supported Nazi Germany) The author uses a wide archival list of sources.

I don't think we can come to any conclusion ourselves, this is the third sentence, but we just deny each other's words, so I'll just ask WP:RFC and tag this users:@Alaexis, @GreenC. Dushnilkin (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the structural problem is the source/data is in the infobox. The binary "yes/no" is an inherent structural flaw of computers, it flattens nuance and context, which causes many problems in society. Perhaps a compromise to include the source and data, but not in the infobox, rather in the body of the article where appropriate context can be included. It's the same problem with the results field. -- GreenC 16:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I generally think that the differentiation of the forces of the parties by dates is incorrect and it is necessary to include the final data in the infobox. But as I understood (correct if not) do you mind Grodnensky book in the article? Dushnilkin (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

1. a) The comparison to Martin Gilbert is a misleader. Gilbert's historical writing, while sometimes criticized for interpretive bias, is written according to established methodologies of history: primary and secondary sources, within norms of scholarship. Grodnensky's writings alternate between references to the archives with overtly ethnophobic, and Chechenophobic statements. Quoting obscene rhetoric, or more tacitly, reflecting societal attitudes so speaks outside the bounds of responsible historiography. Above all, neutrality in history requires academic integrity, which includes the judicious contextualization of such quotes—not their adoption as fact.

b) While it is true, of course, that no source is perfectly neutral, in Grodnensky's case, this bias is so thick as to make him unreliable. Reflecting a view in the society does not have to be unneutral in itself, but the transmitting of this view without adequate criticism, as Grodnensky has done, already borders on advocacy of that view. Neutrality here should be weighed not only according to Wikipedia's source policy but also according to the principles of objective historiography that the source keeps.

2. While Grodnensky refers to archival materials, the problem lies not with the sources in and of themselves but with his interpretation of them. The citation of Lermontov's poem, which conceptualizes Chechens as congenitally bandit-like, is more than an archival reference-it is an active deployment of a pejorative stereotype to frame the author's argument. This goes beyond mere reflection of historical attitudes to perpetuation of those biases, supporting my claim of Chechenophobia. Furthermore, Grodnensky's wider narrative, and including downplaying the deportation of Chechens as "mythologized," shows a propensity of diminishing atrocities and portraying a one-sided view. Regarding the battle of Bamut, though Grodnensky may offer peculiar facts, it is imperative that such a source should be contrasted with even more balanced and reliable accounts so as not to give an uncritical narrative influenced by Grodnensky's perspective. Stuffing a piece with the heaviest of biased material sans attribution and alternative perspectives is a clear violation of WP rules and might mislead readers. The claim of Battle of Bamut lacking litterature is not right, battle of bamut was among the most well know battles and most well documented due to its significance.

3. Of course, revisionism per se is not a problem, as it should correspond to the standards of scholarly rigor and neutrality that make it credible. That of Grodnensky does not hold up because he makes ethnically tendentious interpretations, whereas the conventional scholarly consensus on such facts as the deportation of Chechens is discarded.

In any case, WP rules do not automatically guarantee the source using archival references. The author's analysis, tone, and methodology come into reliability, too. Grodnensky's selective framing and derogatory language regarding Chechens-even about the collaborators-suggest that his work cannot be treated as some sort of neutral historical analysis. Such bias requires careful contextualization and cannot be presented as authoritative in a Wikipedia article without violating WP.

It is very important to establish, before the escalation to RFC, why the inclusion of Grodnensky needs qualification or rejection on substantial issues. The patterns of bias underlined by me, from perpetuating stereotypes to playing down atrocities, undermine Grodnensky's reliability as a neutral source. Even if some archival sources would support the claims, overt ethnocentrism of the author would demand deliberation. While the RFC may ultimately decide, Dushnilkin's argument downplays clear evidence of bias which is against the principles of WP. Any use of Grodnensky should be very carefully attributed and balanced out with countervailing perspectives to prevent dissemination of undue bias. Iask1 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

1: I remind you, Martin Gilbert quoted quotes where Germans are literally called pigs (without exaggeration), but his works are accepted anyway, because the quote does not reflect the author's position on this.

2: a) In general, the first part of your answer repeats the provisions above, I will only say that you also adhere to your position one-sidedly, Grodnensky outlined several points of view in this chapter and finally came to a personal consensus, in this case, of course, the citation does not correspond to the standard of academic works, but it cannot be called marginal either - it was carried out work with consideration of alternative points of view.

b) The administration has already added an increased level of protection to the article, as it considered your actions vandalism, firstly this is a violation WP:LIE in the the table of the result and the forces of the parties (There are sources in the article mentioning the capture of the village, but there is no question of 8,000 Russians in the source) Secondly, the violation WP:RS because you save links to YouTube.

If there is a lot of literature, fine! But at least specify it in the article.

3: Grodnensky work is obviously not a standard of neutrality, however, the form of the narrative does not allow us to conclude that the source needs to be removed, I have given you a rule several times, (Wikipedia:BIASED) but you continue to write the same thing, in any case, we do not have a source that would take into account the strength of the rebels in 1995/1996, so I indicated this work.

Again, I have asked you several times to give direct quotes, specify them (with a mention of the chapter, of course) and our discussion will be built around this. For now, you're just repeating previously written texts, forcing me to repeat requests. Your behavior may be considered trolling in the discussion. At the next such response, I will simply request WP:RFK an unanswered response and wait for the results that the administration will bring. Dushnilkin (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Such a comparison falls short for at least the following reasons: Gilbert explicitly embeds such quotes within more extensive scholarly narratives and does not embrace them as his conclusions. Meanwhile, Grodnensky's repetitive deployment of stereotype upon stereotype regarding Chechens-as for example, the contention that banditry represents the height of Chechen culture-perpetuates no parallel academic distance or criticism. The key issue is not the mere quoting of disparaging remarks, but how those remarks are used. Grodnensky integrates these stereotypes into his framing and conclusions in such a way that an impression is given that these disparaging notions are part of his historical analysis. The pattern here, as mentioned above, goes against his reliability as an objective source.

2. A) While Grodnensky may claim to explore various points of view, the continued use of pejorative terms and belittling rhetoric, such as described in the case of downplaying the Chechen deportation, makes him unable to draw any neutral conclusion. This is not a question of following "one-sidedly" anyone's position but rather acknowledging that Grodnensky fails the standards of neutrality outlined in WP. The quotation of archival documents does not save a source from criticism if its conclusions are based on biased or ethnically charged narratives. The closeness of Grodnensky's conclusions to such biases draws the conclusion of flawed methodology and reduced reliability of him as a source.

2. B) Both accusations are misleading and groundless; the changes to the result section of the infobox were made after modifying yours, and your change is supported by reliable sources and common knowledge in the war. Any discrepancies in your sources should have been discussed, not accused of vandalism. Your earlier edits to the Chechen number of fighters also cited sources more reliable than those introduced by you. Also it was not me who edited the Russin number of fighters, or the results section before, i only reverted it to what it was before you made changes.

2. C) While WP discourages citing YouTube for factual claims, this depends on the content and uploader. Material hosted on YouTube from reputable publishers or archival institutions can be reliable, provided they meet Wikipedia's standards for sourcing, which is inline with the youtube source in battle of bamut. You should evaluate each source on its own merit, rather than automatically discounting them because of hosting. In any case, adding stronger more widely accepted references would eliminate the problem.

3. Biased Sources: Although WP allows the use of non-neutral sources, it also calls for careful attribution and balancing with other views. Grodnensky's ethnocentric framing is on the side of typical bias and far into problematic grounds in that fringe perspectives become presented as the mainstream historical analysis. Even if his work is retained for certain data points, this has to be heavily qualified in the article.

Specific Quotes: I have, on several occasions pinpointed the place of the quote in question: the first paragraph of the book. You continue to disregard my clarification and shift responsibility, reproaching me for repetition. This denial of the reference makes your claims of good faith participation in the discussion pretentious. The first paragraph explicitly frames Chechens in a derogatory way, using stereotypes fully concordant with greater Chechenophobic narratives. This itself is enough to call Grodnensky's neutrality into question and to necessitate significant attribution and counterbalance when citing his work. Trolling Allegations:

Accusations of trolling or bad faith on my part constitute a violation of the policy of assuming good faith in Wikipedia discussions. Repeated requests for information that has already been given constitute a form of derailing rather than a contribution to addressing the substantive issue of Grodnensky's reliability. Iask1 (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, as I said, it's like you're intentionally copying your messages, replacing a few words there, so I'll only answer about YouTube. Adding such sources requires creating a talk page and discussions about it there, but it definitely cannot replace a literary source.

I asked you to quote Grodnensky, which confirms his direct agreement with these non-derogatory passages from Lermontov's verse, I wrote about this several times, but you continue to write the same thing.