This is an archive of past discussions about Chechens. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For the benefit of people who do not know much about the Chechen people, please could someone produce a caption saying who these five famous Chechens are.--Toddy106:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't really know about Chechens either, but I had the same question. Based on a comment from an anonymous user on this page, I've been able to deduce:
can we remove imam shamil because he was not chechen
it would be nice to put ramzan or ahmat kadyrov and replace imam shamil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigaufe (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
jewish roots?
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
I was going across a forum that claimed chechens are of jewish/herbrew ancestry. How true is this? I also find it interesting that the article only covers a recent period of their history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.240.251 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The Khazarians (precursor to todays "white jews" or Ashkenazim Jews) come from the Caucasus region that includes Chechnya. This is probably why.
--John Cho (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't find any mention of Chechens residing in Israel who are descendants of settlers from the North Caucasian region in the 18th and 19th centuries when it was a historic Ottoman province of Palestine. Indeed you find many Chechens living in Jordan, Syria and a scattering in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and Turkey, and about the 20,000 said to live in Saudi Arabia is questionable. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Khazars were different people, from what I read the Chechens actually fought against them. Captain, whose that general? - PietervHuis (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Can Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog and his aid User:Folantin explain why you removed my sourced additions. Point by point. --Kuban Cossack10:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, how about when you finally added sources for your material, you made statements that completely contradict the references you gave, e.g. the citation you gave from the Alexandr Uralov site for Chechen pro-German activity "this intensified as the Germans approached the Caucasus. In some areas up to 80% of the populations backed the insurgency". Can't find any mention of the 80% figure there. Maybe you'll have more luck More importantly, the same page is resolute that the Chechens didn't collaborate with the Germans and this was simply a pretext by Stalin to deport them en masse. Однако официальный мотив уничтожения этого народа - коллаборация с немцами - рассчитан на невежество советского народа и на неосведомленность Запада. Несколько забегая вперед, отметим следующие два решающих факта: 1) во время второй мировой войны ни разу не было ноги немецкого солдата на территории Чечено-Ингушской республики, если не считать кратковременного занятия пограничного местечка Малгобек, населенного русскими; 2) присоединяться к немецким формированиям чеченцы и ингуши и физически не могли, так как в Чечено-Ингушетии не было обязательной мобилизации за все время существования Чечено-Ингушетии, а частичная мобилизация во время советско-финской войны была отменена уже во время начала немецко-советской войны с освобождением от службы в Красной Армии всех чеченцев и ингушей (приказ по Главному командованию Красной Армии от февраля 1942 года мотивировал это освобождение тем, что чеченцы и ингуши по религиозным убеждениям отказываются есть свинину). This completely rejects the idea that the Chechen people collaborated with the Germans, citing "two decisive facts": "1) During the Second World War, German soldiers did not once set foot in the territory of the Chechen-Ingush Republic, unless you count the short-lived occupation of Malgobek, inhabited by Russians; (2) it was physically impossible for Chechens and Ingush to link up with German formations...". --Folantin (talk) 15:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
First of all I am happy we are finally discussing invididual problems rather than en masse reversions, I have problem raising issues and corrections based on them, that's kind of the poin of wikipedia, so hello, nice to meet you.
Why don't you read about the 1940-1944 insurgency in Chechnya, even about its leader, there is no denying that this occured, and that this was a pretext. That is exactly what is cited in the deporation order signed not by Stalin but by Beria. At least that defeats the original POV text that the Chechens were deported because someone did not like them... --Kuban Cossack15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't trust you or the reliability of the material you've added and because I'm not going to waste my valuable time cleaning up your mess. --Folantin (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well may point you in the direction of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and also WP:FAITH, I should also tell you that you have made three reverts already so watch out for the consequences of making the fourth one. However here is the source that I've should have used instead of the one one I gave [2]. --Kuban Cossack15:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh really? Quite apart from the question of the reliability of the source, I still don't see any mention of "80%" there. --Folantin (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
So correct that part, after all you are interested in the article to be full and detailed and correct? Are you not? --Kuban Cossack16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Even though you might not trust me its worth recognising that your critique will be constructive in the sense that dubious passages can be elaborated on, researched and corrected/re-written. For that I thank you. --Kuban Cossack16:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Joanna Nichols
Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion
This source here [3] is nothing but a one-sided propaganda bullshit (it openly states so in the lead) that is also 13 years out of date. It forgets to mention for example that the Terek Cossacks first settled the area on the request of the Kabardin people after the fall of the Astrakhan Khanate in 1554. The Kabardins themselves were resisting the Nogay Horde and the Crimean Khanate, and the Chechens were hiding in the mountains because for the fear that the Nogays inflicted on them and their frequent raids. The Cossacks however living between them were used to common retaliation. Also Russian governments: czars, Soviets etc. I should remind Nichols that Stalin was not Russian, and that the Soviet Union was founded by a union of RSFSR (headed by Trotsky and Lenin, also not exactly Russian) USSR, BSSR and ZSFSR. The Chechens supported the Red Army and Bolsheviks against the Terek Cossacks, and the whole Sunzha-Terek messopotamia was ethnically cleansed of Russians by the combined actions of Chechens and Bolsheviks. Then you removed my information on why they actually got deported the sourced and veriafiable passages about the 1940-1944 insurgency in Chechnya. Also the extesive friction wrt Grozny Oblast and how during the later Soviet times, unlike Nichols is trying to state, ChIASSR was ruled completely by Chechens and Ingush, and the once Russian majority was pushed out until in early 1990s 250 thousand of them were forced out of Chechnya. --Kuban Cossack10:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
That article is balanced, and written from numerous sources, this is written from one non-neutral source by a person who herself admits she is not an expert in the field. That is amateurish. --Kuban Cossack12:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
this is just the usual round of antiquity frenzy we typically get at "2nd world" ethnic group articles. Egyptians. Armenians. Indians. So now it's the Chechens' turn. This shouldn't even raise any eyebrows. It's always the exact same coat-racking on prehistory and archaeological continuity. We point to the relevant content guidelines and reduce the prehistory-cruft to a brief summary within WP:DUE. Standard procedure would be that we next get an insanely detailed Category:Origin hypotheses of ethnic groups article dedicated to the Chechens. They have a lot of catching-up to do if they want to compete with Afrocentrists or the Balkans :op dab(𒁳)10:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Article by Dr. Joanna Nichols is a good academic source. Claiming her publication to be a "a one-sided propaganda bullshit" is an example of extreme bias. One who has such bias should not edit this article.Biophys (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Biophys use some common sense, how could there be national repressions in a republic where the concerned nationality was the titular nation? I mean Chechens were a majority in the republic, they held all the administration locations. This contradicts the bare fact of numerous Chechen elite existing. --Kuban Cossack09:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
You said: "whole Sunzha-Terek messopotamia was ethnically cleansed of Russians by the combined actions of Chechens and Bolsheviks". That is bad distortion of history. It is true that Cossacks as a social group (but not as an ethnic group!) was cleansed by the Bolsheviks (yes, one can call this "genocide"), but Chechens have very little to do with it. You could blame as well Chinese and Latvians who joined the Bolshevics during the Russian Civil War (some Russian nationalists actually do). The problem was communist ideology, not ethnicity. As about the long-term animosity between Cossacks and Chechens, well, that was a result of Tsarist policies and Caucasian war. That was not racism or anything like that form any side.Biophys (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Dood
Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
You removed my corrections as of the real numbers and the improved gallery (all of which was never even contested by anyone) and more for "a stable version before edit wars".
Also, fore real: History of Chechnya this way. this for everyone. this article IS NOT EVEN ABOUT THIS AT ALL. Now restore the article to my lat version, whichg is like this version just corrected (there are no 40,000 Chechens in Syria and so on) and improved (better pictures, more inter links). it's here --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit request denied
The version you referred to was disputed: it was changed just 7 minutes later by another user. Only non-controversial edits will be allowed in this article, and a consensus is needed before anything big happens. Please be civil - shouting will achieve nothing. Papa November (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you are an another mod who has no idea what is going on at all. I suggest you take a closer look on your "stable version" and my improved one (the same thing, just better photos I worked on quite a bit, the real AND sourced figures on the population, more internal links, more categories and such IMPROVEMENTS NOT CHANGES - what do you think is "controversial edit" here?), then talk. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 13:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"Stable version":
The Vainakh tribes, the ancestors of the Chechens and Ingush, lived in the mountains of the region since the prehistory (there is archeological evidence of historical continuity dating back since 10,000 B.C.[1]). In the 16th century, they began settling in the lowlands and the Islamization of the Chechen people began under the influence of bordering nationalities.[2]
"Unstable version":
The Vainakh tribes, the ancestors of the Chechens and Ingush, lived in the highlands of the region since the prehistory (there is archeological evidence of historical continuity dating back since 10,000 B.C.[1]). In the 16th century, they began settling in the lowlands and the Islamization of the Chechen people began under the influence of bordering nationalities.[2]
Nah, this is after KK (who has his agenda, but I don't even care for this, read on) added his history of Chechnya stuff. This shouldn't be here at all - the three small paragraphs (before contact - conquest - deportation and return) are perfectly fine. Not to mention this is even badly written and chaotic, complete with uneven layout of the text itself - but take this back to its article and work on this there. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Edit request partly accepted
Once again, please stop shouting, and please don't insult me when I'm going out of my way to clean up the mess here. I personally have no objection to your preferred version of the page, but someone else edited it almost immediately after you did. Why should I preferentially choose your version over the one that came seven minutes later? The safest thing to do is to go back to the last stable version before all this nonsense started, and work in non-controversial or consensus based changes. As you said, some of the edits you made are clearly non-controversial, and I will happily put them in if you start working cooperatively. Here are some things that could be considered controversial about your version, compared with the stable version.
Soviet deportation -> Stalinist deportation
...as the result of the Chechen Wars since 1994. -> ...as the result of the Chechen Wars, especially after 2002.
...were prime targets of the Russian conquest efforts... -> ...were some of the most bitter resitants of the Russian Empire's conquest efforts...
...two next bloody wars... -> ...two next devastating wars...
You also expanded the gallery. Generally galleries are not used on Wikipedia, and are more suited to Wikimedia Commons. See WP:NOTREPOSITORY for details.
I fixed gallery (and was satisfied from its neutrality and fair representation). You left the complete bullshit of article ("estimated" 20,000 Chechens in Saudi Arabia etc.), because I guess the invented crap like this (which was already pointed by someone here on talk page, I checked and fixed this) is better than my cited figures (I caouldn't only find about Azerbaijan, but one article said there were 6,000 in Baku so I guessed it's plausible). You also still think such obvious stuff like the category "ethnic groups in Syria" is controversial for some reason so I'm not talking with you anymore, I guess I'll just come back when you go away. So bye. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, maybe one thing. "as the result of the Chechen Wars, especially after 2002" - maybe you read the article before starting saying crap about controversy. What controversy? These refugees started flooding Europe after late 2002, this is fact not "controversy". There are tens of thousans of them now, there were just few thousand tops before. "bloody" not controversial but "devastating" suddenly now? How would you call this (or this or this or this)? Something wrong with "Stalinist" now? Who ordered this, Father Frost? What the hell is your problem? Do you even know ANYTHING about any of this --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"Why should I preferentially choose your version over the one that came seven minutes later?" BECAUSE MY VERSION IS LIKE "STABLE VERSION", JUST IMPROVED, WHILE THE OTHER GUY JUST CAME AND KICKED OUT THE STUFF ABOUT CHECHENS BEING THERE SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME, BECAUSE HE DIDN'T BELIEVE THIS FOR SOME REASON? No, i don't even know why I'm writing still. I'll come back after you go away. OK, let's see your move now. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
You need to calm down. I am not making personal judgements about the content here, I am merely acting as a mediator, so please stop being so aggressive towards me. Once again, I will explain the process to you. If you would like to make an edit to the article, please make a polite request, using the {{editprotected}} tag, explaining exactly what changes you would like to be made, and an administrator (not necessarily me) will decide whether or not to make the edit. Just shouting about my previous decisions does not constitute such a request and it will achieve nothing. Papa November (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I have restored your edits to the infobox, which were not disputed. This could have happened much sooner if you had politely made a specific, polite request instead of such a long-winded aggressive rant. Papa November (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Page protection
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have protected this page to stop the current edit war, as nothing constructive is being achieved here. Please see WP:PROTECT for details of the page protection policy. If you would like to edit the page, please use the {{editprotected}} tag, and discuss your proposed changes here. If the consensus agrees with you, an administrator will update the article. I've set the protection to automatically lift tomorrow, but if the edit warring starts again, I'll protect it for longer. I know this is restrictive, but today's unrestricted editing was a disaster. Papa November (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Temporary page
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have copied the latest version of the page to Chechen people/Temp please continue editing there. Then some consensus will re reached we can merge the histories. Please avoid the revert war - it is absolutely stupid on a temp page anyway. Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
keep Dadan Idrisov, (though someone make a stub of him)
That works out to seven, one more for a 4 x 2 grid, any suggestions? Someone who is not a politician (we already have two) I wanted to add some sportsman or the like either past or present. --Kuban Cossack12:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The proposal to include image of Akhmad Kadyrov is terrible. Would you also suggest to include image of Adolf Hitler in article German people? Would you suggest to include image of Rasputin in article Russian people? But I have a different suggestion. All users who declare themselves "Russian" (like Kuban Cossack or me) or "Chechen" should excuse themselves from editing this article and only use this talk page for comments. That would resolve all problems once and for all.Biophys (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The proposal to include image of Dzovkhar Dudayev is equally terrible considering what suffering he beset on his people and the Russians living in Chechnya? Yet why do you agree to include him and not include Akhmad Kadyrov, who I agree was not better, but at least after he was gone there began a true reconstruction and rebuilding of Chechnya.
Also Biophys if you apply the logic of witholding edting articles to which one might hold sympathies, then that means you endorse us to delete all of your WP:SYN and WP:POINT conspiracy theory essays such as Putin's phone call and Internet brigades. Anyhow nobody WP:OWNs articles on wikipedia and likewise nobody is barred from editing articles on wikipedia that kind of defeats the principle of it being a free encyclopedia.--Kuban Cossack16:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
discussion unrelated to improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If I had a "nationalistic" editorial conflict with non-Russian users (say with a Chechen in an article about Russia-Chechen conflicts, or with Poles on a Poland-related subject), I would gladly recuse myself from editing the article. But I only have editorial disputes with other Russian users and with a few users who delete sourced encyclopedic content. None of that is related to any nationalistic agendas. My suggestion was to recuse ourselves voluntarily, which I am ready to do. If you do not want, this is up to you.Biophys (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to continue WP:STICKing this debate or have got anything to say to your comments comparing Kadyrov with Rasputin? A comparison as odd as comapring ballerina Anna Pavlova with Gengis Khan. Otherwise I take your voluntary recusation and you may excuse yourself when you feel like it. --Kuban Cossack07:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Remove Dzhokhar Dudayev, this is not the place to put a disgraced rebel leader who was responsible for thousands of deaths and ethnic cleansing.--Miyokan (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the collage is a derivative work, so its description page must show that all the original images are free to be used in such a way. There are some non-free images used here, so the collage is unfortunately a copyright violation in its current form.
An alternative is to use a template, such as {{Russians mosaic}} which is used in the Russians infobox. This would save a lot of hassle with creating new collage images each time, as pictures can just be swapped in and out as needed. It will also allow you to work on the infobox while the rest of the page remains protected.
Free from politicians is a good idea. Then there will be six images left - three in the top row and three in the bottom.--Miyokan (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd leave only the 2 presidents, the painter and the cleric of this. "Free from politician" is a bad idea, because they are famous (worl-famous even) and the rest are not. Just don't put Ramzan here, there are enough of pictures of Ramzan everywhere in Chechnya (I know it's the same with Akhmad, but at least he's deceased). And this girl is NOT famous. I don't know her. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Or just get rid of this, there is the gallery. I worked for and I think achived the fair and even representaion of everything possible in this gallery, which previously was war and separatism-concentrated (now are fighters and civilians, separatists and defectors, men and women and children, presidents and warlords and refugees, some XIXth century figures, and an artist, a cleric, a criminal, and a journalist too). It's even nice-looking in my opinion. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant to excuse myself from editing the article (but not from talking) if other self-identified "Russian" and "Chechen" editors do the same. But since this idea has soundly rejected by you, let's forget about it.Biophys (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
A quick note here, that Tapa guy wasn't the leader of the mountaneous republic but a prime minister or something. Some family member uploaded his picture it seems. The real leader was a Kabardin I think. Heres more[4] Anyway I congratulate on the effort of trying a new collage. I agree on most points (except miyokan who came here to pov push). Let's not get too hasty though. Captain Obvious (I love that name), those galleries seem to be de-recommended by wikipedia policies. It's best to insert them in sections of this page, after it's done with expansion because it can be much bigger. - PietervHuis (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
PS. Kadyrov wasn't really important enough to fit I think. He was only president (on paper) for a short while. The cult having been build around him only happened later after he was assassinated. Imam Shamil indeed doesn't fit in. Whose the first guy in your collage Kuban? - PietervHuis (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you Pieter that having the gallery is bad, all ethnic groups have collages! Second the first guy if you read his article is only notable pre-Russian Chechen I can think of, and remember a collage has to include those of all breadths. As for Dudayev, remember there was a cult after that bastard's death, the capital of Chechnya was renamed in his [dis]-honour, so both Kadyrov and Dudayev are as bad as each other, yet both like it or not, are significant to Chechen history in the post Soviet period. So either we include them both, or we throw both out. I am happy with either. As for the non-notable girl (or a woman) I would gladly replace her with a Chechen sportsman but I can't find a free use image anywhere, and those two are the best choices we have. --Kuban Cossack07:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Kuban you should refrain from calling someone like Dudayev a bastard there's certain policies for that. Anyway Dudayev has been one of the most important persons in Chechen history and one of the most famous Chechens. Kadyrov on the other hand hasn't accomplished anything (because he didn't get the chance) and doesn't fit in. Anyway do you know the name of the first Chechen. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I shall not refrain from stating the obvious, Kadyrov has not accomplished anything? And what did Dudayev accomplish, transforming a peaceful region into a breeding ground of hate, radicalisation and a warzone, not to mention ethnically cleansing it of all non-Chechens, and even Chechens that outspoke against him. Kadyrov on the other hand took the fight to radical islam, took the fight to rebuild Chechnya and to cleanse it of terrorist and militant filth. One needs not be a fool to see that Chechnya after Kadyrov's death is a lot better than Chechnya after Dudayev's death. Fact is that in a decade or so Dudayev will be forgotten, whilst Kadyrov's legacy will live on. Now that is an important distinction. However once again I am offering either to get of them both or to include them in the collage. --Kuban Cossack14:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Dudayev is factually one of the most important people of 20th century chechnya. You don't have any proof of the allegations you make above. It's also rather weird that you directly accuse him of ethnic cleansing Russians even though he married an ethnic Russian, but whatever. The man has many placenames named after him, outside of Russia/Chechnya and fits right in. So now we're back with Kadyrov who previously was part of the "filthy terrorist scum" and then switched sides; In poetics that's called a treasoner. He served as president not even for a single year and had no control over Chechnya at all. The only Kadyrov that has been important was Ramzan, and you really don't want to add him do you? Also I should probably report you now that you are using "militant filth" to describe chechen fighters. I've warned you many times but now it's just getting annoying. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well let's see Dadayev saw Chechnya descend into Hell, Kadyrov saw it ascend from it. The fighters are now effectively an extinct breed. Now who was a treasoner is a definition as old as one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Personally I don't really have any admiration for either of the two given that there is talk which I personally would believe that Kadyrov-Papa was killed by Russia, or at least they had a role to play, for one the guy as you said did have a rather clouded past and had affairs and intrgues going around him. However per WP:FORUM must we continue this discussion? Now going back to the question I would not mind adding Kadyrov-synulya, however its not usual practice to make collages of modern living leaders, though one goes beyond doubt that Ramzan's legacy is there to stay, also its good that Kadyrov's image is free use, unlike Dudayev's or that of his papasha, and the collage must have free use images. Which brings me to the painter Dadan Idrisov's image in the collage is NOT free use, since it has no source of origin, and the guy has no article for one. --Kuban Cossack16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"Well let's see Dadayev saw Chechnya descend into Hell, Kadyrov saw it ascend from it." Russia attacked Chechnya, that's not necessarily Dudayev's fault. "The fighters are now effectively an extinct breed." Uhhhh are you even following the news? There's fighting every day and there has been a large rise in rebel activity. Check the Jamestown Foundation. Also as I already meant to say, Ramzan Kadyrov certainly doesn't belong in there because human rights groups hold him responsible for thousands of disappearances of civilians. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion unrelated to improving the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yeah, obviously a person who has never even been to Chechnya is going to tell me what to believe... My friend FYI Chechnya was already hell prior to the Russian invasion in 1994, so much for that. --Kuban Cossack07:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed PietervHuis. Do yourself and the rest of wikipedia a favor and stick to subjects that you have actual experience and knowledge in. We don't need lectures from self-proclaimed "experts", who have never even been to Russia let alone Chechnya, can't read Russian and entire knowledge consists of (english-language) what they read "surfing the net", like yourself spreading propaganda.--Miyokan (talk) 09:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha and two extremely nationalistic patriots tell me that? I need to have visited Chechnya to read the news? Preferebly with a weapon in my hand right? Yes it was a mess before the invasion, but also because at that time there already was an armed conflict going on. - PietervHuis (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed some non-free use violations from the gallery. I'll reiterate my points from above: galleries are generally not used on Wikipedia - they are better placed on Commons instead. Secondly, there is a collage template you can fill in at {{Chechen people mosaic}}. Papa November (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
For some reason these collages cause a lot of disputes, just like in the article about Dutch people, where we discussed the same thing. So, I though the suggestion of "Captain" was reasonable. Pieter, what do you think about my recent edits elsewhere?Biophys (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
KK and Mikoyan, even the hawk General Shamanov says now the war was the Russian fault (because Russia was not acting "wisely and delicately") and "could have been avoided" (and, obviously, nothing about Chechnya being "hell" before the war or Dudayev being "bastard"). "We acted arrogantly and from a position of force and intimidation. We dictated uncompromising conditions. We pushed Dudayev into the corner." and so on.[6] The guy was in Chechnya and not once (he run the both damned wars), so I have no idea what you two are now talking about. Or maybe I know - it was exactly this attitude from the Russian leaders which led to the disaster. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh I agree that the Russian government in the early 1990s was horrible (and not just for Chechnya), I mean you have ethnic cleansing going on in Chechnya since 1989, and yet they do nothing, they take no action, instead of organising a proper campaign, they sent tanks with no ammunition and one crew to scare the enemy, and then after shedding all that blood in taking Chechnya, they sign the humiliating Khasvyurt treaty and hand power over to a wahhabi people, leaving the remaining surviving ethnic Russians there to their fate. If you ask me who I hate most Dudayev/Basayev/Maskhadov or Grachev/Gaidar/Yeltsin/Lebedev it has to be the latter lot. --Kuban Cossack12:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Collage so far
Kunta-haji, no objections raised.Y Image free use. Y
That means for an 8x2 collage we need one more, alternatively we collapse it to a 6x2 template and choose one of the two above unless new suggestions are made. --Kuban Cossack16:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Dadan Idrisov doesn't even seem to be very notable so I agree on that one. I'm still in favor of keeping Dudayev, and don't think that people who have a personal grudge against him should censor him. But there doesn't seem to be a decent free image of him right now. - PietervHuis (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with what Pietervhuis says. Dudayev is almost certainly the most famous Chechen, regardless of anyone's opinion of him. Not having him there would be crazy. If we can't get a free image of him then the similar page on Ossetians offers an alternative possibility and we can just have a generic picture of a Chechen instead of the collage of famous people. --Folantin (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Three problems with that, one no free image, two strong opposition against Dudayev, and three all ethnic groups have collages. I think having Dudayev and NOT having a pro-Russia politician in there is equally crazy and WP:POINTish. --Kuban Cossack07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Discussion led by sockpuppet of banned user User:M.V.E.i.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dont get me wrong but are Chechens such a culturaly poor nation they need controversial figures like Sheikh Mansur, Tapa Tchermoeff in the image? I personaly rase objection. You should use Scientists, Culture figures here. Not figures with a political message. Media Sapiens (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh yea Khasan Baiev he's cool. I forgot about him. Buvaisar Saitiev however is also a bit controversial since he's friends with Kadyrov or something. I don't think we should censor someone like sheikh mansur whose one of the most famous chechens from centuries ago, just because of the present-day conflicts - PietervHuis (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Lets keep the image not politicised. I think the mission here is to create an image that will last.If the people i proposed to remove raise political imotions in me, they probably raise it in few more people. I think that the stereotype on Chechens is to militarised. The new offers will show them in a modern way, probably. Media Sapiens (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The trick with the image that every man of the nation it's created for will feel good in it. I dint want to enter to a political discussion, no use for that. but i personaly know Chechens who voted Putin, and morever, oppose to independence. I'm not entering in a discussion about the opinion, the question is will they identify with a politicised Chechen militant who fought against what they think is good? The image should browdcast union, progress. Media Sapiens (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
So you mean we can't have famous Chechens from the Caucasian War just because you oppose to the idea of Chechen independence? That's POV it seems. Sheikh Mansur is written about a lot. Tapa whateverhisname not so much. We're dealing with historical figures here. Cesar and Napoleon are often used in collages too for example, even though they were imperialists.- PietervHuis (talk) 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
My opinion is not important here, not about me the image is. What i say is that a Chechenian, any Chechenian, and no metter what his opinion in politics is, should be able to identify himself with the image. Thats why i ask for politics out. I read a few discussion on images thats why it took me a while to answer you here right now. In Russians they kept Lenin out, and even Peter 1 out. English people didnt insert Cherchil, even thought he took first prize in the BBS survey of the favorite man in Britain. I can use your logic and tell you you oppose to Kyderov because of your NPOV, abd we will get nowhere here. Media Sapiens (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Im you want a military man find won not from wars involving Russia. If someone doesnt like something, even if because of a POV, we should create the image in a way any man's POV wont get hurt. 100% nutrality. Media Sapiens (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't recall military figures who didn't fight in wars involving Russia. Maybe two Soviet-Chechens WWII hero;s would help, that machinegunner who killed more than a hundred nazi's, and the guy who helped raise the soviet flag on the reichstag. But I don't think there's pictures of them. I don't think you can compare my argument with excluding Kadyrov. That guy is hold responsible for many disapearances that happened only recently. Usually we keep (alleged) war criminals out of collages, just like how nobody gets to insert Shamil Basayev in here. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure I am, just like Imam Shamil is popular. And not just to those who dislike Russia. Another important fact is that these people didn't just start a rebellion, it was the Russian Empire that tried to conquer to caucasus and they resisted. I understand this seems to be a sensetive subject for you since you're (somewhat) Russian. - PietervHuis (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm a Russian patriot, but i perfer to edit as an NPOV. I trust your word. If he's popular with everybody, unless a Chechen objects entering him here, i remove my objection. But i still dont think Tchermoeff is a good idea. Media Sapiens (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Going back to the discussion, you all named some good ideas, but find me some who have free images, I do prefer non-militant non-political leaders, and historical rather than controversial modern figures.--Kuban Cossack07:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think quality at such size plays a role, we've agreed to drop Idrisov, but Terloyeva notable or not is important in filling in the gap. --Kuban Cossack12:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Dudayev is not just going to be removed because of two persons who have a grudge against him and of which one (you) openly admits that he fought against Dudayev's forces. I agree we should avoid highly controversial figures (with every ethnic group article) but I don't see how Dudayev falls into that category. I don't think we should force ourself to create a large collage since the chechens are a small ethnic group. Same goes for trying to get free images, that's only possible for the very old pictures. For now I'll update the old collage by replacing akhmad zakayev, idrisov and imam shamil. How does it look? - PietervHuis (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Look I know of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT so grudge no grudge this is topical, besides have you not read there is no free image of Dudayev available, so find some other options, Ramzan Kadyrov's image is free use however but you seem to have a grudge against him. Now I can take it to a vote.
It's not "my personal grudge against kadyrov", it's the fact that human rights groups say he's a war criminal. With such a small collage we can probably use fair use. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Look just because one group says something, and another says something, else reminds me of OBS or Одна Бабка сказала rhetoric (I trust you know what I mean, you are after all an expert in this aren't you?) Since when is this a criterion for deciding who goes into the collage or not? There are plenty of sources dictating the atrocities commited under Dudayev and I am begging to see a Double standard push of a WP:POINT via the collage. Now then, perhaps you should be aware that fair use images cannot be used in collages under any circumstances, its not to illustrate a particular person, but an ethnic group, that way, that way the images there are examples, and hence violate the fair use critria on where it can be used. --Kuban Cossack14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The general principle is to include famous and important people from the past who aren't highly controversial. Kadyrov is held responsible for thousands of disappearances, that would be the same as adding ratko mladic at Serbs wouldn't it? As your claim that there are "plenty of sources" of dudayev's crimes, sure, show some reliable ones? Truth is he is a rather respected figure both inside and outside chechnya. See all the placenames named after him. On top of that he was very important for chechnya' history. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And no I don't speak Russian. I do read translated books and pages. Now, are you able to read Dutch, my native tongue? This is the English Language wikipedia. If you feel you're better educated about these subjects just because you speak Russian go to the Russian division I guess. - PietervHuis (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Respected figure both inside and outside chechnya. See all the placenames of him" - Uh huh. So you're basing this on the fact that he has places named after him. And where's that? Georgia? Estonia?
Part of post by User:Miyokan unrelated to improving article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your comparison "are you able to read Dutch?" is meaningless, it is not we who are editing on Dutch topics claiming to be experts. "I do read translated books and pages." Examples? And what fraction of Russian literature gets translated into English do you think? And from your contributions, most/all of the sources you use are certainly not Russian language sources, they're stuff like from the propaganda Kavkaz Center and Jamestown Foundation.
Turkey Latvia Ukraine Lithuania Poland Estonia Bosnia? And on top of that the capital of Chechnya was named after him by a government which was elected in free and fair elections.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As for your unrelated question, I read Kavkazy Uzel and I read independent material. I don't see any more reason to try and prove to you how well educated I am.
Free and fair elections...well educated I am, seriously what kind of free and fair elections where they, when a third of the population was ethnically cleansed by that point? --Kuban Cossack15:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, you seem to be very biased in trying to add Dudayev, even though the discussion is pointless since you have no free image of him. You don't want to add Kadyrov because you obviously have a grudge against him. The way things are that we don't have a free image of Dudayev, we do have a free image of Ramzan Kadyrov. Now where do we go from this since there are a shortage of notable Chechens we collapse it to 2x6 collage, and we get: Mansur, Kunta, Zakharov, Tchermoeff, Terloyeva, Sagaitova. Any objections? --Kuban Cossack15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not trying to add Dudayev, you're trying to delete him. He's been around for years. You say I have a grudge against Kadyrov while again ignoring the fact that many human rights groups hold him responsible for up to 5000 (!!) disappearances. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because I've suggested we add him with and only with Kadyrov, however since it's become clear there is no free use image of him available then he has to be removed based on copyright law. And during Dudayev's reign at least 100 thousand ethnic Russians were forced out of their homes, many killed, places where Chechens never lived like Naursky and Shelkovsky raions etc.--Kuban Cossack15:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't make any difference, you have made it clear that you want Dudayev in the collage and not Kadyrov.--Miyokan (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion about Dudayev, unrelated to improving this article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"And during Dudayev's reign at least 100 thousand ethnic Russians were forced out of their homes, many killed" No proof, that's where it ends. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Compare the census of 1989 and that of 2002 alone, second Ethnic Cleansing in Chechnya, written from sources (agreed btw in consensus with Chechen editors on ru-wikipedia), since you are so well educated I would spare myself the effort of translating to you. --Kuban Cossack15:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Compare the census of 1989 and that of 2002 alone". That's own research. Who says the Russians didn't leave voluntarely and/or fled the war? And who said Dudayev would have any hand in wrongdoings? He married an ethnic Russian himself. Also wikipedia is not a source. Something like ethnic cleansing is to be decided by an international court not by Rrussian wikipedia editors. "since you are so well educated I would spare myself the effort of translating to you." Thank's for trying to insult me again. It's a miracle you never get warned. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
That wikipedia article has sources in it. But of course you can't read it can you? "Something like ethnic cleansing is to be decided by an international court not by Rrussian wikipedia editors." According to who, you? As for your "but he married an ethnic Russian!" defence - now that's WP:OR.--Miyokan (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I can translate some. You're making out Dudayev to be some sort of racist without sources, that's why I noted he has a Russian wife. Both you and Kuban Kazak are already widely known as extremely pro-Russian, so these accusations don't surprise me. And yes, ethnic cleansing is decided by an international organisations, otherwise it's just accusations. Check out Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia and how it's been acknowledged OSCE conventions and the United Nations. Has any Ethnic cleansing been acknowledged in Chechnya? - PietervHuis (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"And yes, ethnic cleansing is decided by an international organisations, otherwise it's just accusations" - According to who, you? As for your personal attack - you have already been warned, comment on the contribution, not the contributor. Don't make me bring up your notoriously biased contributions to Russian articles, from your blatantly pro-Litvinenko/Kasparov edits to your whitewashing of Chechen crimes and terrorists - it would be bad for your editing status. My personal favourite has to be your belief that Putin is a pedophile.--Miyokan (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Who else is to decide what ethnic cleansing is? Certainly not wikipedia users. I'll refrain from replying to your personal attacks, although I deny ever having said that "Putin is a paedophile" or any of the stuff about me being biased. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Who else is to decide what ethnic cleansing is? Certainly not wikipedia users." You don't seem to get it, do you. According to who, you? And it's not "according to wikipedia users", it's according to sources.--Miyokan (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
"Sources" is too general. It would have to be reliable sources. I can also pull out sources that debunk the propaganda of any "ethnic cleansing". Independent media or organisations are supposed to draw conclusions. The Russian wikipedia seems far from the perfect source, last time I went there I read something like "well known terrorists: Osama Bin-Laden, Aslan Maskhadov". It made me laugh. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This is great because Pietervhuis is just repeating his opinion again. According to who, you? I'll say it again.--Miyokan (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean? Anyway human rights groups hold Kadyrov accountable for war crimes. If you can find human rights groups that hold Dudayev responsible for war crimes you have ground to exclude him too. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Non-free images cannot be used in collages
A quick clarification about non-free images: to use an image in a mosiac/collage, it must be in the public domain or available under a free license. This is for two reasons:
A mosiac using a non-free image is a derivative work, and is a copyright violation unless permission is explicitly given by the copyright holder.
Fair use cannot be claimed, as the point of the collage is to show what a Chechen person looks like. This can be achieved successfully using only free images, so a fair use claim is a no hoper as it fails WP:NFCC#1. Papa November (talk) 15:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion, unrelated to improving this article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reply
I would like to reply here at the question by Pieter about "ethnic cleansing of Russians" in Chechnya, as described in article in Russian WP and some other sources. The article in Russian WP also tells "ethnic cleansing of Russians" also in Crimea and many other regions (вытеснение русских шло не только в Чечне, но и в Казахстане, Татарстане и в Крыму). Dear Pieter, this is classical Big Lie propaganda technique. Stalin made ethic cleansing of many peoples, including Tartars from Crimea, Chechens and other nations from Caucasus (there are some WP articles about thees forceful "evacuations" to the hell of the entire nations). He also send the entire "ruling class" (teachers, doctors, businessmen, clergy, military officers) of the Baltic states, Poland and other occupied territories to Gulag. But according to the modern-day Russian propaganda version, it were Russians who became an object of the ethnic "genocide" (no less!) in Estonia, Chechnia, Crimera, and so on.Biophys (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
And that's why these crimes are always acknowledged by international courts and/or organisations when they happen. "In the west we learn to check a fact, before it becomes a fact". - PietervHuis (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Consensus Proposal
Look for sake of a consensus can we stop discussing this dead man and move back to discussion: Mansur, Kunta, Zakharov, Tchermoeff, Terloyeva, Sagaitova.
Either we take those six, and add the cropped poor quality free use image of Dudayev herewith Ramzan Kadyrov?
Objections suddenly means that it's not allowed to happen? Dudayev can be there without an alleged Chechen-Russian war criminal added by Russians. But because I don't want to edit war over something so insignificant AND considering the fact that the image of Dudayev is indeed of poor quality I'm fine with the first option for now. I prefer to put effort in writing articles instead of hanging onto something as silly as this. - PietervHuis (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
FINALLY a sensible answer out of you, was that so difficult to propose yourself? Now wishing to believe in your initiative I will you to make the collage yourself as I got other matters to attend to. Regards. --Kuban Cossack16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but as I said I still think Dudayev can go in if a better free image would appear, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. You still don't have given valid grounds to exclude him, so don't jump to conclusions that this is some sort of concensus. - PietervHuis (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The protection of this article has expired, and as people appear to be working more cooperatively now, we can hopefully get back to work. However, I am still watching the article carefully. Please note the following:
Major changes (addition/removal of sections) must be proposed here first as a courtesy to other editors.
If someone reverts your edits, do not put them back without discussing it here first.
I will block anyone who violates WP:3RR on this article. I can't see any possible excuse for it, given the mess the article got into before. In particular, excuses along the lines of "he reverted me first" are certainly invalid.
Any disagreements which cannot be resolved here must be taken to dispute resolution. Repeatedly reverting someone else's edits is not an acceptable solution, no matter how "wrong" they are. Dispute resolution is much more effective than requesting action from an administrator at WP:ANI.
Thanks Papa, however I still strongly feel the current version of the history section is far from neutral and very POV laden. Right now I am in process of re-writing and expanding it here, its not yet complete but if anyone wishes to use it as a basis of their own version then please do, I will not edit the main article for a time yet, until I finish the section, then we can compare the versions, agree on parts that can go, disagree on what can't and then work towards a compromise. In the meantime Papa, can you please put a neutrality tag onto the article? --Kuban Cossack10:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't intend to get bogged down in this nonsense again, but why have reliable sources been removed from this article? --Folantin (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The question must be why anyone who disputes the following is editing this article: that there was large-scale Chechen resistance to Russian rule, that the Chechen people was deported on Stalin's orders and suffered massive loss of life in consequence, and that Chechens attempted to regain independence for Chechnya in the 1990s. I'm sorry, but this is common knowledge. --Folantin (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well that above is a POV, and a WP:POINT statement. To portray the article in the tone of that POV violates the core WP:NEUTRALITY policy. Fact is that Chechnya was not wholly resisted, for example in 1765 after some Chechens along with Ingush accepted Russian sovereignity they were re-settled onto the right bank of the Terek (where they still live). During the Caucasus War Yermolov's tactics were blood for blood, and the Chechen brutality towards Russians and others is well documented as well. After the end of the Caucasus war Chechnya was peacefull region, as shown by Tchermoeff's example, many were trusted with roles very close the Emperor. Also the deportation of 1944, on the order of Beria & Stalin (niether Russian btw) was a form of collective punishment, that many other nations of the Soviet Union were subjected to (Russians including). And there was insurgency in Chechnya prior to irregardless of how innoccent one can portray them. Furthermore the post-1957 repression is complete bullshit, Chechens were a titular nation, they held all the administrative roles in the republic, moreover they were rewarded with ethnic Russian land of the left-bank Terek, which they quickly setteled and in 1990s ethnicaly cleansed from the indeginous Cossack descendants. Likewise the 1990s if one reads First_Chechen_War#Chechen declaration of independence and First_Chechen_War#Internal conflict in Chechnya, was anything BUT a glorious act of self-determination the current version wants the article to portray. In short the current section violates WP:NPOV and as Folantin herself said above it is a WP:POINT. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. The First Chechen War "was anything BUT a glorious act of self-determination the current version wants the article to portray". This is in response to the following statement: "The Chechen attempts to regain[neutrality disputed] independence in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union led to the two next devastating wars with the new Russian state since 1994". Slightly overreacting, aren't we? --Folantin (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
See the sections of the article how Dudaev first assasinated the heads of the Republic's CPSU branch, and then how his minions began a ruthless ethnic cleansing of non-Chechens. How crime would be more than in any other Russian region, and how the future warriors of independence would be battle christened in places like Abkhazia (wrt Basayev). --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 13:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well exactly the case. Here is how I see it, the history section needs a revamp as it is, expanded and neutral that presents only facts instead of opinions such as and perhaps a half of some random Joana Nichols whose knowledge of the regions history lacks. As pointed out earlier in my sandbox I have already completed work prior to 1944. The current version of the article's history as a POV-statement and WP:POINT is absoloutely unacceptable because it violates a core wiki policy. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Back to the point
Guys, your argument is far too general at the moment, and we won't see any progress unless it is confined to a more limited scope. Please could you address the questions I asked about the statements tagged by User:Kuban kazak? Papa November (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Problem is that the section is far too general and in terms of quality of English rather poor. It needs expanding as it is and revamping. In doing so the six points I highlighted need to be removed/rewritten/NPOVed.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No, this is the point. Why on earth am I supposed to deal with some user who adds neutrality tags to "The Chechen attempts to regain[neutrality disputed] independence in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union led to the two next devastating wars with the new Russian state since 1994"* and claims that's some kind of glorification of Chechen self-determination. This is ludicrous. (*Grammar tags I would allow there). --Folantin (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Off-topic comment about user conduct, rather than content
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well that statement seems to re-inforce my suspicion that someone wants to keep the WP:POINT and non-neutral text per his/her political beliefs as seen in the original reply and coult not care less about consensus and/or compromise. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 14:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see why my comment regarding Folantin's refusal to seek consensus/compromise was archived and yet her where she attacks my justifiable remarks about the poor quality of the section and its clear lack of neutrality and objectiveness are kept. Put it this way, so far I have not seen any remakrs from Folantin regarding the actual content dispute. I hope for example why does she feel the statement Though "rehabilitated" in 1956 and allowed to return the next year, the survivors lost economic resources and civil rights and, under both Soviet and post-Soviet governments, they have been the objects of (official and unofficial) discrimination and discriminatory public discourse. is accurate and objective? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 15:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Who's this "she" you keep talking about? Don't dodge the issue. Explain what's unneutral about "The Chechen attempts to regain[neutrality disputed] independence in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union led to the two next devastating wars with the new Russian state since 1994"? --Folantin (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Your infobox stated you are a mother, I assume that goes for your gender, unless of course you are a female-to-male transsexual. What exactly did I dodge? Anyhow here is the problem. First the "attempts" which can be broken into (chaotic crime 1989-1990; Violent takeover by Dudayev1990-1993; Ethnic Cleansing of Russians1990-1994; Uncontrolled crime and radicalization 1993-1994; Then finally the First Chechen War (1994-1996); The terrorist/wahhabi Republic of Ichkeria(1996-1999); The Second Chechen War (1999-2002). Then finally the pacification and rebuilding of Chechnya. Needless to say, Chechens fought against each other in both conflicts. I would write: By the end of the 1980s, the social and ethnic pressures that built up during the stagnation years erupted, and combined with the collapsing authority of Soviet government saw the republic fall into chaos, with crime rates rocketing. In 1990 the Soviet Air Force general Dzhokhar Dudaev formed the All-National Congress of the Chechen People which violantly took over the adiministration of the republic and declared secession from the RSFSR and independence. Unrecognized by the new Moscow government under Boris Yeltsin, Dudaev's reign saw the republic dissolve into anarchy, during which Ingushetia choosing to remain part of Russia broke from Grozny. Many, including most of the non-Chechen population fled the region. Eventually disagreement with Moscow would see two Civil Wars, which would leave many dead, and nearly all of the infrastructure destroyed. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see, you failed to spot my userboxes were just a parody? They also said I was a "dad". All a hoax, sorry. I don't really believe Dagenham should withdraw from NATO either (Romford maybe, but not Dagenham). But back to the point. Your proposed version is hardly, um, neutral, is it? In what way is any of this not concisely covered by the term "devastating"? In what way did Chechens not seek to "regain" their independence (another apparent sticking point)? --Folantin (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well most people actually fled the region, Chechens including, many rurals were as terrorised by the Ichkerians as they were of the Federal Forces. Yes I disagree with the POV statement that they wished to regain it as if that's all they cared about.--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, how about "The Russian attempts to supress the Chechen declaration of independence in the 1990s after the fall of the Soviet Union led to the two next devastating wars with the new Russian state since 1994", then? KK, I see you are disputing the fact that Russia is entirely to blame for the start of the war (which stated with the "internal conflict" they sponsored and which included Russian soldiers who were killed and captured while disguised as Chechens). Even Yeltsin called this war "the greatest mistake of his life". Even the absolutely hawkish general Shamanov (who once declared all that "families of bandits" to be legitimate targets, and all Chechens above 12 to be treated as suspected combatants) recently said the Russian side simply did not negotiate honestly at all, while the compromise which would satisfy both sides would be reached if they did, and the war and "many dead" avoided (nothing about any "ethnic cleansing"); I gave you a link (an Interfax interview) already. Isn't it completely obvious now? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Russian active-service soldiers disguised as Chechens (opposition fighters), driving unmarked Russian tanks and supported by unmarked Russian aircraft. So much about "internal Chechen conflict".
Shamanov (btw, a notorious war criminal according to human rights groups and the European Court[9]) about who was to blame for the war:
Copyright 2008 Interfax News Agency
All Rights Reserved
Chechen war could have been avoided - general
MOSCOW July 7
The counter-terrorist operation in Northern Caucasus is unlikely to end in the near future, head of the Armed Forces department for combat training Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov said.
"The operation can be considered as completed when criminals stop killing and abducting people, when there are be no militants," Shamanov said in an interview published by the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper published on Monday.
The Chechen war could have been avoided, if first president of the so-called republic of Ichkeria Gen. Dzhokhar Dudayev was treated "wisely and delicately," the general said.
"We acted arrogantly and from a position of force and intimidation. We dictated uncompromising conditions. We pushed Dudayev into the corner. We did not take into consideration the hot Caucasian temperament. It was then possible to agree and find a solution that would have been acceptable and wise for both us and he," he said.
The Kremlin's main mistake was "thoughtless attitude to Dudayev, rough work with him and his team. Various demands were put forward, and the process was not controlled," Shamanov said.
Actually, I could cite another good source (a book written by good historians) that tells the following: First Chechen war has began because Dudaev was unable to continue paying huge bribes to officials from the Russian government. Would such citation help?Biophys (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Reminder
Latest comment: 16 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion
Just a reminder of the core policy verifiability ("... an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow"). :
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.
I would say I agree with the statement, but in case of the usage of non-english sources, like the pilot version I am writing in my sb, even material that is not available online I can provide scans so it be verified as requested. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100%. Actually, I would vote to remove all Russian language sources as less reliable (perhaps excluding modern academic books) if there is a sufficient set of English language sources to create a good article on the subject. This is the case here.Biophys (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
The core policy does not prohibit usage of it, unlike Biophys is suggesting, so tough, Russian sources remain, of course with the quoteof the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article--Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages". I want reliable English sources for this article. The Uralov incident has proved just how far we can trust your use of Russian sources. --Folantin (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Especially when I've gone to great length to prove that the Russian source material was not used correctly (see my report here [10]). --Folantin (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It is our obligation to select most reliable and preferably English language sources in all cases when such sources are available (such as this article). This has nothing to do with personal essays like WP:STICK. Let's follow the core WP policy WP:Verifiability by providing best available sources.Biophys (talk) 02:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Personal attacks & Axe Grinding again
Once again I feel the discussion is failing as User:Folantin has again engaged in in the same flame war, that broke the initial attempt, so I will continue writing my re-write here, I encourage ALL to review it and make corrections as necessary, and afterwards I will via WP:DR attempt to have it, or significant part of it replace the nonsense that is presently in the article. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Dodging the issue once again. Pointing out obvious facts and giving reminders of core policies do not constitute "personal attacks". --Folantin (talk) 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Being rude and ignoring other peoples comments as well as refusing to actually seek for compromise do, anyhow, the re-write is there, contribute if you wish. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 08:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"Ignoring other people's comments"? By the looks of things, it took you until yesterday to drop the Uralov reference from your proposed material [11] (not a reliable source now for some reason?). As you can see from this very page I pointed out the problems with this reference not matching your material on July 3. --Folantin (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it took you two and a half weeks to bother to read your own source. Great. You've proved my point. Let’s have a little look at your proposed revisions [12]. Let’s deal with one source we can check up on because it’s in English and I have (some limited) access to it online. KK writes: “The Chechens were known for their bitter savagery against the Russian military, and civilian population during their raids” and references this to Peter Hopkirk The Great Game Kodansha International, 1992. Now I’ve looked in the index to Hopkirk and I can’t find the word “Chechen(s)” there. I’ve also performed my own searches inside the book and come up with nothing. Mysterious. --Folantin (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
You read the book in one go? Have a look under the Caucasus: Russian expansion into. I'll find the exact citation when I pick it up tomorrow (right now I am writing from a remote area via sat-com.) --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the index, Amazon Reader and Google books there are no references to "Chechens" in the book. That makes it less than an ideal source for an article on Chechen people. --Folantin (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
So, anything's "disputed" still, really?
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
"In the Middle Ages, the Chechens were dominated by the Khazars and then the Alans."
The Chechens were not dominated by Alans or Khazars. The information is not referenced. Moreover, Chechens were called Alans.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingushetia (talk • contribs)
Referenced to Jaimoukha. "Chechens were called Alans". Erm, not very likely. The Alans are the ancestors of the Ossetians. --Folantin (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
In the medieval russian works, the ossetians are referenced as "Ossy" (Оссы/Ассы). Also such a small nation like Ossetians, even despite their extremely peaceful way of life (in caucasian terms) speaks against any possible domination by them of their much more warlike and numerous neighbours like Chechens or Adygha/Circassians (who numbered around couple of millions compared to tiny ~50,000 ossetians in 19th century)...05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Chechens are thought to been direct descendants of Alans, but are the Chechens in close connection with Iranian peoples and the nation of Iran? The Iranian government has reached out to them in the Chechen wars of the 1990s and 2000s, and about 5,000 Chechens are thought to live in Iran. The Chechen language is not of Indo-European origin, however, they seem to share some cultural characteristics of the Iranian and Azeri (Turkic speaking) people they lived in proximity with for over thousands of years. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
it is leaving out Krasnoyarsk Krai
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
this region has chechens but there exact number is not stated. i dont know that number but acording to wikipedia theres some there when i look at the demograpics of this russian suject. since there already stating the numbers in individual subjects of russia then all of russian subjects should be broken down. already only a few of them are left. as not being in the core region of the chechen diaspora —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.212.6 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Trolls of Wiki
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
"The term "Chechen" is ultimately believed to derive from the Iranian name for the Nokhchii and it first occurs in Arabic sources from the 8th century. "
Nokhchii has nothing to do with Iran or Persia. Name Nokhchi from Chechen means: Nokh = Prophet Noah chu = descendants.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingushetia (talk • contribs)
Read the sentence again. "Nokhchii" isn't believed to derive from Iranian, "Chechen" is. Also, follow the link to Iranian languages there - there are more of them than just Persian (e.g. Ossetian). --Folantin (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
From Ossetians us there was nothing borrowed, but there is borrowing Ossetians from the Chechens, with those ample. The ethnic "Chechen" dates back to the Sassanid rulers. Perhaps not even Iranian origin, and Chechen, ie Hurrian. In Chechnya, a region "Sesana" and the eponymous clan (Sesano, Sesankhoj, Sasana) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heshamatak (talk • contribs) 10:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
If you go by the namesake of Noah or the Chechens are Noah's people, how about a possible ethnic connection with Czechs whom are called "Tschechen" by the Germans? There isn't a known piece of evidence or documentation about the Czechs of Slavic origin are cousins of the "Chechens", except the Avars or "Caucasian Avars" have invaded and occupied the present-day area of Austria, Hungary and the Czech Republic from the 7th century AD until the beginning of the 1000's AD. Have they originated in the North Caucasus along with other Slavic peoples (i.e. Chroabats=Croats, Serboi=Serbs or Sclavine=Slav) or they are partially of Chechen (Indo-Iranian) descent? + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Heshamatak, har hayn luurg ducu mettig yac. I payd bocu humnaš yazdeš Vaynnax ducurg ãran ma daqqar ah! Töur du hon! Ah suun Noxčiyn ya Ğalğiyn mettah jopp ca lah as ho Hiri troll vu boxur du masserg qu wiki theh. Ayh yazdiyn humni bux bacah jat je vez ho, ya har bu äll tešmi bux gayt!!! Nakh05:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Nokhchi from Noah
Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion
The information seems to be dubious. It implies that Chechens have strong connection with Judaic tradition (from khazars?). I believe in the previous incarnation it was said "according to a popular legend ...", even this was rejected. Anyway, please provide references to reliable sources on the matter Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Please stop being ignorant. That "myth" other than being derived from legends and folklore, is supported by both armenian and georgian chronicles. For example Khartlis Tsokhvreba (not sure about spelling), lists that Chechens are direct descendants from the Kavkasos or Kaukasiani (after whom the Caucausus is named). He was the son of Yaphet.
This abstract comes from the Lifes of the Kings of Kartli (Khartlis Tskhovreba):
Прежде всего упомянем, что у армян и картлийцев 1, ранов 2 и моваканов 3, эров 4 и леков 5, мегрелов 6 и кавкасианов 7 — у всех [этих народов] был единый отец по имени Таргамос. Сей Таргамос был сыном Таршиса, внуком Иафета — сына Ноева.
Translation:
Let us first of all mention that both armenian, kartli, rans, movakans, people of er, lek people, megrels, and kavkasianis - all of these nations had one father by the name Targamos. This Targamos was the son of Tarshis, nephew of Japhet, son of Noah.
So is that the myth?
Here is what the commentary to 7 says: 7. Кавкасианы - один из собирательных в работе Л. Мровели этнонимов. Под ним автор подразумевает автохтонное население Северного Кавказа на территории от р. Терека до ”западных пределов” Главного Кавказского хребта. В источниках генеалогической таблицы Мровели ”кавкасианам” соответствуют сарматы, савроматы (в древнеармянском к ним добавлен этноним аланы). (Кекелидзе К. С. Указ. соч.). Грузинский термин можно признать эквивалентом последних весьма условно. В хронике Мровели под кавкасианами имеются в виду исключительно аборигены Северного Кавказа (см. комм. 57). Аланы (сарматы, савроматы) соответствуют этнониму овсы и противопоставлены местным аборигенам.
Translation:
Kavkasianis - one of the ethnonims in the works by L.Mroveli. Under the term the author meant the aborigen population of the Northern Caucasus, on the territory from the river Terek to the western frontiers of the Main Caucasian Mountains.
In the sources of the genealogical tables of Mroveli, kavkasianis are associated with sarmats, savromats (in the ancient armenian works, the ethnonim alans is added). THe georgian term cannot really be akhnowledged equivalent to the latter. In the Mroveli chronicles under the kavkasiani only the aborigenal tribes of the Northern Caucasus are meant. Alans (sarmats, savrmats) correspond to the term Ovsy and is contrasted to the local aborigens.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Daud.fr (talk • contribs) 05:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
There's many reliable sources for it indeed. It applies to all the Vainakh nations. I'm trying to get my hands on "The Chechens" by Amjad Jaimoukha which is probably the best academic resource for this page, but it takes time (It's rather expensive).Grey Fox (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh yea, maybe Jaimoukha passed that, but many other books didn't. It's not a nationalist idea invented by Chechens though, but by ancient chronicles from georgia. And according to those, not only the chechens were related to noah, but all other caucasians too. Dudayev took it a step further with an amazing story that Noha landed on Kazbek and eventually on chechen soil. Grey Fox (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, but in traditional Judaeo-Christian (and - I presume - Islamic) historiography, every people in the world is descended from Noah (because he and his family were the only humans to survive the Flood). As I've said elsewhere, this "Nokhchii is from Noah" myth/folk etymology has got a lot of traction recently, but if we do present it in the article we need to make clear it is a popular nationalist myth. --Folantin (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Update: apparently the major pusher of this idea is Khasan Baksayev, of the Research Centre of the Nokhchii Latt Islam movement, who claimed Chechen had been spoken by Adam and Noah [13] (hope link still works). --Folantin (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Honestly the idea goes back way longer, some say the word nokchii actually derives from it. If you follow Sons of Noah you'll come out at the vainakhs too. See here Caucas, according to the legend, Dzurdzuk was his son and he became the father of the vainakhs. According to here[14] thats what vainakhi used to be called too. It's also probably more fitting to call it a legend rather than a myth. Sure there's been crazy nationalists since the soviet collapse in chechnya, but their views shouldn't be taken as mainstream. These legens also persist in Georgian and Armenian history, not just chechens'. Grey Fox (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Jaimoukha says that according to the pseudo-history in the Georgian Chronicles the Nakhchamateans ("progenitors of the Nokhchii") were descended from Targamos, who came to the Caucasus from Assyria. He doesn't mention the "Nokhchii is from Noah" folk etymology. According to Valery Tishkov (Chechnya: Life in a War-Torn Society p.199): "Before the war, diverse opinions had been expressed on the origin of the term 'Nokhchi', the Chechens' name for themselves, but no one traced it to the Biblical patriarch Noah. After the war, Khasan Baksayev, of the 'research center of the Nokhchi Latt Islam movement', argued that 'the theory of domination by the Jewish dialects is now a fossilized dogma of linguistics' and that the Chechen language had been spoken by the patriarchs Adam and Noah. That name, or its variant 'Nukh' in Islam, forms the first part of Nokhchi, meaning "Noah's people." --Folantin (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I think we're discussing something different, my apologies for that. I didnt mean to say that according to the legend the word "Nokchi" means "descendents of Noah" or anything like that. I meant that according to the legend all ethnic caucasians, including the vainakhs, were close descendants of Noah. Targamos is mentioned in the bible. I don't know what Nokchii means, only that it derives from one of their oldest teips. That's something for linguistics.
Epic ancestry for the Chechens was already a story before the war. Just another quote from none other than Jokhar Dudayev:
On another occasion, on a visit to France, Dudayev amazed his hosts with a new version of the story of Noah’s Ark, in which the Ark landed in the mountains of Chechnya and Noah and his family were the direct ancestors of the Vainakhs. Mankind, therefore, owed its salvation from the Flood to the Chechens. "I can’t say how much he believed it himself, but he spoke with the conviction of a man who knows mysteries that are concealed from others," Abubakarov says (1998: 17). This is also from Tishkov's book. Grey Fox (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"Oh, I think we're discussing something different." Yeah, this discussion thread started because I reverted a user who added the claim that the true etymology of "Nokhchii" was "descendants of Noah." On the other hand, the pseudo-history might be significant enough to deserve its own article (or slot into another article on the pseudo-history of the peoples of the Caucasus in general) on the model of, say, Hunor and Magor for the Hungarians. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If you can fully verify the Chechen people are of Judaic-Semitic origins (see also Semitic peoples), we would consider the entry as valid and important on the studies of Chechen people. But it doesn't explain the Chechens' ethnic/linguistic composition doesn't mirror that of the Assyrians and Chaldeans whom are West Semites related to the Arabs and Hebrews, and are native to northern Arabia (i.e. Syria, Iraq and Turkey). There's still a mystery on the Chechens' mythological claims of descending from Noah, whom had a son (one of three) named Japheth (Yapeth) in the Bible/Torah. From what the Noah article stated, Japheth's descendants are thought to moved north and northwest into the European subcontinent (when we talk about Eurasia) to become Indo-European speaking peoples or the "Caucasian" race. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
It's so funny that someones trying to prove a myth with evidences. If you believe in Noahs Ark, than all the people including Chechens are grand children of Noah. Anyway Nokhchii is most probably from Nakh that means people. Etymology of this word is not well researched yet. Also there are some more Byblical myths in Chechen culture. For example Myth of Kezanoi Lake. Its believed there was a settlement which was so rich and sinful. God sent angel with a poor man wears. No ones helped him except one family. God flooded this settlement everyones drawned but that family, that helped the poor man. Did you remember Sodom and GomorrahNakh09:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
A myth can be connected to real or imagined historic events, that the Chechens spoke about descending from a sea-faring people caught in a global flood. What about the Yakuts or "Sakha" are related to either the Soka (Saka) empire of ancient India or Bactria (an Iranian people once lived there, but expanded north and south all the way to Arabia and Siberia), and even the east Asian people of Sakhalin? The two peoples of modern-day Russia struggle to develop a full sense of national identity, with the self-exploration of tribal folklore and cultural myth, and what made them apart from their neighbors or the Russian authorities. Oddly, you can find some Chechens living in China, Japan, India and the Middle East (i.e. Dubai and Qatar), but a scant number who are compromised of guest workers with contracts to temporarily work in these countries and are expected to return. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 05:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
"Nakh", u don't know anything about the Chechens, although the nickname you patriotic.
Nohchi consists of two words - "Noh" and the "Che", the words "Nakh" (people) and Noah are absolutely identical, and it is quite logical. The legend about the lake Kezana-Am also directly connected with Noah and our origins. Read the history of the Chechens in archives, not from Russian books.--Heshamatak (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
It is so sad to see another victim of Nationalism based falsificated history. Qizanna(ru.Kezanoi) Lake legend based on Biblical legend of Sodom and Gomorrah, its really so clear how cant you see paralels?! Legend of descendant from Noah is unprovable. Its just a legend... You need to spare you time for more useful issues. For example, Classical Nakh roofing, Nakh Mythology (as myth not as proven history), history of Nakh Tayp system, etc etc... Nakh06:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I know where the legend about Kezana-Am (you even on the Chechen wrong name of the lake have written:)) the part about the Bible that you are so laid hold of it? I have read almost all the literature about tipes(teyp), the Chechen legends etc., and I can say with certainty that the victim of propaganda is just you. It is strange to be Chechen, and have such false ideas about the history of his own people. These legends were the Chechens since the time of existence Hurrians. Heshamatak (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Hehe )) I really wrote it wrong. It had to be something like Khizanna, ok never mind. Heshamatak, if my memory not gets me wrong Hurrians didn't have any legend of city flooding. Even if they had we must consider that Hurrians loaned a huge amount of Akkadian and Canaanite legends and myths. For example legend of Anu (God of sky, compare chechen Ana:sky) was loaned from Akkad culture, also Enlil firstly was Akkad Ellil. So before claiming that Sodom and Gomorrah descendant from Khizanna we need strong evidences that really Hurrians had legend of the lake before Canaan and Akkad. Or In Akkad and Canaan they appear after they met Hurrians.
Anu from sumerian "ana", it's not semitic word. "El" hurrian word mean "God" ("Alau"), too hurrian. Hurrians much ancient Semitic peoples, it is a fact. Heshamatak (talk) 07:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Btw on some Ebla tablets dated 2250 BC indicated in Summerian (lang.) Two cities si-da-mu and ì-ma-ar. Maybe they were real Sodom and Gomorrah. Need to compare did Sumerians already had legend of flooding the city while si-da-mu and ì-ma-ar were living in prosper. I wish I was studying history.. )))
La'ah ca la'ah ša berš txox sha bovla boxu hum dicič har nax qiyra lo huun. Čox theh vell xil ca öša. Ärmloš i hum lieldiyn šayx ša bolu biezam bay’an huun. Caar hu’a’ älč, naax yuxa’ cha äšpš xir bar iššam õli düt ceer hum. Vayx išt bezam ma bay’itlah. Niis duy daaci loxš ma duy vay. La’ah ca la’ah vayn dayš xilla iš ma ca boxi vay.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the religion of the article, it currently says that most Chechens follow Shafi'i rites, however in the reference provided it says that they are Hanafi[15]. In other sources it says that they are Shafii, eg [16]. Can anyone please clarify? --Urduboy (talk) 12:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Genetics: ref Balanovsky
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't knox how to edit the reflist but here is the ref. for Balanovsky paper:
Balanovsky, O.; Dibirova, K.; Dybo, A.; Mudrak, O.; Frolova, S.; Pocheshkhova, E.; Haber, M.; Platt, D. et al. (2011). "Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region". Molecular Biology and Evolution 28 (10): 2905–20. doi:10.1093/molbev/msr126. PMID21571925. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mreg93 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Image: Khanpasha Nuradilov with a bodycount several times greater than John Rambo's (920 "confirmed kills")
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Can we get any less mythological figure? And not some Stalinist propaganda fairy tale according to which one WWII infantryman destroyed what ammounts to a whole regiment. --Niemti (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually Mansur can also be questioned, as some people say he was really an Italian former monk and adventurer named Giambattista Boetti. --Niemti (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Lead summary is basically yet to be written
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Agree. As to the notability section, please do not again delete it on the basis of it not being complete. Notability sections are both: a) standard; and b) virtually never complete. We start somewhere. It is disruptive to delete appropriate material. Add to it if you like, to make it more complete. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Madhab
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Done Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
A young Chechen boyevik (fighter) in Grozny in 1995 (a photo by Mikhail Evstafiev)
Elderly Chechen women pleading for the Russian troops not to advance, 1994 (Evstafiev)
The first pro-Russian president Akhmad Kadyrov in a traditional headgear
Tapa Tchermoeff, leader of the Mountainous Republic
Image free use. 
