Talk:Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994)

Okay. This is problematic.

@Willbb234: This article needs sourcing and it needs it bad. You don't want to ascribe crimes against humanity to a nation without intense sourcing. I also feel strongly about the importance of finding some neutral editors with established active accounts dating back before let's say ~2015 to establish that this is the basis of something encyclopedic. To be crystal clear I'm not implying this isn't a truthful article, I'm implying it's a fricken hot potato of a subject right now. Could you get an RfC going?Jasphetamine (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine: I don't know if you knew, but I didn't write this article. What would the RfC be on? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah @Willbb234: didn't assume you wrote it just assumed since you filed the GOCE request you had some vested interest in it. Anyway what I'm going to do is pester someone who has all the answers and hopefully a few spare minutes.

@Miniapolis: Hey -- terribly sorry to bother you, but I want to be extra sure GOCE is meant to fix... what I would describe as a barely sourced machine translated NPOV-violation about atrocities committed in the former Soviet bloc. If not, do I just blanket this thing in templates about its flaws? It's such dicey subject matter. Jasphetamine (talk) 19:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jasphetamine: cheers, good to see we're on the same page now. I came across the article while WP:NPPing so have no interest in the subject itself. Oh, and copyediting isn't about fixing lack of citations, so it's best to just tag/remove the content, which is what I normally do. Thanks for the time, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The person who wrote this who you are looking for is User:Mark Ekimov. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yea, the issue isn't whether I should personally fix citations, but rather that I am able to and would be fine with making a poorly cited article style compliant if it was about maybe some obscure woodworking technique or something, but this isn't that. Know what I mean? Thanks for the reference to the author, I'll follow that up. Jasphetamine (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Chiming in to second Jasphetamine's concerns. There's a lot of bad OR, indirect contradiction of other articles on related subjects that seem better written. A Google Scholar search for "ethnic cleansing in Chechnya" only returns results about Soviet policies during the Stalin years, in direct contradiction of this article's current assertion that incidents during the Soviet years were merely "deportation" not ethnic cleansing (never mind that Ethnic cleansing lists deportation as a possible method in its lead). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:08, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  I've done a bit more research and have at least found evidence in a reliable source that ethnic cleansing of Russian civilians did occur in the 1990s in Chechnya ([1]). That doesn't absolve this article of all of its issues, but I'm leaning against WP:TNT given that this does seem to be a real historical event. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I would back taking to AfD on the grounds of TNT. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

I've made some progress on the article and honestly think it's salvageable. At this point, I've come across enough evidence in RS that ethnic cleansing against Russians did occur in Chechnya following the collapse of the USSR. I think that if we keep removing undue quotes and OR, and add some information about Russian actions in the Chechen Wars (as well as a section on Soviet actions in the 1940s, and anti-Soviet actions by Chechen nationalists in the 40s and 80s), the article will be halfway decent. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:44, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, knowing that would you prefer me throwing cute needed and clarify tags on suspect info while working on the style, or kill off the sentence and let you find it in the diffs? If I don’t hear back I’ll assume the former as it’s less destructive. Jasphetamine (talk) 02:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Jasphetamine, I think this depends on the claim. That having been said, my experience going through the first half of the article was that rather than strictly missing citations, the article is largely just leaning improperly on primary sources. So if you see something that's cited to an eye witness without clear justification from a secondary source, feel free to delete. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

(←) Well, I wish someone had commented on the GOCE's talk pages about the c/e request. We've declined the request for now; please feel free to relist it once it's rewritten, properly cited, stable and neutral. See the discussion at REQ Talk (current version) as of my timestamp. Cheers, Baffle☿gab 20:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

"Former Soviet- republics"

Should this become "Post Soviet nation" "post Soviet state" or something more specific? Not all regions of the USSR became republics in a strict sense of the world. Jasphetamine (talk) 02:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure which parts of the article you're referring to exactly, but in my experience, the phrase "former Soviet republic" generally refers to regions that were formerly republics in the Soviet Union (e.g. Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic, Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic, etc.). To my knowledge, many minority ethnic regions of Russia are still organized this way (Chechnya's formal name, for instance, is the Chechen Republic, Чеченская Республика). _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Work

Jasphetamine, Rosguill is this complete? The tag is still up, not sure if you were planning on continuing? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Willbb234, the issues with the article remain. I don't know how much I'll be able to commit to making further improvements in the coming days. If Jasphetamine is not going to actively contribute this week, then I think that the "under construction" notice can be taken down. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Renaming article

The whole article cannot be accepted in the version it is today. It is bellow Wikipedia's standards. I suggest renaming it to either "Anti-Russian sentiment in Chechnya 1991-1994" or "De-Russificiation of Chechnya 1991-1994".
Just take the sources: we mostly have only Russian-government owned websites like RIA, Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Zvezda.ru, or Ozon.ru, an online retail company. Insufficient. What are some reliable (preferably English) sources that confirm the term ethnic cleansing? The whole article just seems to have taken over all the propaganda from the Russian Wikipedia article without checking or reviewing these claims and subjecting them to scrutiny. Unless the article is rewritten into a decent shape, it should be drastically altered.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

3E1I5S8B9RF7 yes it should be and I agree. As you can see above, attempts have been made to change this article, but I think a more forceful approach is needed. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 16:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I would advocate for Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994) as a new title. Merely describing it as sentiment ignores that we do have RS (e.g. [2]) that confirm that violence occurred. I also generally dislike terms like De-[ethnic group]-ification because when used in academic literature such terms usually have more nuance than just "violence and/or persecution directed toward that demographic", so unless we specifically have sources calling it "De-Russification" I would stay away from that term. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I would agree renaming it to "Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994)".--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Status of work on this thing?

Reads better and I think the new page title is excellent but there's still just an overwhelming lack of citations. Would this subject be better served by finding an appropriate subject to merge it with? That'd allow for the subject matter to remain on Wikipedia but with a greatly reduced word count. Jasphetamine (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

A proposition for a merger with the Russophobia article, or deleting this one and merging it's NPOV contents with other relevant articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was unanimous agreement to merge Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994) into Anti-Russian sentiment. Sextus Caedicius (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

---

I'm seeing similar problems that other Wikipedians have already pointed out( @Willbb234: @Jasphetamine: ). I'm proposing this article for a merger with the Russophobia article, or deleting this one and integrating what it contains of NPOV content into the Russophobia article. The contents of this article are already covered in at least two other separate articles, in the Minorities section of the Chechen republic of Ichkeria article, and under the North Caucasus section of the Russophobia article. This article does also not meet the Wikipedia criteria for NPOV, it relies almost exclusively on Russian state connected media outlets(RIA novosti, Izvestiya, Itar-tass etc.) Alfred Koch in the 2000s was at the forefront of Gazprom media's takeover of NTV(one of Russia's independently controlled media outlets at the time), he's also quoted in the article as an authority on the "ethnic cleansing of Russians from Chechnya". The emigration/cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo does not have it's own article yet it is covered in the demographics section of the Kosovo article, I am proposing a similar solution in this case. What are your thoughts fellow Wikipedians. Sextus Caedicius (talk) 15:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Sextus Caedicius

I can get behind this, if nothing see it’ll get more eyes on it that might already be wrangling these kinds of articles. I’m super super uncomfortable just leaving it as a stand-alone. Even if this was perfectly sourced and cited and everything, without a larger Russophobia context it is just too... nuanced. Complicated sensitive subject matter should not sit alone. Jasphetamine (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree. As you mentioned, this topic has already been covered twice in other articles. Therefore I see no reason as to having a stand-alone article for this. Merging it with the bigger Russophobia article might be the best move as this will attract more readers. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we get an informal poll going?Jasphetamine (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Merge strongly support Jasphetamine (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I strongly support mergingSextus Caedicius (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the mentioned reasons, and I think this article should be merged with the russophobia article Goddard2000 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe we should merge Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of the previous posters, the article should be merged. Reiner Gavriel (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questionable article

This whole article is very questionable with questionable sources (Russian media?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usar-Aeli (talk • contribs) 17:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting AfD

I see that the outcome of the AfD was merger, however de facto it led to a deletion: compare the last version of this article [3] to Anti-Russian_sentiment#Within_Russia.

I'm conscious of the argument that that this article mostly relied on Russian-language sources, however we should not just dismiss them altogether. Some of the media that are unreliable now were quite good in the 90s and early aughts. Freedom House classified Russia as "partly free" back then [4] Some others are still okay (Kommersant, Echo Moskvy).

In any case I believe that it should be possible to find less questionable sources. I'll try to do it and hopefully will raise it again. Pinging Sextus Caedicius as the closer. Alaexis_¿question? 07:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the page after doing pretty drastic modifications. I've used two new sources: Chechnya: From Nationalism to Jihad by James Hughes and Russia Confronts Chechnya: Roots of a Separatist Conflict by John Dunlop to reference the key facts. I've also removed a lot of content that was poorly sourced or wasn't due (things like initiatives which went nowhere and opinions of more or less well-known journalists and politicians). Alaexis_¿question? 10:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Onel5969, I've explained here why I restored this page and which modifications I made to take into account the issues raised at the AfD. Could you explain which problems you see now? Alaexis_¿question? 12:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

North8000, I've explained here why I restored this page and which modifications I made to take into account the issues raised at the AfD. Could you explain which problems you see now? Alaexis_¿question? 13:42, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

As noted below my main concerns are from a process standpoint. Those would be addressed if there was a real discussion on this here....maybe have it open for a week.North8000 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I came across this because it came up for New Page Patrol review. I restored the redirect. One reason is that such was the decision from the last substantive discussion on this. Also the new references do not address the main reason for the decision which is that it is duplication of material in two other articles. My own additional thought is that extracting and emphasizing one particular aspect (as the title of this one does) is POV'ish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I re-read the AfD discussion and I still don't see in which two other articles this information is duplicated. If it's the Anti-Russian_sentiment article, then its scope is much broader and it does not and should not contain all the information that I restored.

This article describes one aspect of the conflict, similar to 1999 Russian bombing of Chechnya or Bombing of Dresden in World War II. I don't see any NPOV issues here. At the end of the day, the notability should be determined based on reliable sources and the books I cited have chapters dedicated mostly to this topic ("Toward an ethnocratic Chechen state" in Russia confronts Chechnya and "Nationalism and the Nature of the Dudaev Regime" in Chechnya From Nationalism to Jihad). Alaexis_¿question? 14:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave it open for a week as you suggested. I've pinged the original closer but they haven't responded yet. Alaexis_¿question? 15:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

No objections have been raised here, so I'm restoring the article. Alaexis_¿question? 08:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969, this is the discussion, you are welcome to participate here. I tagged you when when you reverted me first and you haven't responded here. Alaexis_¿question? 12:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to leave the discussion open for at least a month, in order to see if there is appropriate consensus (only due to the sporadic activity of some folks who watch the page, usually a week would be fine). Especially since prior consensus was unanimous. Am pinging prior participants, Sextus Caedicius, Jasphetamine, Ola Tønningsberg, Goddard2000, and Reiner Gavriel. And until a different consensus is reached, I would object to reinstating the article, as I believe it is a WP:FORK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding WP:CFORK, by definition a "content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject." Which article treats this subject already?

I've already tagged Sextus Caedicius but I have no problem getting feedback from other editors too. I've also placed notifications at Wikipedia:WikiProject Caucasia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia. Alaexis_¿question? 13:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to make sure I didn't confuse anybody with my final note, I don't have an opinion on how this should end up. What I did was only interim/temporary and only for the process reasons noted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this article should not be reinstated, all the aforementioned reasons still stand in my opinion, as well as the fact that you didn’t commission any sort of vote before you did this either. There just isn’t much precedent on Wikipedia for this article to stand.( Post USSR Georgia, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, etc.) Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Which aforementioned reasons? I provided sources which cover this topic and so far there have been zero policy-based arguments why they don't count for determining notability. Alaexis_¿question? 09:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Onel5969, I've made every effort to reach consensus however as you can see no one has engaged with my arguments and with multiple reliable sources they are based upon. Consensus doesn't mean that one party can prevent any change by not participating in discussion. Alaexis_¿question? 18:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Alaexis - you made every effort. I think that's all anyone could ask. Thanks for your patience. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I’m trying to catch up here — is the new plan to ditch the old planAlaexis? Apologize for being off wiki so long. Jasphetamine (talk) 22:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I think the article has been pretty stable after the clean up and improving the quality of the sources (some of which can be found below). Alaexis_¿question? 19:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I’m gonna go ahead and read it over myself, ping @Onel5969 as they were in the consensus of the previous decision with me, and see how I feel about it now. I just wanna get their current opinion and update my own opinion, don’t take it as me looking to build a case against your work. I’m just trying to decide if I want to help out with the c/e, or if there’s still a chance this thing might get jostled around again. Jasphetamine (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

---

The following books and articles describe the policies of the Chechen authorities towards non-Chechens in 1991-1994.

• James Hughes. Chechnya: From Nationalism to Jihad, chapter Nationalism and the Nature of the Dudaev Regime

“ Armed Chechens, infused with a "Kalashnikov culture," turned against non-Chechens, mainly Russians, who did not have kin or clientelist protections. One consequence of the policy of blockade and nonintervention was that the ethnic Slav (overwhelmingly Russian) minority were left unprotected. A decade-long process of Slav emigration was suddenly accelerated as about 90,000, about one-third of the total number living in Chechnya, were physically expelled or otherwise forced to leave in 1991-92, ”

• Dunlop, John Barrett. Russia Confronts Chechnya: Roots of a Separatist Conflict, chapter Toward an ethnocratic Chechen state starts with "Once he had solidified his grip on power, General Dudaev began the construction of an ethnocratic Chechen state" but I urge you to read the whole chapter.
• Chechnya Versus Tatarstan: Understanding, Ethnopolitics in Post-Communist Russia [5], section Ethnic Exclusion in Chechnya

“ Dzhokhar Dudaev, in contrast, pursued policies based on ethnic exclusion. He built his political career by mobilizing political and military support, pursuing radical nationalist policies, ... His policies had a highly negative effect on inter-ethnic relations in Chechnya, causing a mass exodus of Russians. A survey conducted by the All-Russia Public Opinion Research Center in 1991-92 found that 37 percent of the Russians in Chechnya wanted to leave, a larger percentage than in any other part of the fonner Soviet Union. According to the Federal Migration Service of Russia, more than 90,000 people left Chechnya in 1991-93.2 ”

Alaexis_¿question? 10:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to bow out here.North8000 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

2023-2024

This article has severe issues. It largely relies on Russian sources to support it's view of "genocide" of the Russian speaking population of Chechnya. Looking through this it more or less constitues a WP:FRINGE theory. I will elaborate on this issue further when I have the chance. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 11:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not black and white... While it can hardly be considered a genocide, there are plenty of reliable sources (both Western and Russian) which describe the violence faced by the non-Chechens in the early 1990s.

Also, in the 1990s the press in Russia was relatively free, with multiple opposition media outlets criticising the way the government was prosecuting the war. Therefore, you can't just dismiss the Russian sources of that period. If there are new sources which illuminate this topic, let's see what they say and what changes we'll need to make. Alaexis_¿question? 17:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that if we're gonna ascribe crimes against humanity to a nation then you need incredible sourcing. The lack of sources from reliable human rights organizations or workers indicates that the content of this article is extremely dubious. Most of these allegations have originated from Russia and marks a conflict of interest on this matter. It can easily be compared to Accusations of genocide in Donbas, in which Russia accused Ukraine of committing genocide of the Russian speaking population. While some violence against citizens occurred, this was not exclusive to Russians. Moreover, criminality was commonplace across the whole former Soviet Union. Russian journalist and human rights activist, Maxim Shevchenko notes:

The legend of the genocide of Russians in Chechnya, which has become so entrenched on the Internet, does not really have sufficiently intelligible confirmation. Both Russians and non-Russians then had the same bad luck, believe me. Then people were killed in Moscow too. They threw old people and pensioners onto the streets. Gangs of Moscow were operating in the streets: Koptevskaya, Lyuberetskaya, various other gangs that robbed people, threw people out of their apartments ... I believe that most of the killed Russians happened after the start of the massive bombing of Grozny. This is simply proven historically.

— https://web.archive.org/web/20141022112008/http://www.rusnovosti.ru/programms/prog/70601/271620/

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you really want to rely on Maksim Shevchenko's words? Recently he said that Russia is freeing the Ukrainians from a "liberal-fascist regime." Alaexis_¿question? 13:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, as I've been away from wiki for some time now. I acknowledge your skepticism regarding Maksim Shevchenko, but you need to consider the context and the content of his statement. Shevchenko's statement regarding the alleged genocide of Russians in Chechnya offers a perspective that counters the narrative supported by the Russian government at the time. This only lends credibility to his statement. Although his comment on Ukraine is absurd, his remark about Chechnya deserve consideration, especially since it offers a counter-narrative that he was not politically obliged to support. So yes, I do think it is something we can rely on. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I also think it would be beneficial to consider Shevchenko's statements on Chechnya alongside reports from human rights organizations and media. Although I've been going through dozens of articles, I've yet to find reports from the early 1990s that support the stance of ethnic cleansing of the Russian population in Chechnya. Considering that Grozny was filled with journalists at the time, and considering the international community's response to such events elsewhere (Armenia, Bosnia etc.), I would expect that an ethnic cleansing of this magnitude would have resulted in an international uproar and large media coverage. The absence of reporting calls into question the scale and nature of the persecutions.

The only articles I could find from that period that mentions anything of the sort is this article from 1992 which says:

About 20,000 Russians have left the region, but more than 300,000 still stay because they enjoy a higher standard of living than in the bleak Russian heartlands, because of intermarriage or because they were born there and have nowhere else to go.

— https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-03-29-mn-473-story.html

Or this from 1994 that says Yeltsin accused Dudayev of persecuting Russians:

Russian government accused Dudayev of persecuting the 150,000 Russians who live in Chechnya. President Boris N. Yeltsin’s chief of staff, Sergei A. Filatov, also alleged that Dudayev supporters beheaded three Chechens who had helped Russian police catch a band of hijackers in southern Russia and had displayed their severed heads in downtown Grozny. The Russian Interior Ministry produced two gruesome photographs of heads and headless corpses, which were broadcast repeatedly Monday on Russian state television. Journalists in Grozny, however, have turned up no evidence that any such beheading ever took place. The Moscow Times newspaper, in a sharply worded editorial published Tuesday, suggested that the Yeltsin government may be trying to prepare the Russian public for a military incursion.

— https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-08-03-mn-23004-story.html

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, this wouldn’t be the first occasion that the sufferings of a group get less international attention, especially if the perpetrators are supported by at least the majority of the Western public opinion, see Kosovo Serbs, Arabs in Iraqi Kurdistan or the pro-Gaddafi blacks in Tawergha. Without trying to say that the Serbian, Iraqi or Libyan governments, respectively, were not the greater evil in these cases (or the Russian Army in Chechnya, for that matter), this phenomenon does exist. Txorria (talk) 09:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the LA Times article reports a number of the ethnic Russian population of Chechnya which exceeds that of the results of the census in 1989. Even supposing that this is the result of conflating other non-Chechens with Russians, the question why the Russian population has mostly fled by 2002 and why didn’t they return later if they were fleeing from the war is not explained.

Also, beside those already mentioned in the article, there are definitely anti-Putinist, liberal sources which confirm that ethnic violence against Russians in Chechnya did happen, even if some accounts were exaggerated by the Russian government.

Oleg Orlov, the head of the Memorial human rights centre’s North Caucasus programme told me that both he and Russia’s Human Rights Ombudsperson Sergey Kovalev had witnessed harassment of Chechnya’s Russian-speaking population. “We encountered lawless and outrageous situations,” Orlov told me. “Gangs of bandits were attacking Russian speakers, knowing that the authorities in the de facto independent Chechen Republic of Ichkeria wouldn’t touch them. We handed all the information we gathered to [then President] Yeltsin. But there was no need for it, because soon afterwards a war broke out. “

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/left-behind-russian-life-chechnya/

BTW, Neroznikova usually writes about the human rights violations in Chechnya by the Kadyrov regime and the Russian state, so she is not a Russian nationalist spreading fake news. Txorria (talk) 08:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo Serbs, Arabs in Kurdistan have absolutely received attention but are irrelevant to this topic. Key difference here is that there is no evidence to support what this article claims, which directly explains the lack of attention and reporting on this matter. The LA Times number does not discredit its reliability, and its not too far off the census of 270,000. Keep in mind, Sergei Stepashin had even claimed the number was 350,000. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

They got way less attention than Kosovo Albanians or Kurds, respectively. And considering how there seems to be a consensus about Stepashin exaggarating the number of refugees, I find it hard to believe that the same number coming from the LA Times would be more credible. Txorria (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Wanted to add to Txorria's comment above, WP:AGEMATTERS applies here. A contemporary article in LA Times is a less reliable source than books or reports (like the 2019 Open Democracy report mentioned above) published later when more evidence became available. Also, the accusations by Yeltsin's officials are irrelevant - "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." The abuses were convenient for Yeltsin who wanted a quick and victorious war but it doesn't mean they did not take place. Alaexis_¿question? 11:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

What new evidence has become available? Since the early 1990s, the primary sources for this claim have largely been statements from Russian government figures, and subsequently picked up by others without an investigation into these claims. There exists no substantial physical, photographic, and analytical evidence from independent and credible sources about the topic.

Regarding the Open Democracy article by a Russian journalist. Ethnic cleansing is a sensitive topic to which authoritative sources are needed. There is a complete lack of such authoritative evidence in this case. Is she a scholar with a track record of rigorous investigation into this topic? Has she conducted independent research that offers new, verifiable insights? Without such qualifications or evidence, her retrospective account doesn't give us the reliability needed.

These claims of ethnic cleansing has been scrutinized and challenged by scholars like John B. Dunlop, Anatol Lieven and other first-hand testimonies. Dunlop, who in "Russia Confronts Chechnya: Roots of a Separatist Conflict" highlights that these claims were exaggerated or manipulated for political purposes. Dunlop notes that:

Accounts of the suffering of the Russian-language populace of Chechnya have been intentionally and at times grotesquely exaggerated by representatives of the Russian intelligence services. According to the former chariman of the FSK, Sergrei Stepashin: "During the three years of Dudayevs rule 350,000 were diven out of the republic [this is 100,000 more than Sergei Shakhrai's estimate presented to the Constituional Court] and 45,000 persons were killed [a staggering exaggeration - the true figure might be fewer than 100]".

Dunlop further discusses the other claims and statements made during this time, which are presented as facts in this article. I will provide a larger excerpt when necessary.

Similarly, Anatol Lieven, in "Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power," mentions the tendentious and unsubstantiated nature of these claims. The Duma commission's report, chaired by Stanislav Govorukhin, alleged significant military acquisitions by the Chechens and made severe claims about the fate of ethnic Russians under Dudayev. However, Lieven points out that the report itself is:

"Deeply tendentious and marred by hysterical rhetoric and completely unsubstantiated claims, especially as regards the fate of ethnic Russians in Chechnya under Dudayev."

Additionally, Valeria Novodvorskaya, a Russian politician, publicist, and human rights advocate, directly refuted these claims:

"It was all a typical lie, a wonderful fairy tale of the Kremlin in order to feed the Chechen war , that Russians were killed and expelled there... I was there! And Dzhokhar Dudayev had a Russian right hand and a minister in his government, and the first civilians in Chechnya to die were Russian old people in five-story buildings, those who did not agree to the Chechens’ proposal to evacuate to their villages, they took care of this too, so that the old people remained alive. It was on them that Russia dropped bombs, and they were the first to burn in their houses, so I have never heard a more shameless lie than “Russian genocide in Chechnya,” even if we take into account “Goebbels’ propaganda.”"

Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Nobody denies that the claims were often exaggarated, even in the article itself, but it is supposed to be about “anti-Russian violence”, not “anti-Russian genocide” (the English-language one at least). These exaggarations should be addressed. However, as it has been pointed out in other threads, denying that anti-Russian violence did happen in Chechnya, even if not to the degree the Russian government claims it did, is not a manifestatition of a struggle against Russian imperialist and/or Putinist propaganda, but a distortion of facts. (By the way, I would be very hard-pressed to consider Novodvorkskaya a neutral and reliable source in this case.) Txorria (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I have left a larger comment below critiquing and analyzing what is considered the absolute primary source for this "ethnic violence", namely the White Book published by Russia. Meanwhile you have not presented a single evidence corroborating the claims being made in this article. Here's a question for you. Do you also believe Ukraine committed ethnic cleansing or violence against Russians in Donbas, as claimed by Russia? On another note, here's another excerpt from "The Moscow Bombings of September 1999: Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule".

A particularly incendiary report is highlighted from Nezavisimaya gazeta, dated July 6, under the title Concerning the Position of Ethnic Russians in the Russian Republic, which claimed:

"On the territory of Chechnya there have been killed (not counting those who perished during military actions) more than 21,000 [ethnic] Russians, more than 100,000 apartments and homes have been seized which belonged to the ‘non-titular’ inhabitants of Chechnya (including the Ingush) and more than 46,000 persons have been turned into slaves or used in forced labor... Only during the period from 1991 through December of 1994 (that is, before the introduction of federal troops), Chechnya was abandoned by more than 200,000 [ethnic] Russians."

This report is critiqued by the author as such: The report referred pointedly to "ethnic terror against Russians, which has been conducted the by Chechen leaders since 1991". A more incendiary document, based on flagrantly exaggerated statistics, could scarcely be imagined. The purpose of this document appeared to be to help to provoke a second Russo-Chechen war."

On a side note, it’s interesting to see that Txorria’s account was created for the sole purpose to reply to me in this discussion and has yet to contribute to any other Wikipedia topics apart from these replies to me . Perhaps they’ll consider broadening their participation on the platform to explore other interests beyond this single conversation! Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The White Book is not used to support the core claims of the article. The situation in Ukraine is irrelevant - the false claims about the genocide in Donbass do not mean that ethnic Russians have never been the victims of ethnic violence. Alaexis_¿question? 22:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The White Book is central and serves as the absolute primary source of this topic. It has been repeatedly referenced in Russian government narratives as evidence of ‘ethnic violence’ against Russians in Chechnya. Russia’s pattern of citing alleged ethnic violence or ‘genocide’ against Russian populations in other regions such as in Donbas has repeatedly been used to justify military actions from its side. Given this history, we should be especially cautious in assessing similar claims in other cases. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Fringe info

Repeated use of phrase across conflicts

This specific line of the article, "Russian government officials described the events as a genocide and described various anti-Russian slogans attributed to Chechens which called for the expulsion and/or enslavement of Russians," refers to the sentence "Russians, don’t leave, we need slaves and prostitutes" ("Русские, не уезжайте, нам нужны рабы и проститутки"). This is a clear example of a Russian propaganda line. This slogan has been repeatedly used by Russian media and government propaganda in various conflicts across the post-Soviet space. Russian media has not limited this line to Chechnya, but also used it for:

Azerbaijan: “Yes, Baku in 1990 was seething with hatred for the ‘Russian occupiers.’ The mountaineers created Azerbaijan for the Azerbaijanis: ‘a crowd of thugs is operating on the streets and in the houses, and at the same time the protesters are walking around with mocking slogans: ‘Russians, don’t leave, we need slaves and prostitutes.’” source

Chechnya: “In the 1990s - in separatist Ichkeria (‘Russians, don’t leave, we need slaves and prostitutes,’ was the inscription lined with white stone at the entrance to Grozny under Dudayev).” source

Georgia: "In the 90s, there were posters in Tbilisi with the following text: 'Russians and Armenians, don’t leave! We need slaves and prostitutes.'" source

Kazakhstan: “Buses with the inscriptions ‘Russians, don’t leave, we need slaves and prostitutes’ drove through the cities of the ‘young independent Republic.’” source

Abkhazia: “In Sukhum, when the [Georgian] neo-Nazi degenerates invaded Abkhazia, a poster was hung on the building of the railway station: ‘Armenians and Russians - do not leave. We need slaves and prostitutes.’” source

Tajikistan: “It was during these days that the famous slogan was born: ‘Russians, don’t leave - we need slaves!’” source

Document in the White Book

A lot can be said about this section of the article specifically "The residents of Assinovskaya, Sunzhensky District, Chechnya, sent an open letter to the Russian president Boris Yeltsin, in which they named all the cases of assaults on Russian people and murders of them. The letter stated that 26 Russian families had been murdered since August 1996, and more than 52 households were kidnapped by the Chechen forces. Another appeal made by 50 thousand residents of Naursky and Shelkovsky Districts was mentioned in a book published by Rosinformcenter". I've read up on these letters and there is a total of 100-130 crimes. The crimes listed are pretty much only theft and beatings, but around 20 or more murders and about 5 kidnappings. The letters include insignificant stuff like school fights between classmates and threats. These letters have not been corroborated by any reputable human rights organization or scholars, and several of the alleged crimes are based on rumors according to the text. source John B. Dunlop has critiqued one of these letters, especially the one from Naursky and Shelkovsky, in "Russia Confronts Chechnya: Roots of a Separatist Conflict," highlighting the manipulation and exaggeration in these narratives:

"While material disseminated by the Russian special services has to be utilized with extreme care - much of it obviously constitutes disinformation - one of the documents contained in a so-called White Book of materials circulated by the Russian FSK seems deserving of comment: namely, the text of an open letter addressed to President Yeltsin, with copies to Prime Minister Chernomyrdin and to other high-ranking Russian officials, allegedly signed by 49,244 inhabitants of the Naurskii and Shelkovskii districts located in the north of the republic. This document - which appears to be authentic, though its text may have been interpolated by the FSK - began circulating in January 1995, i.e., in the month following the Russian military invasion of Chechnya."

Dunlop continues:

"Noting that the Naurskii and Shelkovskii regions previously belonged to Stavropol' krai in the Russian Federation, the nearly 50,000 signatories of the letter contend that they have been subjected to intolerable persecution by the Chechen government: 'They have deprived us of Sunday as a holiday and replaced it with Friday,' they complain. 'The teaching in school is conducted in the Chechen language.' The signatories also claim to have been subjected to economic oppression: 'For two years we have not received our wages, and old people have not gotten their pensions. We constantly hear proposals and threats that we get out of here to Russia. But we are in Russia.'" "It is difficult to determine how accurate the charges contained in this document are. The authors, it should be underlined, waited until the Russian invasion to compose their letter, and it was circulated by the FSK, hardly an impartial party."

Questionable Statistics

Another questionable claim is: "In July 1999 the Russian Ministry of Nations Affairs said that in the nine years since 1991, more than 21,000 Russian civilians lost their lives. At least 100 thousand lost their homes, and were destroyed or commandeered by native civilians. At least 46,000 individuals became de facto slaves." Are we seriously to believe that 46,000 people became slaves in a region with a population of around one million, and this went completely unnoticed by international observers and human rights organizations? The sheer scale of this claim, coupled with the lack of corroborative evidence, makes it highly suspect. Is this because of the war that 21,000 died according to them? Thousands of Russians died in Grozny, and the entire city, along with most parts of the country, was practically destroyed. The first Chechen war could explain the loss of houses and death figures. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be easier if you added your signature to each subsection, otherwise it would be a mess.

I also find the number of slaves hard to believe. The practice of enslavement of ethnic Russians in Chechnya in the 90s is well documented [6], but I think the real number was lower. This report says that 700 persons were being held hostage in Chechnya in 1999, of whom some were kidnapped for forced labour (the estimate is also attributed to the Russian authorities). The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, I think that this part of the article can definitely be improved with better sources. The current version attributes the number, so the reader isn't being misled. Alaexis_¿question? 22:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources you referenced pertain to the post-First Chechen War period, which falls outside the scope of this article’s 1991–1994 timeline. Also kidnappings and forced labor during that period wasn’t targeted at ethnic Russians. Many Chechens and foreign nationals were also victims. The numbers mentioned in the article are based on unverified and contested figures from Russia. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

If the problem is with this specific number, we can remove it (even though it's attributed). The LA Times article I've linked says that the kidnappings and forced labour started after 1994 so it looks like it was less prevalent in 1991-1994.

They were targeted at all non-Chechens, numerically ethnic Russians were the largest group. I haven't heard about Chechens enslaving other Chechens in the 1990s and find it unlikely given the historically egalitarian character of the Chechen society and the fact that ethnic Chechens were usually protected by the clans they belonged to. Obviously, they suffered from all kinds of other things in the course of the wars, including kidnappings and disappearances but it's out of scope of this article. Alaexis_¿question? 20:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)