Jump to content

Talk:Chechens/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Requested move 13 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Chechen people → Chechens – Common and standard form. Also Chechens redirect directly here thus suggest we move it. Jaqeli (talk) 22:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Ingush people should probably stay this way though. --TRIGGERWARNING (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

    • Why? Ingush is a TWODAB page and need not/should not exist; though not part of the blanket mass moves in 2010-11 per the revisions of NCL now under dispute (it had "people" added in 2005), there is no need to disambiguate Ingush as its primary meaning is rather clear; a view stats and googlesearch comparison could be run, but the language is named for the people; if anything Ingush people should be about "people who are Ingush", and "Ingush" should be for the ethnicity and its history in general.Skookum1 (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Note that, bizarre as it seems, "Ingush", with only one S, is the plural in English (like "fish"), in case it becomes relevant to any possible move on that page. --Yalens (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
The flip side of that is that "fish" is also very commonly a plural; with "fishes" only used in certain contexts; the other term unmentioned so far, which I'm used to from the world media, is Ingushetian or Ingushetians in the plural.Skookum1 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox collage

Dear editors who watch this article, as an anon not wishing to register I would like to state that the current scope of famous people representing the Chechens leaves the reader feeling a bit empty. On top we have 3 historical figures 19th century figures. The next three however seem like a poorly mixed pot: a 'politician' with a very short political biography, a WWII rambo and a modern journalist. Finally we have 3 modern controversial figures. With the exception of Nuradilov, Dudayev and Kadyrov, it seems that Tchermoeff, Terloeva and Umarov are there to fill in the gaps simply because the notability of other figures are yet to be exposed. Honestly I would suggest we replace some (not necessary all) with examples like Ruslan Khasbulatov, at least one representative of sports and there are images of Buvaisar Saitiev, Zaurbek Baysangurov, Mamed Khalidov and so on. Actually this list on russian wikipedia is accompanied by images that give a much broader scope of the Chechen people, than the mosaic presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.39.55.6 (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. Hahun (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chechens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chechens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Origins and eugenics: Anchabadza

"The Chechen are black-, brown-, red- or fair-haired (with darker hair predominating) and eyes can be brown, blue or green, while skin is usually light. George Anchabadze notes that the physical traits of Chechens, which includes being taller than average, are typical of the "Caucasian type" which many other peoples of the Caucasus exhibit." This reads like a curious physiognomy statement and the present tense is a mistake. It appears to be a significant misrepresentation of what Anchabadze wrote (at least in the translation), which also seems to be an odd text. "Anthropologically the natives of the Caucasus, with the exception of the Nogais who have the characteristic Mongoloid features, belong to the southern branch of the European race, out of which the following are the four principal types: "The Caucasian type is spread in the regions of the Great Caucasus, on both sides of the range. People of this type are of large stature, broad-faced, the colour of eyes and hair with a considerable touch of light tints (though prevail the dark-haired), round-headed. "The Caucasian type is prevalent with the Karachais, Balkarians, Ossetes, Vainakhs, Western Daghestanis and the mountaineer Georgians (Svans, Mokhevis, Khevsurs and others). "The Pontian type is on the whole similar to the Caucasian one, though the former is characterized by less broad face and other distinctive features. The Pontian type is prevalent with the Adigeys; there is an evidence of its influence with the Abkhazs and Western Georgians (inhabitants of the Colchis Lowland). As for the "Kabardians, Circassians and Abazas, they are considered to be intermediate of the characteristic representatives of the Caucasian and Pontian Types. The Caspian type is characterized by the darkest pigmentation of hair, eyes, and skin. People of this type are of medium height and narrow-faced. The Caspian type is spread with the Azerbaijanians, Tatts, Talishes, and Kurds. In Daghestan it is prevalent with the Kumyiks. "The Front Asiatic type is characteristic to the Armenians, and to some extent to the eastern and southern Georgians (the Kartlis, Meskhis, Javakhis). Owing to a number of distinctions this type is regarded as intermediate of the Caucasian and Caspian types. The analogues of the last three types are found among the inhabitants of the Mediterranean area and Front Asia. As regards the Caucasian type, it is met nowhere but in the Caucasus. As a matter of fact, there are no sharp distinctions among the mentioned anthropological types."[1]

I couldn't find anything on Anchabadza to confirm him as a valid source. He is cited in a number of academic texts, but doesn't appear to have moved into the anglo world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.36.211.111 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

To be fair physical appearance isn't a very important thing, and aside from a couple Islamophobic IP addresses that in the past haven't been able to swallow the concept that people with sometimes light features practice Islam (the horror! Clearly they have never been acquainted with Bosnians.), it has never really been an important part of the article. Anchabadze, as you may be able to tell from his last name, is Georgian, so given that it's difficult to expect him to move into the foreign "anglo" world as he was raised in the Soviet Union and like most in that scenario, speaks Russian as his main foreign language. In that context it is a lot less taboo to talk about physical appearance and "types" and in general his analysis is largely correct-- most North Caucasians (Chechens included) are typically tall-ish, typically light skinned, typically dark (dark brown to black) haired, with a typically hooked nose and typically round face, and also with small but significant numbers of less typical people with either light hair or darker skin or straight noses and other diversions. In the Anglo-Saxon world, especially in America, talk about the physical appearance of different groups can be taboo (even though Americans clearly have sometimes incorrect mass stereotypes about the appearances of different groups, -- i.e. generally in the tendency to pretend minority groups look less "normal" than they really do, tending to believe all Irish are red-haired, false, and all Italians are dark and look like Arabs, also false as both groups are much more diverse in appearance than that), but in other places it is less so. --Yalens (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.circassianworld.com/pdf/The_Vainakhs_George_Anchabadze.pdf

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chechens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chechens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chechens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chechens. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Why should this one particular picture of a 19th century "warrior" represent all Chechens?

Hi @Daniellassenfgh:, The trend on wiki is to not add pictures in the infobox of ethnicities, me and @Goddard2000: agree that the picture does not belong in the infobox, thus we form a consensus on the issue, you can visit my talk page if you have any questions. --Sextus Caedicius (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I support removal.--Calthinus (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok it's been restored

Coming to a consensus with Akylas7

One of the editors in this discussion was a sock, and the discussion was about them primarily. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 02:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Akylas7: Talk here instead, Chechana, Checha, etc are all Chechen toponyms for inside territory. Even today its called Chö by all Chechens. If we want to use specifically turkic hypothesis then we can claim many Ingush villages are Turkic too since there are more than 1 hypothesis. There are many theories but Arsanukaev's makes more sense. Also regarding Ingush and Nazran, Laudaev isn't really a good source since he wrote that Russians lived in the lowlands before us, and many other things you wouldn't agree with. Ingush moved to Nazran due to a joint Chechen-Kabardin agreement, this is a fact and there are letters going back to that time to prove it. --Goddard2000 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Goddard2000, First off, I don't deny that some lowland toponyms in Ingushetia are of Turkic origin, like Karabulak; for ex. But you are denying what is already proven, there is no such thing as "Chechen" (land-land). Also, I just saw what you did to the Ingush page, only adding one element of paganism, that was present in Galanchozh as well, very Muslim like of you. If you want to dig in pagan and old customs, you got it. This can also be added to the Chechen page. Since Chechens were pagan as well. In the same source you rely on (AKAK, 1875), it states that Chechens were a small tribe and sought refuge from the Karabulaks, and came under of Kumyks, and paid tax. I was not looking to add this to your page, but you seem to want to do so to the Ingush page. Seems like a personal attack on the Ingush people. I am not interested in this part, but either you clear the Ingush page of unnecessary pagan elements, or have this part of Chechen history be added to the history of your page as well. For there is a lot more to be mentioned on this page about Chechen history. --Akylas7 (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Akylas7, What is proven? there is no consensus among historians that "Chechan" is turkic, some say its "Chachan" for "scattered" in turkic, others say its "eloquent" from arabic or persian. The only one that makes sense is Arsanukaevs take that its from "Checha" which would explain Chechen villages named "Nana-Checha" etc. Also Chechan has the exact same meaning in Turkic "ichkeria" (ich yeri) which means "inside territory", exact same meaning in Chechen. What is wrong with my edit in the Ingush page? its a valid edit and as you said we can't afford to be biased. i dont understand why you brought up my faith? we are objective over here and need to add everything. I never much cared for the Ingush page but since you a Ghalghai brother decided to help in the Chechen page i felt ashamed of my lack of brotherly help and joined in on the Ingush article, hope you dont mind vasha. You can bring any source you want about Chechens coming under Kumyks, these sources are plenty about Ingush too and i am fairly certain i have more sources than you. Qi' tsa hum du, ah ha "turkic" hunadinag dayaqar as hul phal surt dadoqar du. Txun ha gho tsa ush Chechen article choh. --Goddard2000 (talk) 16:67, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Goddard2000, I did not care for the Chechen page as well, however I did see the edits made on the Ingush page even before you, by some Reinier, and you know exactly what has been done to the Ingush page, trust me, I read enough, L.Semenov has a lot of info on Chechnya, but since we are Muslim, I would never bring this up, plus why is no one else allowed to edit the Ingush article except Chechens? This is very odd.

Ya dumayu tebya takzhe tolko interesuet svoya stranitsa, kak i mne Ingushskaya. Tsa gulkx de sun, Vallakhi I will not make a single edit here, but I requested a change in the last section of the talk page on the Ingush article. Tam etot Reinier spetsialno iskazhaet istoriu, postav moyu versiu. V moei versii Chechentsev nikto ne trogaet, a tot Reinier spetsialno provotsiruet. The whole 'Kha Khal' version being the same as Ghalghai is purposely added, to make us seem like foreigners. Bakdar a'lach, tsa gram interes yats sun ukch, eta bila reaktsia na Ingushskuyu stranitsu. Az dosh lu hun, tut nichego ne ispravlyu bolshe esli pomozhesh. --Akylas7 (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Akylas7, Megar du, hozhar vu so sayg hu dalo --Goddard2000 (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Goddard2000 Barkal xild hun I know what sources call us Nakhchoy, bot others sources from the same century also state otherwise, is so it would be fair to just leave this part out that was added by that user: "Contemporary sources mention the ethnonym Nakhchoy, the ethnonym Chechens still use today.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Nakhchoy was replaced by the word Vainakh starting from the 1930s.[17] Ingush people were collectively mentioned as a tribe of the Chechens and divided into the Ingushi and the Ghalghaj[18] up until the 20th century."

All the rest is fine. Barkal vosha, you seem uninterested in this whole internet war as well. Assalamu Aleikum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akylas7 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Akylas7, i was aware of the wiki wars you and Reiner had before, we even talked in the Ingush talk page (kisteti). Afaik it all started when you claimed Kist was a term only used for Ingush which others found insulting since Kist and Durdzuk are both terms used for Chechens and Ingush. I didn't pay much attention to what happened later. Bringing up the "you know what" was wrong i know, i intended to delete it the same day but wanted to make a point to you fast, because i dont have the time to go back and forth with you in the edits. As for the Semenov source can you post the book? Also "i fal bohag dosh qu chur dadokar du as --Goddard2000 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Goddard2000 I saw that before there was a consensus reached on Kisti subject. And is it true that the term Kisti was used for both Ingush and Chechens. There are some quotes on the whole 'theme' in his work, but like I said, I do not like discussing paganism, since we are Muslim now. That other user Reiner Gavriel is very keen on keeping Ingush people away from the Ingush article, he is now filing a report that I threatened him)) Esal sag vu. Those kind of people are what is driving our 2 nations apart. There are bad seeds among every people, but he is keen on showing the negative. With you I reached a consensus in one day, because when it comes to it there's no hate among real Ingush and Chechens. Kxiitar so sa vosh. Busulb nax da vay, iz hamazh dezats vayn taxan.

--Akylas7 (talk) 05:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Calthinus, sorry for mentioning again, but I thought it might me representative and intresting for you. If you mind, please let me know. I suppose you know Russian? Have a look at the article about etymology of the word "Chechen" in Russian - here. There are many versions with sources:

  • From villages with Chachan in their name,
  • From Kabardian Sasan and some other,
  • All of them are by established sources

And then we look at the English version - Etymology of Chechen. Only one version from some poor website. I don't know how it's called on Wikipedia apart from such terms as marginalizing the articles, and I see tendency here. These section related to Chechens seems to be submitted to some interests.--IrelandCork (talk) 11:56, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

If they are poor sources, they can be removed. Afaik the mainstream view is that the Russian name "Chechen" arose because out of the name of a certain village.--Calthinus (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Calthinus I can assure you there is no poor sources in this section, the source is from a respected historian named Ruslan Arsanukaev and the name Chechen did indeed arise because of a certain village. However this village has a certain meaning in Chechen and several villages named exactly like it is found in this area. Chechana means inside territory in Chechen, just as "Ich gheri" (Ichkeria) means "inside territory" in Kumyk. It looks like IrelandCork is looking over my edits, i am glad to have a fan)).

--Goddard2000 (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm becoming sure now you're enjoying playing Wikipedia's community and having "fun" with us. England is Engenoy. I wonder what you'd have done to Wikipedia if your activity wasn't noticed.--IrelandCork (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)


What are you on about?

--Goddard2000 (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Reaching a consensus about the term Nakhchi

Akkadian99 Lets come to a consensus here, you believe Ingush (Ghalghai) should not be included called a previous "Nakhchiy" people right? Please give me your arguments and we will discuss. Goddard2000 (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the source "The Chechens" by Jaimoukha

Hello @Malik0099:, I would like to talk to you about the source you are using for many of the edits you have done on here. While Jaimoukha has some legit parts in his book, most of it are rootless theories and myths. He nowhere sources those theories and myths. Now to the term Dzurdzuks, @Goddard2000: is right with his statement. Jaimoukha is referring to the work of Vakhushti Bagrationi when talking about the Dzurdzuks and Gilgvi but is adding his own theories to it, corrupting the source of it. Please seek consensus here first, especially when using solely Jaimoukhas controverse book as source. -Reiner Gavriel (talk) 18:25, 04 December 2020 (UTC)

@Malik0099: Gligvi (Ghalghai aka Ingush) were durzuks, they were never mentioned in Kartlis tskhoverba and Naxchamatyani weren't mentioned in it either. Here you go take a look https://archive.org/stream/kartliscxovreba_201409/Kartlis%20Cxovreba%202012%20Eng#page/n15/mode/2up/search.

As for Gligvi not being Durzuks this is wrong, Gligvi were first mentioned in the 1730s by Vakhusthi Bagrationi who said that Gligvi (Ingush) separated from Durzuk but BEFORE they were ALL Durzuks. Here you go http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus6/Wachushti/otryv1.phtml?id=6111 , its in Russian

"About Gligwe... To the east of Kisto-Dzurdzukia lies Gligvetia, called so either by the name of Gligo (Ghligho), the grandson of Dzurdzuk,"

"Dzurdzuketiya (Durdzuketiya) consists of Dzurdzukia, Kistetia and Gligvi."

etc, the very same guy that first mention Gligvi says they are Durzuk so stop making up stuff.

-Goddard2000 (talk) 19:31, 04 December 2020 (UTC)

the Georgian annals were edited. there are political motives. they cannot be a reliable source. their Armenian translation has not been edited. give a link to their Armenian translation in English Malik0099 (talk) 21:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Malik0099: What was edited? you show me the Armenian translation that mentions Naxchamatyani, you can't since Naxchamatyani were only mentioned in the Armenian Geography by Khorenatsi. Abkhazian historian Gumba was the one who connected it to Chechens and he never mentioned it being in the Armenian translation of Kartlis Tskhoverba, in fact not one single historian has ever said it was in the Armenian translation of Kartlis Tskhoverba. If you know of a Armenian translation that mentions Naxchamatyani then post it here like i did. -Goddard2000 (talk) 22:37, 04 December 2020 (UTC)

Khorenatsi is not credited with writing a book called Armenian Geography. Eremyan is. Nor does Khorenatsi mention Naxchamatyani in his works.Skeptical1800 (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. A lot of Jaimoukha's theories and claims are simply not based on anything. Urartologists, for instance (which Jaimoukha was not), do not place Urartu or Urartians north of Javakheti or Lake Sevan.Skeptical1800 (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Urartu did not extend to the North Caucasus

Despite what Jaimoukha said, scholars do not place Urartu north of Javakheti in Georgia or Lake Sevan in Armenia. I added legitimate academic sources noting the borders of Urartu, overwhelmingly excepted by mainstream academia, including actual Urartologists from both Turkey and the US. Why do these keep getting removed? Skeptical1800 (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That is not what Jaimoukha said... or what anyone said afaik. Nobody "places Urartu north of Javakheti"; the argument is for Urartian influence/domination there, geopolitically, but of course I doubt really know enough to say in any case. Anyhow, your edit looks like SYN, though do we really want to rely on Jaimoukha, probably not. --Calthinus (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chechens/Archive_3&oldid=1154530668"