Jump to content

Talk:Chechnya/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Google Earth

WHy would the link for this page show up on Google Earth in the middle of the Dublin Airport? See it at 53 25'59.98"N 6 15'00.18"W I couldn't figure out if it was something on this page, or an data handling problem in Google Earth. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.42.138 (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Another inconsitency within this article

The predominant religion listed is Sunni Islam which could not be further from reality. Most Chechens practice Sufism or Sufi Islam, which is remarkably different than Sunni or Shia Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by STG2SW (talk • contribs) 04:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There is an inconsitency within this article

In the box to the right of the page, it lists Chechnya's area as being 15,300km while in the geography section in in an extra 4,000 km large. Might want to be fixed by someone with knowledge of which is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.65.204 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to make it clear

Unlike, say, Ukraine, Chechnya was always Russian territory. Grozny, in fact, is a Russian fortress (by Russians for Russians) built to protect trade routes and the nearby borders from Chechen raiders who were simply all those people "expelled" for their crimes from "official" tribes and gathered together to attack anything they can get profit from. I don't want to sound offensive and indeed I am not, but Chechens never had their land, their country etc. They lived on Russian Empire's/USSR/Russian Federation's territory. Now I don't think if, say, California or Texas wanted to be independent, they'd get as much support and justification (sp?) of their actions as Chechens do from the international community. And don't forget they consistently slaughtered Russians in nearby lands which is a historical fact. Russian Forces, on the other hand, maybe being overly militaristic at times, never resorted to simply killing civilians.

I disagree with comparing it to the US. The American states, unlike the former Soviet Union or even the Russian Federation part of it, were not based on particular ethnic groups e.g. Chechens, Uzbeks etc. Whereas the US is a nation of immigrants and their descendents, Europe has historically had national borders based on a ethnic-homelands. The argument you are making is reminiscent to the argument used to denigrate the Irish rebels in 1916-21 i.e. that Ireland was "not a colony" as it was "an integral part of the United Kingdom". Such an analysis is an oversimplification of the complexities of ethnic-nationalist independence wars, and allows the imperial ruler a veneer of moral superiority on the sole basis of the laws passed by them. Also, the fact that something is the legal position does not necessarily make it right. In Nazi Germany, the Nuremburg laws deprived the Jews of their citizenship. Are you saying this legitimises those laws? I certainly do not hold that view. - Peter O'Connell.


I do not know much about this, but I have seen a BBC undercover documentary on the Chechan conflict. BBC is mostly neutral, if it is ever biased then it is always biased towards Europe and US. Even so, some of the footage they showed was horrific. I cannot believe the russian person above says with confidence that the russian army doesnt hurt civilians. In the screening, some of the vieweres near me had shock attacks on seeing the cruelty exercised on the Chechan civilians. Plus the Russian person sounds like a fascist Nazi. So according to him, thie land belongs to him and he can screw and murder the people on it whenever he feels like. The Chechnya belongs to Chechans, its not your playground. I am appalled bu the imperialist and fascist tendencies among some 'people.'.

The allegation that Chechnya was always Russian property is actually just plain incorrect, and I can site my sources on this. The very first time that the Chechen people even *heard* of Russians was in the late 1700's, *possibly* the mid 1500's if you count Ivan the Terrible's acquisition of Astrakhan (which still isn't even Chechnya- it's North). The first time the Russians approached Chechnya with the intention to rule over them was in 1785, and Sheikh Mansur repelled them for *five years* with his Naqshbandi militia the "Sabres of Paradise". There was NEVER a point in history where the Chechen people wanted to be a part of the Russian empire (this obviously cannot be said of California...). Most of the time, Russian rule was violently protested, as they had no right to the land.

Re: Just to make this clear

You shouldnt apologize for yourself, you speak the truth. Chechnya was always Russian territory, the truth only offends idiots —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.182.204 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

It's interesting. Do you imply the Russians originated in Chechnya before they came to found the Kiev Rus? From what I know, the Chechen people live in these mountains for millenia (and before the conquest(s) by the Russian Empire, the land was part of the Mongol and Ottoman empires, for example). Do you really think the Russians are a lost Chechen tribe? --HanzoHattori 10:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Motivations for the War

I added some information outlining some of the reasons for the war. I think it was important to provide some context for what is going on in terms of the oil, history of violence, and Russia's fears for political instability.

RudolfRadna 00:05 October 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think a significant motivational factor that's been overlooked due to political correctness is Islam in Chechnya. The violent guerilla fighters / criminals / terrorists (depending on the side, either way they were a pack of animals based on human rights violations) were all hardline muslims. A religion of peace, yet again rearing it's ugly head and causing mass deaths like all other religions have a tendancy to do at some point in history. 210.49.15.52 21:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not grant Independence?

Some regulars here might want to check out Dec 25 Reference Desk/Humanities question where I gave a detailed reply, in case any of what I am saying has relevance here, in related articles, and of course in some respects I could be mistaken. User:AlMac|(talk) 05:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

One revertion, two and more edits, to be correct, Dear gene S and Dr Bug

Gene S, you've reverted twice today at leat. Yours third time is near. I've done it only once, and I've just edited as present.--BIR 13:19, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Disputants

I DO NOT hate Russia, Russians etc. as I stated before. I ONLY OPPOSE MOST STRONGLY this silly waste of human lives, resources etc., thrown away just for nothing, which were needed to restore post-Soviet life decently everywhere else! OK ?--BIR 13:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You seem to miss a simple fact. This is Encyclodedia. This is NOT a political forum. It should report facts, not emotions. --Gene s 13:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I will continue to do it persistently up to a high extent even if we fell in a edit war I, II, III etc.--BIR 13:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, instead of violating the WP:3RR, you may want to appeal to the arbitration committee. So far, you are not proving any evidence which supports your views. --Gene s 13:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Dear BIR, could you please get more deep knowledge on the topic first? Just three facts to mention: 1. Dudaev declared independence before the USSR dissolved. 2. Chechen-Ingush ASSR was not a republic of Soviet Union, but a republic of Russian SFSR. 3. There were at least two powers in Chechnya in 1991, and most Chechen leaders didn't declare independence. I don't oppose to academic facts sounding anti-Russian. But, sorry, I definitely oppose what I consider ignorance, including anti-Russian one. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 14:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for details.

Really, the SU was complicated by its structures. The countries were incorporated in two circles; several national areas and republics within Russia inherited from the Czars, and the enlargened one including other Soviet republics. This unification of these both was called the SU. Then there was third circle, namely, the Warsaw pact...--BIR 13:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Looks like you are trying to write your own version of the history of the USSR. You may want to visit the page History of Russia instead.
Hi again ! I think you mean the history of the SU, or however you like to call it.--BIR 14:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
You seem to believe that there was a difference between the Soviet Union and the USSR. Please do explain the difference.
It's not "however I like to call it". It's the official country name.

So, also recent Georgia, which also belonged to the Czars, was a soviet republic similar to the Baltic ones, which also belonged to the Czars, equal to the Russian Soviet republic - in theory, at least. --BIR 13:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It seems exceptionally difficult for you to stay focused on the topic. Please do try. This is the Chechnya talk page. The Georgia talk page is at Talk:Georgia (country).
I am focused. The cricis underway are inherited from the SU structures.--BIR 14:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, if you are focused, then why are you talking about Georgia (country) on Chechnya talk page? Also, please translate the word cricis for me. Thank you.
Well, crisis is, crises are. Excuse me my un(der)qualified s, but stay rather qualified or unqualified as you wish.--BIR 07:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BTW., Georgia is included occasionally in the crisis (thank you again for your kind one s) in the form of Pankisi refugees, as you surely know.--BIR 07:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In that sense, the ChRI seeked a separation from Russia by way of 1991 independence declaration, and that was finally granted de-facto by the 1997 peace treaty (regardless how early and where the ChRI separated exactly from), which was then dissolved in August and September, 1999.--BIR 13:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

granted de-facto is an oxymoron. It's either granted, or de facto. Not both.
As far I remember, it was you who admitted that the ChRI was de-facto independent, but ok. she was de-jure independet. Anyway, she was independet before the status was dissolved somehow, someway de-facto as I am told by you.--BIR 14:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Please try to read and comprehend. It is not difficult. The statement "was de fact independent" is correct. The statement "granted de facto independence" is an oxymoron. I used the correct wording. You used the oxymoron. And no, Ichkeria was never de jure independent.
Maybe not. It's an aerial term, but the ChRI was and she never gave up that status.--BIR 07:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, what were the legal grounds if the de-facto independence ought to be regarded as dissolved ? Did it happen only by the means of brute force ?--BIR 13:42, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You seem to be having difficulty with understanding the difference between de facto and de jure again. De facto by definition means that it does not have legal grounds. --Gene s 14:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why the heck no country recognised Chechnya independence ?

http://www.cc.jyu.fi/~aphamala/pe/2004/chechen_ind.htm

The Eurasian Politician - July 2004 The Chechen struggle for independence by David Storobin, July 15, 2004

" In 1991, as the USSR was collapsing, Chechen President Jokhar Dudayev declared Chechnya an independent nation, following the example of the 14 Republics (Baltic States, Central Asian states, etc.) that gained independence from Moscow around the same time. Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev refused to recognize Chechen independence. Indeed, no country in the world recognized independent Chechnya.

The main reason for the discriminative treatment of different independence declarations lied in the Soviet hierarchy of different regions: the international community decided to recognize those who had the Socialist Soviet Republic (SSR) status in the USSR (including Russia itself), while those with Autonomous Socialist Soviet Republic (ASSR) status were not recognized. While the SSR's were theoretically (but not practically) semi-sovereign under the Soviet rule, the ASSR's were part of SSR's. The result was that some Central Asian republics became independent with reluctance, while some smaller but eagerly independence-minded republics (mainly Chechnya and Dagestan, but also Tatarstan and Tuva) had to choose between surrendering their nationhood or starting active resistance. Only the Chechens chose the latter."

The ChRI obtained de-facto independence, but then the others countries didn't quite see it.--BIR 07:38, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Because all of Russia will fall apart afterwards, and who wants that???Dukakis 17:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

REally? all Russia? And how exactly is that? Russians (ethnic) comprise 80% or more in Russia, and can you tell me, how exactly is Russia going to fall apart? Other 20% is going to win war against ethnic russians?

Order of names.

Dear TimWiki,

I'm sure that 1.Russian-2.Chechen is a right order due to the following reasons: 1. The most used references (i.e. of most interest) should be put first. 2. Chechen Republic is a constituent part of Russian Federation, and Russian is a first language used within the territory. 3. Constitution of Chechen Republic uses this order.

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 13:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for older history

The article is crying out for older history - surely the history of Chechnya goes back further than 1859. Tempshill 06:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bug in population report

Rural population: 730 thousands is not 57,5% of 1,103 thousands, it is 66% approximately. (Urban population quantities also have such bug.)

I do not know, what quantity (absolute or relative) is correct, so I only report this big, not fix it.

Thanks for catching that! It's all my fault—I forgot to update percentages when copypasting the layout from a different article. It's fixed now (absolute numbers were correct).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:00, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

History Updated

I have updated the history section, if anyone has problems with it please let me know. I've done my best to keep bias out and have tried not to select one argument over the other, but to place both sides' positions and beliefs on the table. I also updated the book list with some additional titles by British, Russian, and American authors. If there is too much on Russia itself please feel free to let me know and/or remove it.

--Seanmullan 16:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1956-1991

If there was no war, this does not mean the period should not be covered at all. Just say all was OK 1956-1991.

Added information for that period in history and also updated the politics section to include latest post-Maskhadov developments --Seanmullan 09:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1956-1991

Is the deportation of Chechens mentioned?

I thought so -- read over it again? --Seanmullan 21:55, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Anyone know the political parties of the leaders of Ichkeria??

POV

Removing POV

Lapsed Pacifist 21:13, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Before removing NPOV tag elaborate on the reasons behind the changes you've made (Fisenko 04:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I am happy to leave the tag where it is. I am not happy with the manner in which the article is currently slanted.

Lapsed Pacifist 21:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What exact statements cause your unhappiness ? (Fisenko 01:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC))

The article reads like a Russian government press release. More balance is needed.

Lapsed Pacifist 02:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary in my opinion some sections of the article look like they were copied from kavkaz.org or some other Chechen terrorist propaganda site. If you intent to make any more changes aimed to increase its pro-separatist bias, please be ready to provide arguments and neutral sources, not just statements like "it reads like Russian government press release". (Fisenko 03:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC))

What sections in particular? I was unable to find any terrorist propaganda. Perhaps you could point it out for me.

Lapsed Pacifist 00:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sections you recently edited in particular. Anyway, my questions was first, explain what exact statments you consider biased or not neutral before you make any edits. (Fisenko 05:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I was clarifing some very vague statements, and I have difficulty understanding why some of my additions were reverted. Why "various armed groups" instead of "armed separatist groups"? The edits on discrimination are POV. Was the anarchy in Chechnya fomented (at least in part) by Moscow factions, or not? "Terrorism" is POV. The referendum description was changed from "all-Chechnya" to "all-Chechen". Why? Were ethnic Russians not allowed to vote? Other grammar and syntax corrections I made were changed.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is quite hypocritical to remove the NPOV tag after introducing such biased statements. In my opinion the tag could be removed from the current version, but I would like to hear the opinion of some editors more experienced in the subject. Lapsed Pacifist, I removed most of your grammar and syntax corrections, since they had no more basis than your "factual" corrections. You are welcome to correct minor mistakes but please discuss major edits on this page before editing (at least until any POV is removed. Kostja 16:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have already elaborated my concerns, and they have not been addressed. The removal of the NPOV tag was unintentional.

Lapsed Pacifist 17:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have some major objections to overtly pro-Russian changes in the article between my major changes in the spring and what exists today. For instance, the elimination of some of my comments prior to the second 'invasion' / 'reassertion of power' in 1999. My largest problem is the removal of the words "a small" from the sentence "On August 7th, invasion of Chechen forces – inluding a number of Arab and Dagestani extremists which were not affiliated with the Chechen government of Maskhadov – moved into Dagestan under the command of Basayev, Khattab and other Islamists." One can see that it was simply lifted out because it is no longer grammatically correct. The incursion into Russian territory was not large and was easily repulsed. It could be compared to other incursions made since that did not amount to much. My next major problem is the elimination of legitimate suspicions surrounding the origins of the 1999 apartment bombings. It is not correct to label them a "conspiracy theory" as has been done. This bias continues into the politics section, where Maskhadov's involvement in separatist activity has been changed directly to terrorist activities. There are many other alterations that I object to, but these are at the fore. --Seanmullan 2 July 2005 18:39 (UTC)

Whether 2,000 people was a small force or not is an academic discussion. "Small" could stay there, or "small" could go, whatever. But "Arab and Dagestani extremists which were not affiliated with the Chechen government" - that's just ridiculous, of course they were, they were led by the "defense minister". If the point is that they were not acting under Maskhadov's direct orders, then it sould be stated exactly this way.
"Soon conspiracy theory developed what suspected FSB agents rather than Chechens were behind the attatcks" - this can be simlply rewritten that "It has been alleged that..." without any "conspiracy theory"... I have my problems with this article: it does not sound like encyclopedia, it is not writen very well stylistically.Gaidash 4 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)

Political Status

It should Be De-Facto Independant Republic,not just Republic since it is not recognised Dudtz 7/30/05 7:13 PM EST

It is perfectly recognised as a part of Russia. If you need unrecognized one, consider looking up Ichkeria, but now it barely exists as government, if at all. Bunch of terrorists nonwithstanding. Ilyak 21:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just another point, the article makes reference to Chechnya as a country in a couple of places. As far as I know, it's not generally accepted that Chechnya is a country, anyone have anything against me removing the references? 84.58.45.20 11:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Surprising omission

I was surprised to find there apparently is no article directly on Chechen separatism. Perhaps someone could give it a start. Thanks.--Pharos 02:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic cleanising

I understand your view Voyevoda, but current way it is less POV; many sides were accused of ethnic cleanising in Caucasus, Russians too, and as well e.g. Ossetians (for forcing Ingushetians away from their lands in Republic of North Ossetia-Alania); if there would be a separate article to deal with that and write it in great detail then it would be good, but now more encyclopedic tone is that they left due to wars, bad situation (this wording includes alleged ethnic cleanising and such) and such. Wars were one of major reasons for the population to leave, especially the large part of Chechens who now lives in camps in Ingushetia. Burann 08:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic cleanising? If russians ever truely did ethnic cleanising like the Americans did, there would be no caucasus problem at all! the only mistake russians ever made was they didn't kill every single chechen people on the train to their deportation destination! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.182.80 (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1991-1994 Reprisals against russian Minority

In 1991-1994 Chechens extremists had a right to expel, to rob, to murder non-chechen people. More than 300.000 non-chechens are gone. This refers not only to Russians, but also to Ukrainians, Jews, Tatars, Armenians and other nationalities. The whole Russian population of Naurskoe and Shelkovskoe districts was partly expelled and partly slaughtered. Russian Cossacks settlements like Assinovskaya and Novogroznensk completely occupied by chechens. (Russian Cossacks live on coast of Terek since 16 centuries.)

That doesn't justify doing the same to the Chechens.

Yep, that's why rebels got killed, for thinking like that, in fact, anyone thining like that should be in jail. "Right to kill" expression is only accepted by terrorists and murderers, not by nations.


Could you do two things to help me understand what you are saying.
  1. Do not do anonymous posts. Use the WP standard of signing 145.254.135.193, or whatever using the 4 tildes.
  2. Explain how come "Chechens extremists had a right to expel, to rob, to murder non-chechen people." This sounds contrary to United Nations principles to me.
    1. Are you stating here your personal opinion, or quoting some other source. Or is that statement a typo, where that is not exactly what you intended to say? User:AlMac|(talk) 05:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations in Introduction?

While many other subject-related disputes need to be solved, I've noticed that the four places where it is noted that there is a "citation needed" are harming the encyclopedic nature of this article. Are there any recent stats/info that can aid this? NorseOdin 10:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to the Soviet constitution at one of these places, but the only place where I could find this was another Wikipedia page. Maybe a different source is needed, so I kept the [citation needed] tag.

Stefan2 07:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

1944 deportation

Mass murders of civilians not mentioned. Mortality among deported not mentioned. Influence of the deportation on Dudayev's generation. Chechen heroes (Brest defence) didn't obtain Heroe of the SU and others, only recently several survivors obtained. Xx236 11:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


I believe it is mentioned. After fighting on the side of the Nazis the population was deported to Siberia. It said 25% died - in the years they were deported, I believe, you would expect about 25% to die - old age, etc. Deportation seemed to be their punishment for treason.


Alleged siding with Nazis was used in Russian propaganda as an excuse. I fact it can never be an excuse no matter if the allegation was true or not. If the allegations were true only the ones proved to be guilty could be punished. Not the whole nation. 25% people died cannot be just because natural reasons, but I will have to look into the statistics Jasra 22:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The russians did this to ensure the victory of the alliance! remember those japanese living in US? they received the similar treatment like chechens where they have done almost nothing but chechens actually helped the germans to takeover oilfields. just like the crimean tatars! they should be all executed!one by one! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.113.182.80 (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to make it clear II

Grozny wasn't "always" Russian. It's a multinational city, founded 1818, which is new in Eurasia. Are French fortressses in Algieria "always French"? Xx236 11:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian Subject?

The page says that Chechnya is a subject of Russia.

Considering the embattled status, might this be incorrect at the moment?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.151.56.35 (talk • contribs) .

I think they are taking the official point of view. The Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was not recognized internationally. I think in the article it was written that there are claims for independence. The situation is ambiguoes in terms of the international law. On one hand the law supports the territorial integrity of countries (this argument is raised by the Russians) on the other there is the support to the self-determination of nations (argument given by the supporters of Chechen independence). There are also other arguments given, but these are the two basic ones given by each of the conflicting sides. In Wikipedia NPoV is compulsory, so I think that they are just basing on offical lack of recognition. Jasra 10:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Jasra is right, this article takes the official point of view. There is a separate article about the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria if that's what you were looking for.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 12:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The Chechen Republic is de jure a subject of Russia, so if it can be considered as de facto independent, maybe a de jure needs to be added to the article? (Stefan2 07:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC))

Helicopter photo

It doesn't look particularly "shot down", and the caption says "first casualties" - perhaps if there is a story here, it could be explained in the text? Either here or at First Chechen War, where the same photo and caption also appear. FiggyBee 08:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Chechnya Free.ru

I was really shocked to see the <chechnyafree.ru> (among others, I may say) link in this page, where the readers may not be aware they will be not find anything but dire propaganda and vacuity on un-hot topics from the likes of the Kadyrov clan — just take a look at the lyrics and the signature of the bogus anthem of Chechnya or real hot subjects like "Do the Chechens need a Beauty Contest?... No one may seriously think that this is simply a response and balance vs Kavkaz Tsentr — where you can find, at least, real news and where, on the other side, anyone can make his own judgment about some opinions where words like "munafiq" (hypocrite) appear too often and deserve the Nakh people's cause. Added to absolutely preposterous comments like O'Connell's about the legitimacy of the Russian presence, that makes me quite sick!

Korenyuk

Of course. Only rebeles and murderers talk truth, officials never do that. Underf Kadyrov, Chechnya is in peace and is prospering, under Maskhadov it was in decay. Guess what normal people value more.

Just, why the site is dubbed as pro-Kadyrov in the article? "About us" page of the site speaks nothing about that. ellol 00:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, removed that nonsense. --Kuban Cossack 10:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the page's banner says "Voice of Russia" in pretty big script, in case you guys missed that. --Yalens (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Currency

There's a reference to the proposed currency Nahar somewhere in the article. Unfortunately, this link goes to a page about a US software company instead of a page about the proposed currency.

Stefan2 07:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the software company to Nahar Systems, and restored Nahar as a redirect to the currency (but perhaps it should be a disambig page?). FiggyBee 10:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Samashki

What really happened on April 7, 1995 (and not 1996 of course - "neutralaccounting" has a source from February 1996!): "according to reports by village elders and by the Samashki village mullah, on April 7, when a group of elders, together with the mullah (eight people in all), returned to the village after negotiations with the Russian command, the two cars they were riding in were shot at by small arms fire. While there were bullet holes in the cars, fortunately no one was injured, with the exception of elder Ajalil Salikhov, whose finger was slightly wounded. The shots were fired from Russian troop positions." http://www.memo.ru/hr/hotpoints/chechen/samashki/engl/Chapter6.htm That is Memorial, by the way.

No, not very nice, and neither was the combing for Dudayev soldiers afterwards. Innocent victims there were, far too many, but there is at least one "neutral" source saying that there were local Dudayevites in Samashki: "Without elaborating, suffice it to say that while Memorial accepts that the Russian command used the presence of outlander Chechen fighters from Shamil Basayev's Abkhazia Battalion attacking an armored train and sabotaging repair of tracks as the excuse to encircle and then attack the town, in fact all those fighters were local. I know because I was with them taking pictures. Memorial was not." [| Source]

Apart from the date, even the place is wrong: Samashki was not a city, but a village with about 15,000 inhabitants.

I hope they do not use this passage to test Wikipedia and compare it with the Encyclopedia Britannica... User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 02:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Self-defense forces only (to differ from a mobile groups or these who volunteered to leave for Grozny), under a command of certain Commander Hussein, a Chechen from Kazkhstan. They laid mines, built some defence poitions, and effectively opposed Russian siege attacks for weeks, but then left to the woods to spare Samashki from destruction - the following Russian rampage was opposed only by a few badly-armed youngsters who stayed behind. These attacks by Basayev's men was a relief from outside (the armoured train was known to attack the village at one point - see the book by Thomas Goltz). The siege were sparked by the attack on a Russian group who came to steal some vodka - before this, the Russian forces basically left the village alone since the start of the war. --HanzoHattori 10:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The girl's photo

The photo of a Chechen refugee girl was put into the article. It's a really nice photo and the renewed caption is okay as well. However, I'd still question the relevance. The picture only shows a girl's smiling face, it could in fact be any girl from any country in this world, there are no cultural connections (such as typical clothes or anything typical Chechen), or at least I cannot see them. I really don't think it is representational enough. What is this picture supposed to tell the readers? How Chechens look like? — N-true 23:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

thumb|left|300px You are right of course. The only important thing here is the word "refugee". An easy way to introduce that idea, without having to write a lot of text. Getting close to a violation of WP:POINT, according to me.--Pan Gerwazy 10:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who uploaded and the photo and I did not intend anything special with it. I just thought that there should be more images displaying Chechnya, because I don't think many people are aware of it or have been there. Fore example, N-True, if you go to Bavaria's page there are lots of pictures portaying houses of Bavaria and etc. Why don't we put this pictue portraying houses of Chechnya? Or should we be afraid of reality?Sosomk 11:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact I wanted to suggest inserting a picture like that into the article, but I didn't want to make the impression that there are only this "kind" of houses in Chechnya; I have hardly seen more than burned houses and destroyed cities, so I think both sides should be shown. On the page, where you got the girl's photo from, there are more photos of Chechen families living under bad conditions — I think, they might give a better idea of the situation than the girl's portrait. Dunno if I am making sense... it's so hot here in Germany right now and my brains are boiling. — N-true 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Nokhchiyn and naming of Chechnya

I've added in a brief introductory paragraph about the idea of adopting Nokhchiyn (the Chechen name) as the official name [1]. As seeing as Nokhchiyn has always redirected to this page and Nokhchiin was only created as a stub earlier today I'm going to suggest the latter is deleted and used as a redirect to this site. Iancaddy 21:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Elections and democracy

Fellow editors, can you tell me where I can find the results of the elections in Chechnya. I have heard that the vast majority of people there support the link with Russia and less than 10% seek separation and independence. Surely I am mistaken. Perhaps a section would enlighten people as the the democratic reality Mark us street Nov 11


The problem is that the conditions of elections were not democratic. Even if you cannot prove any direct swindling (you cannot exclude it either) you must notice that the elections were held in the presence of the Russian army (Russian soldiers had also right to vote). Supporters of independence were mostly boycotting the elections. Some of them were hiding or had left the country. Also strictly pro-independence candidates could not stand for the elections. Jasra 14:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I have links about russian forces being able to vote? Pavel.

POV Nonesense

resulting in the genocidal deportation of the Chechen population to the Kazakh SSR (later Kazakhstan) and Siberia during World War II [3].

Not only is this highly POV, it is also baseless. While Chechens were relocated to Central Asia due to their treasonous rebellion and cowardly draft dodging, in no way was the relocation genocidal. In October 1946, 400 thousand Chechens and Ingush out of 490 thousand deported were found in their spots. Population loss occurred exclusively due to the economic deprivations of the war. The USSR collectively endured a population loss of 25 million

Studying the history of communism/stalinism, it seems that both chechens and cossacks were oppressed, althoung during different times. This may be a question to Kuban cossack, isn´it that the communist authorities didn´t trust the peoples (including cossacks) in the northern caucasus region?

Jacob Peters

Oh, I see - allegedly killing "only" 1/5 of the population in 2 years is not genocidal, it's simply "relocation". So, if Stalin killed 1/5 of Russians in 2 years and "relocated" every single one of them in 2 days (with exepction of "treasonous" and "cowardly" guerillas holding out in a desperate fight to death), how would you call this? You should read what genocide means, to start with (and this including cultural genocide, which also happened in Chechnya '44). --HanzoHattori 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Edit war on "territorial".

User:Al-Bargit put "Russian control over the area was de facto restored in the course of the Second Chechen War." Note the quotation marks which tend towards WP:POINT. Is he really suggesting that Chechnya is the jure independent?

I also hope User:Kuban_kazak will not insist on his version "Russian territorial integrity was restored in the course of the Second Chechen War." That was getting to WP:POINT as well, as it is not the correct way of stating the obvious, i.e. that Chechnya had always been de jure a part of Russia. In any case, the sentence needed to be re-written, because the Second Chechen War is now over.--Pan Gerwazy 18:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Expect a heated discussion about it (whether it's over or not) :). Myself I'm happy with your version. Alaexis 18:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not suggest anything de jure. It belongs to the corrupted "international law", and not to sharia law, in which I believe. I only think that Chechnya has a right to be a sovereign country and was a sovereign country in the 1990s before the Russian invasion. "Russian federal control" is OK, since it refers to the Russian Federation and its military forces. Al-Bargit 13:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately Sharia law or whatever other POVs you hold will not influence the WP:NPOV of wikipedia.--Kuban Cossack 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
+1 on the consensus version. --Kuban Cossack 16:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Sharia law is no worse POV than the UN's "international law". Especially given that Stalin was one of UN's founders. --Al-Bargit 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"ethnic cleansing"

So, the Russians were fired from the jobs vaguely defined as related to the "national security" (from the police to the oil "industry). What else again? Kosovo Albanianians were fired from such jobs in 1990 (Milosevic's "Kosovo police will beat the Serbs no more") - but when we're talking about ethnic cleansing there, it's the Serb military operations of 1999. --HanzoHattori 07:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo you know excactly what is going on, there were sytematic attacks on the Russian minority in Chechnya and in particular in Grozny. Don't play a naive role, we've been through that before. --Kuban Cossack 12:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There were criminals attacks. The Russians were targets, because they had no clans to back them up (often no real families even). It was not organised by the authorities, but they didn't interfere (say, the Moscow authorities and the extreme nationalists/even outright Neo-Nazis situation). Now, read the ethnic Russian's first-hand account (the one who stayed, and through the wars): [2]

The Russians started leaving Chechnya at the beginning of the 90s when Jokhar Dudayev became president. It's not that they tried to wipe us out, but, for instance, if a Chechen's flat was burgled it would give rise to a clan war -- a scandal, in other words. But if someone robbed a flat where Russians were living no one, not even the authorities, did anything about it. We became second-class citizens.

Yes, that's what I'm talking about (but you can't or don't want to understand). As the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs put it in 1996, "The ethnic-Russian minority is also considered to be especially at risk because they lack the support systems offered by extended family ties." [3]

And as we are talking about the authorities and they lack of care, thing certainly changed with the regime change, didn't they?

We are worse off than the Chechens in cellars and ruined flats, because absolutely no one will help us now. Neither the army, nor the government in Moscow nor the local authorities, nor our neighbors, who have enough problems of their own.

And maybe also something:

But later when part of it had gone up in flames, part of it was taken by the partisans and the rest was stolen by Russian soldiers, I realised that love of things was stupid. If you manage to detach yourself from your property, you won't suffer when you see it go up in flames. Now I don't amass anything and I will never again stock up with anything.

Yes, attacked by the Russian state criminals (soldiers doubling as a thieves). And now a little shocker, I guess:

On March 29, 1998 at 2.30 a.m. at night, we were burgled. They were ordinary burglars. They crept into our house and stole my mother's death certificate, the lease of the house, pots and pans, clothes and a $100 bill I had been given by [rebel leader] Shamil Basayev's brother, Shirvani. While my daughter was still able to walk, I had managed to fight my way into an audience with him, at the time when he was minister for the Chechen oil industry, and I explained to him the situation we found ourselves in. He told me that he didn't have anything to do with social policies, but that he would give her $100 out of his own pocket. And he did so. We kept it one side for when the worse came to the worst. Sometimes when I'm fed up with the entire world, I say to myself: "One crooked Chechen took everything I had and another Chechen gave me $100. That must be the way things ought to be, the way God wants it to be."

And so on. It's just not Russia (yes), and after the Soviet Union they found themselves in the completely alien land where the Moscow governemnt threw them and then abandoned. You can't just easily classify this like you try to do.

Now, you'd also see this: [4]

After he fled Grozny, Kallima began to see his homeland differently, he said. Although he is an ethnic Russian, he found himself labeled as Chechen by locals in the Moscow region, where he lived for four years.

"When I realized what monstrous things were happening in Chechnya, done by Russia, I even found it flattering to be a Chechen rather than a Russian," he said.

And what "monstrous things were happening"?

Sergei Govorukhin, son of a leading Russian filmmaker and former State Duma deputy, was one scion of the privileged who chose to serve in Chechnya. During the first war he was severely wounded and had to have a leg amputated. He subsequently made a documentary film based on that war. Govorukhin is a sharp critic of the present war but also a strong supporter of the Russian troops ordered to serve there. According to his calculations, which were reported by the Gazeta newspaper's website, Gzt.ru, last December 14 and seem reasonable, approximately 35,000 ethnic Russian civilians have to date been killed by Russian forces operating in Chechnya. Most of this number perished during the bombardment and heavy destruction of the capital city of Grozny during the course of both wars. Russians were in effect killing their fellow Russians to punish Chechens. [5]

And to add some human face to this:

Zhorik Shcherbakov, a middle-aged man who suffered a concussion, told Reuters he buried his wife under the debris of their home after she and two others were killed by Russian artillery.

"We have nowhere to go. We were born here," he said. "Now my wife is dead, and I will go nowhere."

Like many of the civilians in Grozny, Shcherbakov is an ethnic Russian. [6]

The thruth is that if the separatist government actually evicted the Russians, they would just save them from the "monstrous" actions of federal government later. --HanzoHattori 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What happened after the war started is not relevant at all. It's described elsewhere in the article. Btw not only Russians had been evicted from Chechnya before the war started but also Ukrainians, Jews, Armenians and so on. Alaexis 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing state-organised that would be called ethnic cleaning in its post-1991. Either you can blame everything what the Russian criminals do on the Moscow government, or this was certainly not worse than the situation of the Russians in , say, Turkmenistan.

As for the Jews, I don't think so. As you can remember I guess, there was a tremendous wave of the Jewish emigration from all of the former Soviet Union - to Israel, and the Mountain Jews were long-time assimilated (ever heard of Izrailov?).

I think the war is quite relevant to the topic. Let's see:

Separatist forces operated from buildings filled with Russian civilians as shields. Under international humanitarian law, the Russians were justified in seeking to capture the city because it was the rebels’ main base and the location of legitimate military targets, regardless of the presence of civilians. The fact that Chechen forces had fortified large parts of the city also meant that apartment blocks and other civilian structures were legitimate targets if they were being put to military use. And many civilians perished not because of the Russians, but because Chechen forces were using them as human shields, and, at times, prevented them from leaving the city or being evacuated. A Russian strategy of capturing Grozny by destroying it as a whole target was illegitimate, however, under the rules of war because targeting must be discriminate and aimed at discrete individual objectives. Combatants may not lawfully treat all the targets in an area, such as an entire city, as a single, giant target. [7]

If Chechnya was "ethnically cleansed", where all these Russians came from? It says they were "at times preventing them to leave" - quite an opposite, eh?

Valentina Bornus, a 73-year-old Russian woman who survived the war in Grozny, is planning to leave Chechnya and join her sister in the southern Russian region of Krasnodar. But she knows she'll get a hostile reception, especially from the Russian Cossacks, who disparagingly refer to the refugees as Chechens. She feels caught between two ethnic groups. "The Chechens hate us and the Cossacks hate us. They think we are to blame, but the officials in Moscow are to blame. They destroyed our city."

Yeah, and let's blame everything on Dudayev. Come on.

Which was why we Cossacks made refuge for over a ten thousand people from 1990 to 1997... please don't spam this with BS by Kavkazcenter and the like. --Kuban Cossack 14:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that is a funny source you are using. Quotes from http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/chechnya.html:
"Trying to take the war to the Russians, Chechen detachments attacked several Russian cities, again using civilian hostages as human shields, and in one case seizing a hospital that became the center of a major battle."
(since Budyonnovsk happened in June 1995, claiming it was a response to Russian acts, is a bit awkward, intellectually)
"and drove Russian civilians out of Chechnya in a systematic campaign."
You have just sourced the ethnic cleansing... --Pan Gerwazy 14:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, isn't it about the war? People fleeing, you know, the bombs and bullets - from all sides, but one with so-superior (and indiscriminate) firepower?

Vaneltina Valissiljevna is caught between the two warring sides in more ways than one. She is an ethnic Russian but has lived half her life in Grozny: "The Russian army destroyed my house back in 1994 and is not paying out compensation," she told me. [8] (Independent)

And who would be easier to "cleanse" (murder) just because of ethnic hatred than the blind folks?

Only 30 residents remain at Grozny's shattered House of the Blind, where once there were 400. They cannot see the smashed ruins of the city all around them. But they know the wors is not over. They made it through the bombing but now they have emerged from the darkness underground to an empty future. "We just wait to see if someone comes to talk to us," says Lyubov Zilipayeva, a 53-year-old ethnic Russian who sits toying with a paper clip, a dirty wool hat pulled low over her sightless blue eyes. [9]

After the fall of Yugoslavia, when people hear "ethnic cleansing" they think it's the murderous campaign (like the holocaust is no longer what it was used to be before the world war). And yes, it was not only Chechen criminals who were breaking into the Russian homes to plunder:

This is Anna's work. After the last Russian military zachistka, or house-to- house search, when front doors were kicked in and remaining property disappeared, she paid a carpenter to wedge the doors shut, and she wrote the inscriptions in the hopes of warding off more raids. As Anna leaves the building, she worries about the stench from the two corpses that have lain in an adjoining apartment for the past year: a bed-ridden woman and her adult son who were killed during the Russian offensive. [10] (TIME)

The claim of "ethnic cleansing of Russians" by the Chechens is just as irresponible as if claiming Russia have commited "genocide" of the peoples of Chechnya because of massive civilian casualties.

Thousands of Chechens have taken advantage of a lull in the fighting between rebels and Russian soldiers this week to flee war-torn Grozny. Those who stayed behind were caring for the dead. (...) In Grozny, people bearing stretchers went about the grim task of collecting bodies from the streets of the Chechen capital. Most of the bodies of ethnic Russian and Chechen civilians were lying where they fell. [11] (CNN)

And so on really. Cleansing, cleasing (people of their apartments, bodies off the streets and of the ruins). Were the Chechens robbing and displacing Russians really "ethnic cleansing", and Russians robbing, displacing AND bombing Russians AND Chechens are, I don't know, "not-ethnically cleansing"? "Un-ethnically cleansing"?

Why these double standards at all?

What had happened before the war started could be called ethnic cleansing. So all these war-time stories don't really prove anything. Alaexis 17:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I just can't agree laying the blame for the emptying Chechnya of the Russian citiziens entirely on the separatist authorities before the war, and calling it "ethnic cleansing" (which is now very loaded word thanks to R. Karadzic). This article [12] defines so much better.

HRW quote

What's the problem with this quote? The HRW is a respectable (more or less) organisation so its position deserves to be put here. Other opinions could (and should) also be cited. Alaexis 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

But in form of a massive quote which is a POV. This article is not about HRW nor is it even about Human Rights in Chechnya, in any case the quotes of such calibre should be avoided per WP:POINT. --Kuban Cossack 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard about the election sausage

But giving "bread" is new to me, so would you elaborate Kazak?

Also, stop laughing and start thinking. The picture is from BBC article on the "Chechen referendum" [13] (yes, with voting Russian soldiers and a dog). --HanzoHattori 19:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said about numbers Hanzo, also in 2002 the soldiers were not permanent residents in Chechnya when the census was conducted, and that is where the numbers are from. --Kuban Cossack 20:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so when exactly they became the citizens of the "zone of anti-terrorist operation", if they weren't by 2002?

Numbers: "Russia will allow 38,000 soldiers permanently based in Chechnya to vote in constitutional referendum there. The Kremlin's human rights commissioner for Chechnya, Abdul-Khakim Sultygov, said the troops would represent 7 percent of the more than 500,000 eligible voters but suggested their participation would not skew the results of what is supposed to be a vote by Chechens on their republic's place in Russia. The military's position echoes the views voiced by Chechen society, he said" [14]

I guess 38,000 makes them majority of "40,645 Russians" alright - are you ashamed of this or something? --HanzoHattori 21:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you would like to explain to me the 8541 Russian women aged over 16 in Chechnya as shown by the 2002 census [15]? Or that only 22525 thousand of the men are not married. Now then if we consider that like most conscripts, none stay permanently there is really no evidence that the census picked them up as those 40,645. Moreover have you ever considered that ethnic Russians are not the only ones who serve in the Russian Army. So are you also going to extend that cuirtosy to the Ukrainians, Belarusians Kumyks and particularly others. As well as non-native Chechens who were enlisted in the Russian Army in 2002. Are you also going to add (mostly Russian Army + native population) to them? Per WP:POINT please stop adding this nonsense. --Kuban Cossack 00:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there are many more than said "8541 Russian women aged over 16" (more like mostly elderly really) nowadays, as for the civilians at all (and certainly VERY few "women aged under 16"). Don't pretend you don'tknow what I'm saying. As for the soldiers, by then there were only 2 Chechen battalions (Zapad and Vostok of the GRU), and the ethnic Russians are (still) some 70% of the society so I guess majority of the military too. --HanzoHattori 07:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hanzo, you've brought a ref proving that soldiers of Russian Federation (not only ethnic Russians) were eligible to vote in the referendum. It doesn't follow from it that the soldiers were included in the republic's population during the census of 2002 (although it may be true). If you find a source proving this something like this - The soldiers stationed in the republic were included in its population - could be added. Alæxis¿question? 12:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vintage footage

Why do you think this link shouldn't be here? Alæxis¿question? 17:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ramayana sources

Where exactly is the Chechnya-Kaikeya connection made in any of the sources that have been brought?

ps. The third source also apparently fails WP:RS. Consider the following citations:


Alæxis¿question? 10:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Chechens call themselves Noxçi and "Chechnya" is a Russian version which didn't exist when the Ramayana was written because there was no Russian language back then. The Noxçi are descendants of ancient Hurrians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.14.17 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice

When I write something of the Inguhertsians it is removed ar ones by the Russians. Why? What right they have to the lands of North Caucasian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.203.247 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

How about some stub system? --HanzoHattori 16:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

sounds like...

article itself and discussion looks like it has been written down in Kremlin by some FSB propaganda specialist... it's comletly useless as a source of information about chechen wars, not a word about russian atrocities upon chechen civils; earlier history of chechenia is also not described well; please let sbd do sth with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.172.82 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Languages

"60% speak Chechen, but 100% speaks Russian." This edit by an anonymous IP looks like it describes the situation in Soviet times. (I suppose they actually mean, "100% CAN speak Russian", of course). Have a look at: the 2002 census on the Russian language, where you can clearly see that of 1360253 Chechens in the entire Russian Federation, only 1127037 "mastered" the Russian language. Now since then, five years of normalization may have changed that a bit (both Chechens between ages 6 and 12 and Chechens older than 30 should normally know Russian) - but most Chechens NOT living in Chechnya live in central Russia, where you would not really expect them not to know Russian, so that should get the percentage in Chechnya itself down. Therefore, 85% instead of 100% able to speak Russian is not really OR here. However, there is no way I can substantiate or contradict the first part of the sentence - which most people would understand to involve ability to actively use the language everyday, as if it were your mother tongue. Of course, the Russian census does not really ask that question: as with Russian, it just asks whether people can speak that language. Now, contrary to what a lot of people may think (because of a history of exile to Central Asia and voluntary emigration to Russia to find work), the number of ethnic Chechens who cannot speak Chechen is actually very low: the census claims 1331844 Chechen-speakers in the Russian Federation. Statistically, if we were to believe that all 70,000 non-Chechens living in Chechnya spoke Chechen, that leaves fewer than 100,000 possible ethnic Chechens who can not speak their native language (fewer than 8%)- and of course, there is no reason to believe (understatement) that So, basically, the 60% does not seem right, though I gree that this part is absolutely 100M% original research. I have therefore invited the anonymous IP to cite a source for the first part of the sentence, which is about actual use of the language. If no source is given, I suggest changing this into "More than 90% Chechens can speak Chechen, and 85% can speak Russian". That would get rid of the unavailability of wources, and avoid OR. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a complaint about the external links listS (yes, plural) not being compatible with Wikipedia. Since it now seems that the split between Zakayev and the European diaspora on the one hand and Umarov and the Caucasian Emirate fighters is not going to be healed soon, perhaps now is the time to clear and clean this up. I propose mentioning two websites, no more, no less for each of the five "sides" most involved here (human rights, Russian fedeal, Kadyrov, Zakayev and Umarov). One list only, but tendency should be added between brackets. Sites being dropped this way may still get listed, if notable for info not connected to the conflict, provided the link is indeed to a page with historical, cultural, economic, ... info. Of course, we want to get the number of external links down.

As for the "literature" - they should be only there if they are really references to the text. What about listing them here, and editors checking the contents for sentences in the article they refer to, and adding that in the space after them? As these are found, they could then be added to inline references. OK, here are they:


--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Slavery

Independent Chechnya was hotbed of slavery, inluding slave-hunting raids and slave trade, as evident from hundreds of eyewitness accounts, avaliable to casual googler here. Should it be part of this article? Separate article, linked to this one? RJ CG (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can only find one instance and it wasnt in chechnya, but georgia[16] - PietervHuis (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
This man had been in Chechnya before he was transferred to Georgia in 1999.
Here's another quote:
It's from the 'One Soldier's War in Chechnya' by Arkady Babchenko, published by Portobello Books. Alæxis¿question? 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
It didnt happen in Chechnya so you cant blame the chechen government, but instead the Georgian government for keeping those mountains lawless. That quote is from a Russian veteran of the war, his personal and naive analysis' aren't realistic at all. For example in 1998 officially 176 people were kidnapped.[17] Not "10.000". - PietervHuis (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
What didn't happen in Chechnya???
So he was in Chechnya/Ingushetia in 1989-1999. Alæxis¿question? 07:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear - PietervHuis, would you actually care to read the source you provided, you would discover that the man had been held (and resold numerous times) in Chechnya for 10 years and had been transferred to Pankisi (region with majority Chechen population, closely linked to "mainland" Chechnya, so to speak) after Russian aythorities sorta increased the pressure. Speaking about discrepancy between Babchenko's and CNN's number, I suspect word "officially" changes everything. According to what officials? Chechen, who were trying hard to beautify their regime? Russian, who at this point had their hands full with the virtual bancrupcy of Russia to worry about some less fortunate who ended up in Chechnya? RJ CG (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that might be true, but it did already happen when soviet authorities still controlled the Chechen-Ingush ASSR. I can find instances of slavery in chechnya, but its kind of part of the kidnappings there which are already noted. Slavery is also present in the rest of Russia [18] - PietervHuis (talk) 10:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it also was happening in 1991-1994, during the war and during Chechnya's de facto independence.
We're discussing situation in Chechnya here. Don't you see a difference between this case and maltreatment of illegal migrants in Russia? Alæxis¿question? 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I second Alæxis here. If you feel situation with illegal migrants (who are always and in any country on the receiving end of shadiest and grimest labour practices, but are willing to put up with that in order to earn extra buck) in Russia is so prominent as to warrant separate article/paragraph, please feel free to add it (appropriately sourced, of course). However, this page is about Chechnya, where slavery was so socially acceptable during independence that high-ranking Chechen official casually discusses with journalist who was and wasn't involved in the slave trade. Slavery the institution is so evidently acdceptable to both sides, they don't even bother to discuss. And crucial difference between plight of illegal workers in Russia and slaves in 1990-2000 Chechnya is that former were trying hard to get those jobs (even if taking abuse was part of a job description) and latter were trying hard to escape and suffered severe beating and risked death to do so. RJ CG (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It happened during the way and years of independence, as well as during Russian control over Chechnya. In fact, its probably still happening right now under Kadyrov. If you want to note something like that it should really not be just about independent Chechnya, but chechnya through the ages as well as entire Russia otherwise its propaganda. - PietervHuis (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe it happens even now - unfortunately I cannot rule this out... Alæxis¿question? 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

POV Introduction

The introduction to the article strikes me as pro-Russian POV, as it implies the Russian claim is the only legitimate one. This isn't the normal practice on WP for disputed areas-see Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Kosovo, all of which have multiple infoboxes-one for the geographical region and one for each political entity claiming it-and have introductions that describe them as disputed territories (as opposed to the first line of this article, "Chechnya is a federal subject of Russia..."). The introduction to this article needs to be redone to present its subject in a more neutral manner.Lexington1 (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Abkhazia, Kosovo and the likes are de facto independent so we have to describe both de facto and de jure situation. On the other hand Chechnya's independence is the thing of the past and de facto and de jure it's a part of Russia. All over the world there are secessionist movements that claim something, this doesn't mean we have to put separate infoboxes and other stuff in all those articles. Alæxis¿question? 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention that we have a whole separate article about the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Lexington1. What do you mean "...we have to describe both de facto and de jure situation"? Could you please explain your attitude to the problem? Thank you in advance for answering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.247.129.114 (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The whole article is pro-Chechen propaganda. You should just translate Russian version the article about Chechen Republic, because western people have no idea what happened in Chechen Republic. Since The majority of sources was written in Russian, because both Chechen and Russian who lived there do not speak English at all. If you use only English sources, you will have biased point of view.

The world's most mined region

And no mention of this besides one orphaned article? --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of those links read as advertisements to media outlets and individual photographers. Furthermore, these sections (Human rights in Chechnya, Chechen culture, and Western and independent Russian websites) should either be cited in the article or not be here. They hardly qualify as related external links. Lihaas (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct dating

Can anyone please correct the first line of the prehistory section "The oldest settlement found in the region goes back to the 125.000 BC"? --Extra999 (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Stalin 1937

I was looking for further information on the events of 1937 related to 13,000 people being murdered by Stalin. I thought this would have been recorded in the history section. 94.168.151.49 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It will, I have planned to do it, I just don't get around to it. I will soon though, on the History of Chechnya page. You can probalby copy it and summarize it here from there. --Yalens (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Teip: Russian or Chechen clans?

Hello, I am not sure of the issue of Chechnya in relation to Russia. An editor has at clan (history) changed [[Teip|Chechen clans]] to [[Teip|Russian clans]]. I am suspicious that this my be a political edit. I rest the case here with editors no doubt better informed than I. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's almost certainly political. I'll change it if you don't. --Yalens (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Demographic section

I understand that the section on the "persecution" of Russians has some sources and is quoted, but it seems very bias because it seems to be mostly one sided. This side is also very weak as it is statistically incorrect? It says that 200,000 Russians remained in Grozy.. how can that be when there are only 40,000 in the entire Chechnya? It also says that the "expulsions" were as bad as places such as Yakutia, Kalmykia and Tuva? Let this table demonstrate the ACTUAL changes in the russian population (Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)):

State Russian population change 1989-2002 Russian population % change 1989-2002
Chechnya & Ingushetia -247,567 -84.3%
Kalmykia -23,416 -23.8%
Tuva -37,389 -37.8%
Yakutia (Sakh) -159,592 -29.0%
First of all, Ingushetia should not be factored in here. More importantly: We are not talking about by 2002. The source which mentions that they are less than Tuva, Kalmykia and Sakha is written in 1995, and it was explicitly referring to leaving of Russians BEFORE the war. --Yalens (talk) 23:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, well firstly I had to include Ingushetia and Chechnya together because in censuses, they were counted together. But besides that now that you mention that it was writen in 1995, is it relevant now? Can we remove that information with something more up to date and neutral? Thanks Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you mean "replace" not "remove. Okay, yes, I will check after writing this to see if it can be updated, but I don't think I will be removing any thing right now. And it's not the first time this debate has occured. But basically, why 1995 (or really, 1993/4) matters is that after that there was, you know, a WAR going on in Chechnya, and 4/5 Russians lived in Grozny, which was more or less completely destroyed. Russians are more likely to flee the war than Chechens, because Chechens view it as their only homeland, whereas Russians often had relatives "back home" in Russia proper. And there's a long, long, long conversation we can have about this about all the reasons the Russians were leaving (and I've already had it), but that's why the 1995 thing matters. After 1995, its not really comparable to the others, but that's because of the war.--Yalens (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've checked the page. Pretty much, I think it covers it well. It says the Russian population in Chechnya plummeted, which is the case. It notes that the Russians (and pro-Russians) say that this is because of "ethnic cleansing" (they say Dudayev persecuted Russians, but did he persecute his own WIFE, who was Russian? o.O), the Chechens (and pro-Chechens, as well as anti-war Russians) say its because of the war, others note the horrible economic situation in Chechnya, and so on. I see nothing it doesn't say that is necessary. --Yalens (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
And about Ingushetia, that highlights an interesting point. Ingushetia's Russian population also plummeted (and now, both percentwise and number-wise, it is far less than Chechnya's), but no one says Ingushetia has been ethnically cleansed of Russians. --Yalens (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Look, I'm no expert, but I know that Ingushetia is tiny compared to Chechnya in everything (size/population etc.) so the tiny russian population (>40,000 I heard) had most left anyway. The 150 odd thousand in Chechnya that fled/moved or whatever are a substantial population. Once again though I heard that the "War" was also evident in Ingushetia (especially since they are both neighbors) so that could be another reason. We need to make the section more neutral because while reading through it, it seems to take the Chechynan side on that it states the mass flood of russians leaving wasn't down to persecution. I have no knowledge of the subject, but I suggest making suggestions, e.g. "The Russian population of Chechyna, according to Russians officials were because of.. Converseley, Chechnya sources state that in fact.. etc.". I certainly didn't mean remove it because it could potentially be quite important information. Lastly I just want the evidence of the 200,000 Russians living in Chechnya removed. It is incorrect statistics, and that I dislike, especially on an up-to-date encyclopedia :) Thanks for your time Yalens Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
200,000 was true in 1995. I will make a note in the thing that the time of writing was 1995 and that it is no longer true today. Yes, there were affects of hte war in Ingushetia, but Ingushetia did not have whole cities flattened, left without running water, and so on. It is still extremely poor, with large number of refugees- both Ingush kicked out of Prigorodny by the Ossetians and Chechens fleeing Chechnya- straining even further its resources. But being poor and having your homes flattened are two very different things. --Yalens (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it says the flight of Russians wasn't due to persecution assertively, it says that the two sides disagree over it (as do observers). I can state at the end of the paragraph that the Russian side rejects the statements if you want, but I don't really see the point in that, because it is just saying something that is already stated above- that the Russian side sees it as ethnic cleansing. As for the quote of ""The Russian population of Chechyna, according to Russians officials were because of.. Converseley, Chechnya sources state that in fact.. etc."... how would you suggest saying it then? How the page has it right now is stating it as a dispute between the two sides without taking either side. Do you think another way would be better? --Yalens (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Gassing of one hundred and thirty Russian hostages

In the main text it says "Russian forces refused to negotiate and gassed the entire building, incidentally killing one hundred and thirty of the Russian hostages as well as all of the terrorists." Unless someone has a credible source for this I tend to not believe this. I have asked many Russian friends of mine about it and they all say that it is unclear what exactly happened, they do think there is something "fishy" about the death of the hostages, but they have never heard of any official source stating it was the fault of the Russian forces, or the terrorists. What they are certain about is that both the Russian forces and the terrorists could have used the lethal gas, as the terrorists had previously threatened to blow up a biological/chemical bomb (depending on the translation it was either a biological or chemical bomb) in the theater. In short, unless there is a credible source for the claim that the Russian forces caused the death of those 183 hostages I would remove the sentence or at least state that there is debate about the question whether the terrorists or the Russian forces caused those deaths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.158.97 (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)> (forgot my login and password, and too lazy to make a new one at the moment)‎

Okay, first of all, the concept that the Chechen terrorists could even dream of blowing up a biological/chemical bomb (let alone having one) is rather imaginative. The views that you put here are probably the mainstream Russian views, there are no doubt views more pro-Kremlin than those and those more anti-Kremlin than those. For an example of the latter, I took a quote from the page about this event:

Hostage Anna Andrianova, a correspondent for Moskovskaya Pravda, called Echo of Moscow radio studio and told on-air in a live broadcast interview that the government forces had begun an operation by pumping gas into the hall:

Most importantly, that most of the hostages (and hostage-takers) died because of the gas that was put in the building isn't even disputed (obviously, a conspiracy theory that the hostages were intentionally killed by the government is, but that is not what the article says). The thing is balanced and well-discussed (and well-cited!) in its respective article, and I will bring in references from that.--Yalens (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Questionable passage

I have removed this passage because it was completely unsourced (neither first nor second part), and because imho there's a logical fallacy there: if the share of Russians in 1989 in Ingushetia was higher than in Chechnya, and in 2002 the situation reversed than this would say something about the Russians in Chechnya, and about the demography of the republic in general. However nothing logically follows from the statements 1) the share of Russians in Ingushetia in 30s was >30 % AND 2) the share of Russians in Ingushetia in 2002 is the lowest among the Russian regions.

The comparison of the fates of Russian population in Chechnya and Ingushetia is potentially very interesting, so if there's a scholarly work (or at least some comparable statistical information) about it, let's cite it. Alæxis¿question? 21:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of any way to access the divided data for the 1989 census (i.e. divided between the many subdivisions of then-Checheno-Ingushetia, because we know which three constitute Ingushetia and we can just put them together...)? --Yalens (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I tried to find this data before I wrote the previous post, without any success. The best online resource I know of with Russian censuses data ([19]) has only subject-level ethnicity split for all the censuses except for the 1897 one... Alæxis¿question? 23:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I looked through this... I did not find anything for subdivisions of Checheno-Ingushetia... BUT I did find that the stuff that it says on our page here is massively incorrect. Like for example, it gives 77,274 Russians in Chechnya in 1926... on the contrary, our website here gives a mere 9112 (I pick this case because the site lists Russians first). We should set about correcting them (I will make the note that at that time, Chechnya administratively did not include Shelkovskaya/Moxne and Naurskiy/Houran, don’t worry).--Yalens (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, nevermind. I see what the people who wrote that did: they combined Groznyi (counted separately in '26) with the rest of Chechenia. --Yalens (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1989 Census population figures by district are available here.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 18, 2011; 17:19 (UTC)

Ahh... this does not specify ethnicity, only rural/urban and gender... --Yalens (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I must have misunderstood what you needed. I don't believe the population break-downs by ethnicity and district are publicly available for the 1989 Census (but I may be wrong).—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 18, 2011; 18:25 (UTC)

delete photo with gorge

this is not chechnya. this is dagestan СанчоПанса (talk) 11:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Religion section

The Religion section says that 94 percent of Chechens are Muslims. In the document, which is used as a reference for the claim, I haven´t found such information. There is only the fact that 94 percent of Chechnya´s inhabitants are ethnic Chechens. --Liberal Nationalist 20:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Nationalist (talk • contribs)

Alright, I looked one more time. There is an indirect mention about almost 6 percent non-Muslims. But it isn´t mentioned that they are exactly Sunni Muslims. P.S.: Anyway, it seems I got the old version of signatures. Can anyone tell me how I can get the new one with the link, so that it can be treated by the Bots as a singature? --Liberal Nationalist 20:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Nationalist (talk • contribs)

For the signatures, no matter what version the editor uses, you can just type in "--~~~~" and it will print your sig... as for Muslim stats, I think that we might as well remove that and say "most Chechens are Muslims". Fyi, there are in fact Chechen atheists, though many of these still associate with Islam; Chechens also have a history of their own pagan religion as well as Christianity and Judaism, though none of these three are practiced in any significant numbers if any at all today. Conversely, there are plenty of non-Chechens in Chechnya who practice Islam- Ingush, Kumyks, Avars, and Nogais all do. But that Chechnya is 94% Chechen is incorrect both in 2002 and today (it was 93.5% in 2002, and its probably more than 94% today based on estimates). --Yalens (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong infromation

With the impending collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, an independence movement, initially known as the Chechen National Congress was formed. This movement was ultimately opposed by Boris Yeltsin's Russian Federation, which argued, first, that Chechnya had not been an independent entity within the Soviet Union—as the Baltic, Central Asian, and other Caucasian States had—but was a part of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic and hence did not have a right under the Soviet constitution to secede; second, that other republics of Russia, such as Tatarstan, would consider seceding from the Russian Federation if Chechnya were granted that right; and third, that Chechnya was a major hub in the oil infrastructure of the Federation and hence its secession would hurt the country's economy and control of oil resources.

Chechnya declared independence before the Russian Federation was formed. It also didn't join RF (like the breakaway Ingushetia did in 1992) anytime during Yeltsin's presidency.

"Such" Tatarstan also joined only in 1994, after too declaring independence - but Chechnya joined only in 2003, when Russia gave it the new constitution (through a fake referendum), or 12 years after declaring independence from the Soviet Union and Yeltsin's supposed arguments about "secession from the Russian Federation".

This should be completelly rewritten in accordance to the facts. --HanzoHattori (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that these are Russia's arguments. So what do you want to write instead? Alæxis¿question? 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Rewrite this. It's silly and just plain disinformative. By August-September 1991 there was no RF (time of "the impending collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991" when independence movement took power in Grozny), and by December 1994 Tatarstan joined the RF, not "considered seceding" (it seceded before, from RSFSR). --HanzoHattori (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, RF and RSFSR are essentially the same body, except one has fewer letters. What do you want re-written? --Kuban Cossack 09:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Really? I thought RSFSR was a part of the Soviet Union and RF didn't exist. Chechnya declared independence from Soviet Union several weeks before the beast finally died, and there was no independent Russian country under any name. After RF was created, the former Soviet autonomous republics which previously sought independence were joining it, not seceding - there is a hell of difference. Ingushetia fell from Chechnya and joined in 1992. Said Tatarstan joined in 1994. Chechnya however, did not join until 2003 when its consitution was re-written by old Kadyrov (as of the Russian constitution, it was also uniliterally annexed in 1993, in the article 65 after the coup by Yeltsin). --HanzoHattori (talk) 11:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
So you are looking for loop holes in purely de jure documents. I should tell you that RSFSR actually declared indpendence from USSR in august 1991. Also as you said ChIASSR declared independent from the USSR but not from RSFSR which it was directly subordinated to, thus making the legal case false. Also between 1991-94 Tatarstan was still nominally part of Russia in all respects. --Kuban Cossack 12:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually in 1990 Soviet law gave the Autonomous Soviet Republics the same rights as the Federal Soviet Republics (and these rights included the right to secede from the Soviet Union). Russia did not declare independence from the Soviet Union until the dissolution of USSR (in fact, Moscow remained the seat of the Soviet government, so how it would be "independent"?). In any case, Federation Treaty was signed by representatives of the various states only in March 1992, and Chechnya didn't participate. Also, communist-run Chechnya declared souveregnity from the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic long before the events of the Soviet coup of August 1991 (and they weren't alone in this, as several ASSRs too declared itselves a full republics of the Soviet Union, several while Autonomous Oblasts unilaterally upgraded themselves to autonomous-republic status, mostly already in 1990). As of Tatarstan, in 1992 it approved a constitution that described the republic as being on an equal footing with the Russian Federation (Tatarstan's entry was finally negotiated in 1994). In the case of the Chechen constitution it was created before the Russian one (remember the official casus belli of "restoring constitutional order" in Chechnya), and remained unchanged until 2003. It's all not "loop holes", it's history. By 1997 Chechnya never joined the RF (even the 1995-96 puppet government of Doku Zavgayev officially didn't, as the matter was simply ignored like if it never ever existed), and instead signed a series of treaties between CHRI and the RF (including a peace treaty regulating their common relations as "based on international law" - don't try to tell me the RF signed a peace treaty with itself, it would be quite schizophrenic wouldn't be?). --HanzoHattori (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

HanzoHattori, I would be safe to say: all SU republic had been nearly FORCED (it was highly recommended) by the party to declare independence for creation of new Soviet Union sake. Including RSFSR and Chechen-Ingush autonomic republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lors787 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Human Rights section

I added information from a report by Human Rights Watch since I came across it doing an essay on honour killings. If anyone has an issue with it, let me know, I'm still a beginner wikipedian! --Coagmano (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Bandera de Nakhitxevan.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bandera de Nakhitxevan.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hostages speak of storming terror, BBC News, 26 October 2002
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chechnya/Archive_3&oldid=1153586360"