Jump to content

Talk:Chechnya/Archive 4

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

File:Chechnya-grozny-den-goroda-01.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Chechnya-grozny-den-goroda-01.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • 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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Grozny-city-central-mosque.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Grozny-city-central-mosque.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • 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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

English

Keeping the politics off, I don't like the language of the article very much. Like "die down" is not good English. "The current resistance began in the 18th century" sounds strange: it looks like it has been constantly going on since 18th century. Should sound something like "The current resistance has roots in..." or something along these lines. "Russian overlordship" sound like taken from the pages of a 17-th century text. Feudal-like. "Russian power" or "Russian dominance", whatever, could be better... "Chechen separatists still claim an independent Chechnya". And so on... Gaidash 4 July 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Chechnya Veterans' Association

At the top of the external links is the Chechnya Veterans' Association. Two things: after looking at the original Chechnya Veterans' Association (which I fixed up) and the Assoc's website, I am not sure how serious these guys are. In fact, I have a feeling it is just one guy. I don't think the link should be at the top. But also, since there is now a Wikipedia article on the Association, perhaps we should link there instead (it is not very complete, but at least it has a few lowercase letters). --Taejo 8 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

For the information of all reading this page the association is indeed very serious, we have currently in excess of 250 registered members in 10 countries around the world. Any person is welcome to join, and you do not have to be a veteran, although veterans enjoy certain enhanced membership benefits. Please contact the association via the website for more details SC -association president 20th October 2006 13:07 MSK

FSB agents? true or rumor?

What about that line concerning FSB agents planting bombs? Is there any real evidence or is this just based on rumor? I would really like to know the truth, and not suspicions. --G

Of course, it is hard to get to the bottom of such conspiracy theories, particularly when evidence is limited and if such exists, might require personal and first-hand knowledge -- i.e., a memoir of a member of said security services. At least one such book exists: Felshtinsky, Yuri, and Alexander Litvinenko, Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within, S.P.I. Books, New York, 2002. Naturally, one might also suspect the intentions and objectivity of those writing such a book (where they describe the FSB's alleged criminal activity in the Moscow apartment bombings). As far as I know, there has been no definitive proof either way.

FSB agents planing bombs is from the same level of moronic stsatements as US government planning 9/11, basically same level of things. Of course it is false, only children believe it.

reduced this biased stuff in second chechen war section, making it more neutral. It's still without any source links, so may be totally deleted further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.208.170.194 (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
What you actually deleted was not references to the alternative viewpoint, but rather the fact that Litivinenko and Politkovskaya were killed after advocating that viewpoint- which barely needs to be cited as their names are linked to whole wiki articles full of info about the affairs. --Yalens (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Grozny-city center.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Grozny-city center.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
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.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Grozny-city center.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ichkeria

Ichkeria (Chechnya) has been merged with this article, but there is no detailed information about the name. History of Chechnya#Ichkeria, on the other hand, has details, even with refs. I'm thinking about redirecting Ichkeria (Chechnya) there instead, but that does not seem correct as the article was merged here. For now, I've taken another path and modified the dab page Ichkeria to point to the more helpful history article instead of the near-useless redirect. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Boston

I'm really not sure how a bombing that may or may not have been carried out by Chechen nationals deserves a place on the entry for the entire country. Either way, everything is still up in the air, and the news networks have been pretty consistently reporting incorrect/out of date information. This isn't CNN, we shouldn't be in a rush to scoop the news organizations or FBI. 2610:130:115:A00:ED6A:D629:2798:4486 (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm with you on your first point. These are two foreign nationals out of an entire country of people. Mentioning anything on the country page would be a sign of U.S. bias. There will be (or are already) articles about the suspects and the events, and mentioning their nationality there will be sufficient. 169.234.145.237 (talk) 13:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The two individuals involved in this incident do not serve as a proxy for their country as far as we know. Even if they did, it would not be appropriate to include a single incident relating to America on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.246.228 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Sufis

Due to historical importance, many Chechens are Sufis, of either the Qadiri or Naqshbandi orders.

This sentence is unclear. "Due to historical importance"? Huh? Sca (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

"Chechnyan"

Chechnyan is not the proper term, but it is used in the sentence "On July 1, 2009, Amnesty International released a detailed report covering the human rights violations committed by the Russian Federation against Chechnyan citizens." The Amnesty report that is used as the basis for that sentence correctly uses the term Chechen, as does the rest of the Wiki entry. Please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.179.158 (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching this!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 19, 2013; 15:10 (UTC)
They're actually two different words, with two definitions:
Chechnyan- (geographic identification) an inhabitant of the Republic of Chechnya, who may have any ethnicity.
Chechen- (ethnicity) a member of the Chechen ethnic group, who may live anywhere in the world.
I just checked the source, and the word "Chechnyan" didn't come up. But if it had, they might have actually meant the first definition.--Yalens (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Yup, the reason I changed it is because that's what the source uses. What they really meant when they chose the term is anybody's guess, of course.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 19, 2013; 15:35 (UTC)

Religion

It is not mentioned that Chechnya is predominantly Muslim until 2/3 of the way down in the article. Futher it is on the border between Muslim and non-Muslim republics or regions. Russia, which it tried to secede from, is predominantly non-Muslim. Religion is at least a big part of the cause of the conflicts that occupy most of the article. It should be mentioned more prominently. Tomtul2 (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Religion is featured as part of the demographics section, as is our standard for countries, regions and so on. It seems like you want to change this so that the page matches your own views on what's important, but that's not what wikipedia is about. Anyone who wants to know about the region's religion can easily access it from the table of contents. --Yalens (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Outdated

The History section stops at 2009 under the sub-section of the Second Chechen War. The war officially ended in 08. Could someone please expand on things such as postwar reconstruction and sporadic violence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.115.160 (talk) 01:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Location

In the intro to the article, there is the line that states "It is located in the southeastern part of Europe in the North Caucasus mountains". The key point here is the "southeastern part of Europe" line that i would like to address. If one were to look at the article South Eastern Europe, they will realize that region denotes specifically the Balkan regions, nowhere near Chechnya or the Caucasus. Since the article is protected, i would advise someone to edit and correct the line to - "It is located in the southern part of Eastern Europe in the North Caucasus mountains". Eastern Europe being the actual region that contains the Caucasus. 24.90.230.216 (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would go further and argue that it's part of Asian-Russia, both geographically and culturally.LokiiT (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
But my point is still valid. The newer edit, while technically correct, now makes the information more vague than ever to the readers. The average reader doesn't know where the "north slope of Caucasus Mountains" is. That is the whole point, just simply be frank and point out it is in the "southern part of Eastern Europe", please. 24.90.230.216 (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
That's what the big map on the side is for ;) I'm not so sure calling it part of Eastern Europe is accurate. I did a quick google search and found nothing describing it as such. If you can find a source I'll gladly incorporate it. LokiiT (talk) 06:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The article Eastern Europe itself does the job, to include the Caucasus countries as part of Eastern Europe: Russia (which includes Chechnya), Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Now, if Chechnya is not officially Eastern Europe, then there is no way that Georgia can be considered Eastern Europe; but we now for a fact that Georgia is popularly considered Eastern Europe, despite being further away from continental Europe than Chechnya. 24.90.230.216 (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I would also add another critique of the edit you made by pointing out, why mention "north slope of Caucasus Mountains" when you could simply mention North Caucasus which would be the more precise phrase and geography, and we have an article on that. I would recommend the entries need to be precise and simple, but is becoming increasingly vague and/or potentially misinformative (to new readers). How about we make this edit, combining the various factors: "It is located in the southern part of Eastern Europe in the North Caucasus mountains, situated within 100 kilometers of the Caspian Sea". 24.90.230.216 (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, wikipedia is not a reliable source (notice how that article itself is not sourced where it talks about the North Caucasus). Moreover, it's not customary to refer to a nation's specific regions as being part of a subcontinent. And the reason I added that description is because that's what the world atlas says. To be honest I think you're being a bit pedantic. If someone confuses Chechnya with the Czech Republic based on that description and the accompanying map, God help us all. LokiiT (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Czech Republic is in Central Europe. The state of this article is part of the reason why people are making such confusions. Especially more ridiculous is that they you would replace the mention of North Caucasus in favor of "north slope of Caucasus Mountains" which isnt even a geographical area other than denoting the mountains in that region. Countries are located within continents, yet for some reason you refuse to allow this article to be denoted a continent. This single factor alone would have made a massive difference for readers. I'm tired of arguing with people who are essentially wiki-squatters refusing to nudge on a given article. 24.90.230.216 (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
1. Czech Republic is a part of both central and eastern Europe.
2. Anyone reading this article already knows the correct name and can clearly see the map to the side. You sound like you're assuming the average Wikipedia reader is in kindergarten.
3. I'm not sure what a wiki-squatter is, but like I said, if you can find a reliable source, I'll incorporate your change. That's how Wikipedia works: everything needs to be verifiable, especially anything contestable. LokiiT (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course when you link an article entitled Central and Eastern Europe, Czech Republic will be included in it. If i post an article entitled "Africa and Asia", you can bet Mali and India are going to be in it (that doesn't mean Mali is in Asia). Also, according to the link you just posted, i don't see how Chechnya is exempt from it (it is within Russia), if according to your view Czech is Eastern European. You mention the Atlas a lot, but you coincidentally also claim Czech is in Eastern Europe, which it isnt. Why is that, isnt the image loading for you on that one?

There are not many mentions of Chechnya's continental location simply due to the fact that it isnt a separate country but within Russia (thats why Russia is always listed, but never its subdivisions). However, there are still multiple sources that talk about Chechnya being in Eastern Europe: [1], [2]. Once again i point at Georgia, which is farther from continental Europe than Chechnya, is considered Eastern Europe. Since you're so infatuated with Atlases, what i can source is references to where Europe cuts off and where Asia begins. In modern times, the boundary is located either at the Caucasian watershed or at the Ural mountains: [3] and [4] and [5] and [6]. In either case, Chechnya is firmly within those boundaries. So its pretty evident where Chechnya is located, when they are firmly within the internationally recognized booundaries of Europe which cuts off at Georgia. 72.231.4.108 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not really a matter of geographical location. For example, we don't refer to Turkey, Finland and Greece as part of Eastern Europe. There is a cultural and political element to it. The more I think about it the more doubtful I am about your proposed change; no other region is designated this way (e.g. Dagestan, Ingushetia etc.), so it would be inconsistent in the very least. LokiiT (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Finland is quite frequently called "Eastern Europe", and Greece and Turkey are called such occasionally only by people without memory of the Cold War but it's quite overshadowed by their stronger "Southern Europe" designation. The identification of certain regions can vary depending on the nationality/perspective of the speaker- for example the amorphous "Central Europe" entity"- but in the case of Chechnya, it's not even ambiguous that its in Eastern Europe. More specifically, it's part of the North Caucasus, which is part of Eastern Europe (and its important to note that, because many readers don't actually know where the Caucasus is). Indeed, the Northern Caucasus is probably culturally closer to the Southern Caucasus as well as perhaps Turkey than it is to the rest of Eastern Europe (Ukraine, the rest of European Russia, etc), but this shouldn't really matter- Canada and the US are culturally closer to the UK than they are to Mexico, but this doesn't change the fact that they're part of North America, not Western Europe. --Yalens (talk) 21:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
^^If you had viewed the sources (articles and maps) i listed, you would have realized that Europe cuts off at the Ural Mountains. Turkey is well below that line, which is why Turkey is rarely cited as being Europe, only part of it (Constantinople/Istanbul) is in Europe. While, Finland and Greece are in Northern and Southeastern Europe, respectively. 24.90.230.216 (talk) 20:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Mecca on the Migration Map

Why is there Mecca on the map? If it even existed at the time, it had little significance and isn't even part of the Fertile Crescent. Can this be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarcalvinsk (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --Yalens (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Notable minority

"As of the 2010 Census, the republic had a population of 1,268,989 people, predominantly of the Chechen ethnic group with a notable Russian minority."

Can a minority forming only 1.9 per cent of the population really be described as "notable"? Skinsmoke (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

When it's the second largest group in the republic and is dominant throughout much of the rest of the country, I don't see why not? But changing it to "...followed by Russians, at 1.9%", is also a possible solution.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 30, 2013; 18:37 (UTC)
That would make more sense, perhaps along with a comment on the dramatic decline of the Russian population during the instability in the republic. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Even something on the lines of "Notably, Russians form only 1.9 per cent of the population, unlike the situation in most of the republics in the Russian Federation. The Russian population in Chechnya has decreased dramatically since...." The thing that is notable is surely how few Russians there are in Chechnya these days. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

History of Chechnya

Understand one thing. What is now known as Chechnya had many names in different cultures. Even Georgians who bordered Chechens for thousands of years have at least four names for Chechens, I am not even talking about others. Do not delete the material about Caucasians. The Caucas is the ancestor of Chechens and it doesn't give you the right to twist historical facts into your geopolitical agendas.Kavkas (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the talk page, we've been waiting for you. Would you like to respond to the question above regarding your edits? --Yalens (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Caucasian Albania, etc

Really, in my opinion, Caucasian Albania shouldn't be included. Yes, it included Nakh peoples in its extreme northwestern areas, but they weren't by any means the "dominant" people (that would be the ancestors of today's Udis, who are Lezgic, not Nakh), but so did (and does) Georgia, and furthermore, there's no proof that these specific Nakh peoples are the ancestors of today's Chechens. Is Great Moravia Russian history just because they're both Slavic? Of course not. Inclusion of it just looks like yet another case of wikipedia nationalism.

And as for the map, this isn't really a big deal, but it really adds nothing to the page, because everyone who reads this page should already know where the Fertile Crescent and the Caucasus is, let alone Mecca (almost everyone knows where that is!). It's just wasting space. But if its so important for you you can put it back on, unless someone else objects... which at least one other person has, partially. --Yalens (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats why we are called Nakh-Dagestani language family. Just like your Slavic family has many Slav nations mine has too. Even today 13 peoples of Nakh peoples nation are known. They are not bound to the only 2 nations like Gergar or Gelians. These are only 2 and do not include the rest known nations who lived in today's Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan (so much for extreme north areas). Let me ask you a question you probably heard about the city like Alkhan-Kala near Dzhokhar-Ghala ("Grozny"). Explain me how Nakh-Daestani civilization names like Chirag Gala(Chirakh is translated from Nakh as hunter and Gala/Kala as city) ended up in Azerbaijan? Dr. Johanna Nichols on her map in the Science (the one you periodically delete), showed Azerbaijani shore of Caspian sea as a birthplace of the modern Nakh-Dagestani civilization.

Mecca is a good reference point. Every Muslim knows the location well enough.Kavkas (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"My Slavic family"? I'm not a Slav at all... You know that I've been accused of being a sympathizer for the "Caucasian warrior pov" before? I guess I must be doing something right, if the hotheads on both sides hate me so much... --Yalens (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

"I didn't say he was wrong, and I'm not disputing the factual accuracy of the quote. What I'm saying is that Glenn Beck is not a reliable source of information, and his words have no place in that article. All of that information can be found in history books written by academics, and that's what should be used. People associate his name with lunacy, and will do likewise with his words. LokiiT (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2014 (UTC)" LokiiT, I can tell you that every single human being has some form of what you call "lunacy" be it Bush, Putin or Obama everybody has views that are either far left or far right ... but when a man is right man is right. Kavkas (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The argument is not with the truth of the deportation of Chechens, but with the source cited. There must be a better, academically researched, source for this same information. Glenn Beck is considered a fringe extremist political media figure in the U.S., who very often indulges in wild conspiracy theories, and thus he will not be considered as a reliable source by most U.S. readers or readers with a knowledge of U.S. politics or media. Mingusal (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly my point. It would be like putting truthful quotes by Alex Jones in an article about the history of Afghanistan. All it does is delegitimize the truth and muddy the waters. LokiiT (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
You can find much better sources for the exact same statements... it is totally unnecessary here for us to have an unworthy source like Glenn Beck. --Yalens (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I found what appears to be an error.

This is the line: "For three months, Russia lost more tanks (over 1,997 tanks) in Grozny than during the Battle of Berlin in 1945.[40]" I followed the citation, and there is no mention of Russia losing more tanks in said battle, than in the Battle of Berlin. In-fact, the 'Battle of Grozny (1994–95)' Wikipedia page lists a maximum of 400 total Russian vehicle losses for the ENTIRE war. Synaxx (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Too partisan

The article at present reads like pro-Muslim, Pro-Chechen propaganda. It is also full of awkward phraseology, as if it were poorly translated to English from some other language. It is so bad as to be a disgrace. Fnj2 (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning anti-Charlie march

Let's discuss it here instead of reverting. I don't have a strong opinion about it but this event does say something about the level of religiousness of the population of the republic and about the attitude of the republican government. Alæxis¿question? 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic distribution in time

I think it's important to explain why the Russian population shrunk so much from the time of declaration of independence in the early years and what was the attitude of the Chechen government towards that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.228.65 (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

?Map?

The map is a non-sequitur. This is a small entity in a complex region with lots of other small entities. Given that the tiny speck in a larger map provides zero context. Will someone who specializes in maps please provide a better? Thanks up front. Tapered (talk) 03:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Chechnya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of the "Post-war reconstruction and insurgency" section

The "Post-war reconstruction and insurgency" section does really not seem NPOV. Statements such as "Kadyrov´s rule has been characterized by a terrible human rights record and a growing cult of personality" really seem to be pushing anti-Kadyrov and anti-Kremlin POV. Having statements such as "Kadyrov saved Chechnya from the evil terrorist CRI rule after Chechnya was incorporated again into Russia" here would be no more appropriate and neutral.--89.173.227.64 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chechnya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chechnya. 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) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chechnya. 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) 23:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Map

@Kavkas: please refer to the discussion I have created here about the issues with the map. Thank you. --Yalens (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Nuclear State?

In a recent article with Bryant Gumbel, President Razman Kadyrov said 'We have a strong government and are a nuclear state. Even if our government was completely destroyed, our nuclear missiles would be automatically deployed.

'We will put the whole world on its knees and s***w it from behind.'

If Chechnya is, or claims to be, a nuclear state, is that worth mentioning in the wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.134.96 (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Chechnya is not a nuclear state, it is not even de jure independent from Russia (which is) although Kadyrov runs it like an 'independent' Russian satellite state flagrantly disobeying Russian laws. Can't be a nuclear state if you're not a state. You could however mention it on Ramzan Kadyrov's page. --Yalens (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Also @82.112.134.96: do you have a link for the source of that statement? --Yalens (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chechnya. 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) 07:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chechnya. 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)

It must be stressed strongly enough in this article what Russia has done on Chechnya,

turning Chechnya into, in the words of historian Brian Glyn Williams, "the most dangerous heart of darkness in the world." The Chechen hatred of Russia, evidently the deepest and greatest that exists in the world, is something few people could begin to imagine. It has been said to "make the Palestinian hatred of Israel really mild by comparison," or, more lyrically, "Chechens would probably prefer seeing cobalt nuclear bombs rain on Russia to everything else they ever wished in life becoming true". This is not to be censored, it is the baleful, pernicious truth.87.93.96.82 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Geography / topography ?

No information at all so far. Main rivers, heights etc. Would be interesting, too, what causes mentioned strong climate differences within country. Anyway, the often heard term "Mountain republic" or "Caucasus republic" for Chechnya seems somewhat overstated. Even a superficial look at a topographic map reveals that, obviously, less than half of territory is mountainous. --129.187.244.19 (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation vs. Czechia

Chechnya and Czechia (Czech Republic) might be easy to confuse for some people. I suggest a disambiguation line at the beginning of the article, to clear this confusion. --anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1062:F900:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Amazing discrepancies

Comparing the version in the german wiki with this, you would think two different countries are being described. The german version describes the country prior to the second war as country living under the sharia with a design on invading its neighbors. One of the versions must be slanted or maybe both. 2A00:20:301F:9B3D:F9A6:FE02:447:9A68 (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the chaotic situation between the two wars and the invasion of Dagestan are mentioned prominently in the history section. I don't read German and so cannot comment on the differences. Is there something specific you would like to add? Alaexis¿question? 20:26, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
The German article goes in to much more detail. The English article links to the article on the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, which does mention the more specific information you refer to. It might be an "amazing" discrepancy, or clearly "slanted", if the English article went in to detail about the regime whilst avoiding the specifics you mention, but it doesn't. 8dave (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Pro Russian bias

There appears to be a significant pro Russian bias in the editing of this article. Chechnya was an independent entity before the Caucasian conquests of the Russian empire. Chechnya attempted independence multiple times, most notably under the Caucasian Imamate. In 1991 the occupying communist party was removed and elections were held. The ChRI saw multiple elections, all of which were free and fair. Russia carried out a policy of Russification for centuries, the most egregious example being in 1944 with a genocide of the Chechens and Ingush (a closely related people). Only in the last few years has Grozny become majority Chechen again, due to low Russian birth rates. Leetinkoy (talk) 09:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You are not giving any examples of this "bias". No one can help you if you simply say the article is biased. Mellk (talk) 09:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
There have also been a very small % of ethnic Russians in Chechnya, including in Grozny, since the 1990s, not sure what you mean about Grozny only becoming majority Chechen in the last few years. Mellk (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Poor quality of English

"Despite difficult past, Chechnya shows high level of life expectancy, one of the highest in Russia. But pattern of life expectancy is unusual, and in many charts Chechnya stands out from the overall picture. In 2020 Chechnya had the deepest fall in life expectancy, but in 2021 it had the best rise. Chechnya has the highest excess of duration of life in rural areas over cities."

The language throughout this article, but particularly in the demographics section, is poor. It is possible this has been translated from a second language, but in any case an English speaker needs to review this article and make appropriate changes. 92.20.159.78 (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Using Maternity patients as shields

I am just curious as to the source for the statement in Chechnya's first war that they used maternity patients as shields. Not being able to check the source, and being a little skeptical, I can't help but think it propaganda...germans cutting the breasts of nuns, etc.

Please confirm the source, or put an advisory at the top of the page as having a slight lean against the Chechens. Not that I feel that they are a great bunch of chaps, but I'd like to get the facts straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.117.23 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "terror and deportation"

I deleted "terror, deportation" from the sentence "systematic reconstruction, terror, deportation and rebuilding" in the header. Of course there is terror and multiple HR abuses, but that sentence was completely illogical. If somebody wants to mention HR problems in the header - you are welcome to write a separate consistent sentence. I also do not understand what is that "deportation" that is referred to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.16.161.89 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

I've protected this article for ten days due to continuing edit-warring. Please use this time to resolve your differences on this talk page.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ukrainian recognition

"melk" has reverted a good faith edit 3 times, despite the fact a legitimate source was added. Leetinkoy (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your edit twice. And it does not mean you can write anything as long as you add a "legitimate source". The source states that Ukrainian parliament declared "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" as "temporarily occupied" (the same euphemism as before). The source does not say it was recognized as the "legitimate ruler" by Ukraine, and it does not recognize "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria" as independent or sovereign[7]. So, I suggest to self-revert here and actually read the policy on WP:NOR instead of making such comments, and also to follow something like WP:BRD. Mellk (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Have you read the source? It clearly states that: "Oleksiy Danilov, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council, tweeted that 'Free Ichkeria will start the process of decolonization of the Russian Federation and the destruction of the sub-empire.' ". This is a black and white statement proving that Ukraine has officially recognised the ChRI as a free and legitimate government, currently under russian occupation. Leetinkoy (talk) 08:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
The Reuters article says "A majority of Ukrainian lawmakers voted on Tuesday to back a resolution that "recognises the Chechen republic of Ichkeria as territory temporarily occupied by the Russian Federation as a result of armed aggression which contravened the UN's Statute". I think it's different from what is written in the article now. I'd suggest to use the same wording that the source uses. Alaexis¿question? 17:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@Leetinkoy It doesn't matter what some official tweets. This is not official recognition. The Meduza article I provided to you mentions this. Otherwise it looks like original research. Mellk (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Also the wording suggests that this is some kind of polity that still exists. Mellk (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Leetinkoy, the Reuters article doesn't say what you've written here. If you took it from somewhere else please add the source. Alaexis¿question? 17:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't directly quote the article, but I did make an entirely reasonable statement. If a nation recognises an area as being forcefully occupied, it must therefore recognise that there is a legitimate owner. In this case, it is the ChRI. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but anyone can see this. If you don't agree, take it up with the Ukrainian parliament and ask them what they really meant. Leetinkoy (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Leetinkoy There is page for this called WP:No original research. Mellk (talk) 18:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Also the Meduza article I provided shows that this assumption is incorrect. There is a different bill regarding recognition of independence. Can you stop adding your own unsupported commentary? Mellk (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
It's not an unreasonable statement but as long as it's your own interpretation and not something reported by a reliable source, it's still considered original research. Alaexis¿question? 12:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding the ChRI flag to the infobox?

Considering the recent recognition by Ukraine, and the long history of the usage of the ChRI flag (which predates the current russian one), it would make sense to include the ChRI flag as the flag of Chechnya. The Wiki article for the ChRI already has a good image that could be used here. Leetinkoy (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the Russian federal subject, and Ukraine has not yet recognized such an entity as independent. So no. Mellk (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, even if Ukraine did recognize independence, every other country does not. Mellk (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The label for that is "partially recognised state" and I will note that Abhazia, South Ossetia, (previously) the DNR/LNR and Transnistria all fell under that category. This is despite all of those states being recognised by russia and occasionally Syria or Belarus. If even one totally recognised state (such as Ukraine) recognises another, a state is partially recognised. Kosovo is partially recognised, for example. Leetinkoy (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, no country actually recognizes Chechen independence (you are assuming Ukraine does) and this article is about the Russian federal subject which Russia controls, so there not even de facto independence. Mellk (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
1. Ukraine does recognise the independence, so your point there is moot.
2. This article claims to be about "Chechnya" as a people, state and region all together. If it is only about the supposed "Chechen Republic" then it is dishonestly portrayed, and the article should be first moved to "Chechen Republic" and the wider history of Chechnya section should be removed. Otherwise, this article should be treated as covering the entire concept of Chechnya as a state, region and the Chechen people; this would then make using the ChRI flag completely acceptable. Leetinkoy (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I am having a lot of difficulty finding non-Ukrainian sources claiming that the Verkhovna Rada does recognize the independence of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. You are going to need to find a better source than one Reuters article. And as @Mellk said, this article is about the Russian federal subject. And on top of that, the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria has not existed in any meaningful form since. On the contrary, the Republic of Crimea is not recognized, but does have de facto control over the most of the Crimean Peninsula, with the exception of Sevastopol, which is organized as a separate federal subject. I called your edits POV pushing with merit. I mean, your userpage literally does say "Chechnya will be free". So that does imply a POV. Michael60634 (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chechnya/Archive_4&oldid=1218554894"