Talk:Nakh peoples

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Caucasia (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles

Defensive Towers height

I read that defensive towers were 30m high somewhere else to. But I'm not sure if that's true. Searching for evidences but I think they were maximum 20 or 25 meters high... Normally they had 5 or 6 floors+3 or 4meter height of first floor(in defensive reasons) level from terrain. it makes 6xFloor hight+4meters=30 that mean each floor was in best case 6 meters high.. thats impossible..(and not esthetic) So in my opinion someones wrote 30 in place 15 or 20 and other followed his/her mistake... By the way the towers I saw in real wer far lower than 10floors building --Nakh 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved most of tower-related sections to a new article

The detailed descriptions of the Nakh medieval towers were moved to their own article, Vainakh medieval towers. There was too much technical detail for this article, which is meant to be a genaral survey of all aspects of the history and culture of the Nakh peoples.
I am not sure what is the proper name for the new article ("Vainakh" or "Nakh"? "medieval" or "Medieval"? etc.) Suggestions? All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vainakh is mostly used by Nakh people theirself. It means "our people" like our relatives, in that Nakh is "People". People prefer to call that Ethnic group "Nakh". I dont know does it matter if its written "m" or "M". Nakh 04:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

darghafs

this image should not be in this article. the "built in typical Nakh style" seems to be original research

to Nakh (talk · contribs): if you dont give any source about nakh style i will be to delete the image.--Bouron (talk) 12:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bouron, It's well known that ancestors of Ossetians (Scythians, Sauromats and Alans) practised nomad culture and they had no advanced architecture. We also know that these people share not only the Vainakh architecture traditions but also Byzantian. for example Churches built by Alans are in traditional Byzantium style. I didn't published my researches on this issue, will cite if find someone elses. PS: Byzantum church was also shared by Georgians and Armenians. Nakh 04:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. --Bouron (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nakh peoples. 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) 15:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Language

This page isn't written in proper English. It's filled with grammatical errors and incomplete and incoherete sentences. Purplefishy (talk) 14:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who wrote much of it had English has his 4th (after Chechen, Russian, German) language. If you want to fix it feel free. Purplefishy btw regarding mutual intelligibility, while Chechen and Ingush are widely believed to be mutually intelligible by pretty much all of their speakers (personal experience here too can confirm), linguistic literature including J Nichols (Princeton -- she's big) has described it as a case of passive understanding through exposure, akin to how Spanish and Italian speakers have "mutual intelligibility" in effect but not as discrete communication systems in isolation before exposure and adjustment. To be fair the vowels indeed can be pretty different.--Calthinus (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign teips

I removed the "foreign teips" section since it had almost no sources and because there are no Foreign teips among Chechens. This is a myth that was popularized by Soviet researchers who included foreign nations like "dzhugti"(jews), "Örsi"(Russians), "Chergizy"(Circassians) etc into the Chechen teip lists when in fact these were just nations that happened to live in Chechnya.These are Chechen names for those nations, not Teips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goddard2000 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghalghai

Kist-Dzurdzuk Hello, i made some changes to your Ghalghai edit in Nakh peoples. The changes are as following: 1. I removed Strabo as a source for the Gelia people's since he never claimed they are Ghalghai. I replaced him with Pallas who did indeed theorize that the Gelians Strabo mentioned were in fact Ghalghai. This is a theory however and many other theories exist about Gelians so its better to have Pallas as a source than Strabo.

2. Your claim that Chechen Highlanders called Ingush Makhaloi, this is the first time i heard about this and if i recall correctly Khalid Oshayev claimed Svans are called Makhloi not Ingush. If you bring a source that claims otherwise then i see no problem in undoing my edit.

3. I added Nakhchoy to the list of peoples that Ingush were referred to, since there is already "Tschetschena" in that list i assume you have no problem with adding Nakhchoy. It would only be fair. Goddard2000 (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the notes of Laudaev and Suleimanov. And the record with the ethnonym "Dzurdzuki" for the Ingush.

Hello Goddard2000, I would like to discuss your flawless rollbacks of my edits, in which I actually added sources. And to prove that your accusations that I add "disinformation" are only slander in relation to my person:

1. You claim that I allegedly did not read Laudaev's scientific work "Collection of Information about the Caucasian Highlanders" and that I allegedly entered false information, in this book it is written in black and white on page 76 that the name "Nakhchoy" is translated as "cheese" This is confirmed by the Chechen legends about the "turpal nokhchi" who, at birth, held an iron in his right hand, and in his left hand he held a creamy mass similar to cheese, this is an indisputable fact that the Chechens themselves speak of.

2. You also canceled important edits about the work of the Chechen ethnographer Suleymanov, deleted the photo depicting the Ingush, and also eliminated information about the Ingush translation of the word "isting", and at the same time you did not justify your actions.

3. You say that it is an insult to remove information about the alleged connection of the Chechens to the Dzurdzuks, although it would seem that the map of the Georgian prince "Vakhushti Bagrationi" has already proved everything. The map shows kists, gligvas, and dzurdzuks indicating that this is a single ethnic group, and to the west we can observe the Chechen ethnonym "chachan" which refers to Dagestan, now the question is: Where is the connection between the Chechens and the dzurdzuks? Niyskho (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Niyskho

1. I misread your original edit regarding Laudaev, i thought you meant that Chechens themselves used Laudaev sources to claim that they were named after cheese, my bad on that part. However Laudaev never claimed that Nazranians refer to Chechens as "Nakhchi" while Chechens refer to themselves as "Nokhchi". He only referred to Chechens as Nakhchi, your edit implied that Laudaev claims that Chechens only called themselves Nokhchoi which is false.

As for Turpal Nokhchoi this is a legend, should we also assume that Ingush are descendants of Arabs? because Ingush folklore says they are descendant from an Arab king named Turpal? Besides there are as many sources where Chechens themselves say Nakhchi comes from "people", "people of excellence", "from Nashkha" etc. 1 Folktale doesn't confirm this theory.

2. I deleted all of your edits since you came out of nowhere and deleted + changed large chunks of text, adding a picture of Ingush or an Ingush etymology is no problem as long as you don't delete other stuff.

3. Vakhushti is the only source we are using now? What about other far more reputable historians such as Javakhshvili, Melikshvili and others that clearly say Chechens are Dzurdzuks. What about the toponym "Zurzuka" in Chechnya? Also Vakhushti never claimed modern Chechens were not Dzurdzuks, he claimed half of modern Chechnya was Dzurduketia (territory that is west from the river of aragvi that is). Before "Chechen" was only the name of a city, then it became the name of a territory and then Russians referred to everyone as Chechens. Nowadays Chechen is only referred to the Nokhchi/Nakhchi people, so to claim that Chechens aren't related to Dzurdzuks is ridiculous especially when several historians also call Chechens "Dzurduks".

Vakhushti also claimed that Gligvi (Ghalghai which as you know is the self-name of Ingush) who lives in Angusht (Ingush) are descendants from Dzurdzuks. How can you then claim Dzurduks are only Ingush if the very Ingush Vakhushti mentions are descendants of a people that are not Ingush? who are then the Dzurduks? major Chechen tribes live on the territory which he claimed are Dzurdzuks. As we well know many Ingush taips claim to descend from Chechen taips as Nashkhoi, Dishni, Äkkhi and Terloy. Nashkhoi especially was always the capital and cradle of the Nokhchi/Nakhchi people so you can't claim we aren't Dzurduks when Vakhushti locates Dzurdzuketia west of the Aragvi (Argun river) where Nashkha is.

Goddard2000 (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, I thank you for an adequate dialogue, unfortunately, in my experience, some individuals among the Chechens they introduced themselves extremely inappropriately, and even tried in every possible way to offend our people.

1.Laudaev wrote in his work that the name "Nakhchi" was translated as "cheese", in the same work he wrote that Nazranians who speak "not a pure Chechen language", mockingly called the flat Chechens "cheese people", I want to note what exactly the flat Chechens wore this name, this ethnonym did not apply to the mountain Chechens, if we refer to the same Laudaev and Suleymanov.

This is just the most common legend among Chechens (especially among the older generation), the Chechen historian Suleymanov wrote that the name "nakh" (people) and the ethnonym "Nakhchi" are not of the same series, proving that these are completely different names. For the first time I hear about the legend of the Ingush about a certain Arab Turpal, although I read something similar in the works of the Russian historian Adolf Berger, but there it is a completely different matter: In labor: Chechnya and Chechens. , A. Berger Ruler of Affairs of the Caucasian Department of the Imperial

Russian Geographical Society.

T I F L I S. 1859.” On page 125, there is a legend about a certain Arab named "ali" who arrived in the Caucasus from Arabia, where he was received by the Galgaevs and allowed to live in their homeland,after a while, Ali (Arab) has a son whom he called "Nakhchi" because of the creamy mass that he held in his left hand, on the same page it is written that "Nakhchi was a brave Galgai", Chechens originated from the same person, according to legend.

2.I was confused by the fact that the general article for the Ingush and Chechens to a greater extent reflect the hypotheses that are beneficial to the Chechens themselves, why is there practically nothing related to the Ingush? Respect your neighbors, and finally, let me add a section with the ethnonym "Galgay", there are quite a few works in which it is said that this ethnonym was widely spread to the Nakh ethno-societies. Dzurdzuks in many Georgian sources are recorded as the ancestors of the Ingush, but nevertheless, I do not deny that they are the ancestors of the Chechens!

3.And now please don’t tell stories about the “Chechen origin of the Ingush clans”, if we start a discussion on this subject, then a lot of things will become clear, referring to the same German traveler and professor Johann Guldeshtend and his works, then we will find out something the village "nashkha" and its inhabitants from which many Chechen teips originate is the territory of the Ingush massif.

Thank you for your attention! Don't take my words as insults! In no way am I trying to offend anyone! You just need to study history honestly! Dal bart ca1 bolb vey! Niyskho (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also glad we can have a normal dialogue instead of a fight, previous conversations with your fellow countrymen here have resulted in bans and curses. However your post contains more inaccuracies.

1. Laudaev did indeed say the Nakhchi ethnonym originated from Cheese but he did not say Mountain Chechens don't use this term. This is a very inaccurate statement from you and it puts doubts about your intentions, he said the ethnonym originated in the lowlands but is now being used by both mountaineers and lowlanders. The quote about Nazranians (Ghalghai) i posted in the article clearly shows that he said Ingush and Chechen mountaineers (Shatoy) call each other "Nakhchiy".

As for Suleimanov not applying the ethnonym to Mountain Chechens, this is up for debate, Suleimanov was a Chechen nationalist and i'm assuming you are referring to his quote about Chanti-Argun and Sharo-Argunians referring to lowland Chechens as "Nachkhi aka cheese" instead of Nakhchi. Suleimanov also refers to all Chechens as "Nakhchi" later on in the very same page (145):"нахчи — чеченское самоназвавие,". This is a very weak source from you since he doesn't say that Mountain Chechens do not call themselves Nakhchi, just that "they pronounced and some still pronounce Nakhchi as Nachkhi when referring to lowland Chechens which means cheese". Nowhere does he say that Mountain Chechens are neither Chechens or Nakhchi, he outright refers to all Chechens as Nakhchi in the very same page.

Not to mention all of the toponyms he names in the mountains of Chechnya that are related to Nokhchi and Nakhchi, for example he names "Nokhchi-khutor" in Nashkha, another variant for a place in Nashkha is "Nakhch-Khazie", another variant for "Nokh-kort" he names as "Nokhch-kort" etc. In every book of his he says that Chechen self name is Nakhchi-Nokhchi, Suleimanov himself claimed he is Chechen and if you didn't know he was from taip Chanti which means he is a Mountain Chechen.

As for the Arab "Turpal" that came to Caucasus, married a Georgian woman and then had 3 sons called Ga (Grandpa of Galgai), Arstkho and Nakhcho you can find in Yakovlevs book about Ingush here: https://litresp.ru/chitat/ru/%D0%AF/yakovlev-nikolaj-feofanovich/ingushi

The story of a Chechen Arab marrying a Ghalghai woman and then having a Nakhcho son is also just that, a story. Berger recorded it from 2 men, this type of folktale was common in North Caucasus where Muslims regarded Qurayshi tribe almost as a holy people. There are plenty of Folktales that contradict these stories such as Ingush being descended from Nokhchoi or that Ingush ancestor was an Armenian prince instead of Arab. We could compete by throwing these folktales at each other but it will just be a waste of time.

Berger himself considered both Ingush and Chechens "Nakhchiy", he says it himself in page 83 of "Чечня и Чеченцы":

"Here is the calculation of all the tribes into which it is customary to divide the Chechens. In the strict sense, however, this division has no basis. It is completely unknown to the Chechens themselves. They call themselves Nakhche, i.e. "people" and this refers to the entire people who speak the Chechen language and its dialects. The mentioned names were given to them either from auls, like Tsori, Galgay, Shatoi, etc., or from rivers and mountains, like Michikovtsy and Kachkalyks. It is very likely that sooner or later all or most of the names we have given will disappear and the Chechens will retain one common name."

As you can see Berger stated that the ethnonym means people and he doesn't say non-lowlanders are not Nakhchi. The same can be seen by many authors such as Semenov, Dubrovin, Dalgat (who many times studied in Ingushetia) and many others. Dalgat also wrote: “It seems to me that the interpretation of N. Semenov is correct. Nakhchuo comes from the word: nakh - people, people and chu - inside, here is a place, and means a place inhabited by people; and the word Nakhchoy means the very people”

So no "Cheese" isn't widely accepted, most authors even in the 19th century use "People" or "Nation" as the correct etymologi. If there are authors that disagree with it then it's fine, Suleimanov like you said disagreed that it means Nation but in no way did he say that Mountain Chechens are not Nakhchi like you claimed.

Why is there no Ingush input? go check the edit history first before you ask, it is full of Ingush that delete and edit in unnecessary stuff. You are the first one that i can have a normal discussion with, if you look on this talk page i had nothing against someone adding Ghalghai etymology. The only thing i did was try to correct some mistakes but the author never answered and the page was as usual attacked by trolls.

Dzurdzuks are not Ingush only, if Gligvi (Angusht) is the descendant of a bigger and older people (Dzurdzuks who aren't Gligvi/Ingush) then how can Ingush alone be Dzurdzuk? Think about this question because you fixating on the "Chechen" toponym without taking in the account of it's history is very irresponsible and will lead to a lot of misinformation. I also have to note that Vakhushti himself never wrote detailed info on Chechan, like he did about the Gligvi, Kist and Dzurdzuks, and during this time "Chechen" was already a common Russian exonym that spread to others. I should remind you that the oldest map that mentions either of our nation is not Vakhushtis rather it is a Kabardin who served in the Russian army. Map is from 1719 and "Chechens" cover all of the territory of modern Chechnya and Ingushetia, Source: https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/borders

We can tell the origins of each taip no problem, especially with DNA testing now i can confirm everything. Guildenshtedt claimed Nashkha was divided into the "little Angusht" region by the Russians. You can understand why if you look geographically but that doesn't matter, parts of Ingushetia and oftentimes all of Ingushetia was referred to as Chechnya for administrative and military reasons. Nashkhoi however has nothing in common with Ghalghai genetically and belong to the Chechen branch. But i do think we will sit here for years if we try to continue on this discussion about Ingush and Chechen teip origin so it is up to you.

Goddard2000 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this discussion will continue indefinitely, I can present evidence to you, and you, in turn, will present your arguments.

I would also like to say that some authors called the Ingush Chechens only because this ethnonym was easy to pronounce. You understand that the Ingush never called themselves Chechens and Nakhchoys, we called and still call ourselves Galgai and Ingush, our history is common, but by circumstances of fate we became two peoples, taking a neutral position, I will only say that no one comes from anyone ! You are Chechens, We are Ingush, and that's all.

And please answer, if I add information about the hypothesis of the origin of the ethnonym "Galgai" and that this ethnonym was also widespread in other Nakh ethno-societies, including information that the Chechens themselves were called Galgai, you will tell me interfere in any way? after all, on this page there is already information that allegedly "the Ingush were called Chechens", now let the Ingush add their own section. Niyskho (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but where am I impatient? We've discussed everything. I don't want a useless edit war, I just want to contribute. Niyskho (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want hostility, you are very mistaken! I am for a peaceful solution to the problem. Niyskho (talk) 15:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You must have patience Niyskho , (Personal attack removed) but we have to have a discussion about the edits before we edit again. This is why the Talk page exists, i don't want to get the admins involved again since that is very exhausting and i don't have time for edit wars. Regarding your recent edits:

The edit with a picture of Ingush men: I see no problem with this image but why do you have the need to raise your image above every Chechen image in this article? you did the same on the istang images, the Chechen image was posted first so let it stay there. There is no need to have a complex regarding it. I let the Isting image stay above the Chechen Istang image if you are this fixated on above-below positions of images.

Edit where you deleted a chunk of text in the Durdzuk section: I have no problem with this either since you rightfully pointed out that the text has no source, i hadn't noticed it before so i think this is a valid edit.

Edit with Isting: No problem here either, good edit and very useful.

Edit with Durdzuks: Here is my biggest gripe, your edits with Durdzuks are full of original research and attempts at claiming the exonym of Durdzuk all for yourself. The image you posted i have no problem with, it is the map of Vakhushti however your text is completely original research. Vakhushti never claimed all 3 societies were Ingush, the only people he ever claimed were Ingush were the Gligvi (Ghalghai) who he said lived in Angusht (Ingush). Otherwise he said Gligvi/Ingush are descendants of Durdzuks (a people that are clearly NOT Gligvi (Ghalghai) or Angusht (Ingush). Do you think we can call the USA the United Kingdom? or Argentina the Kingdom of Spain? no we can't. Vakhushti mentioned Chachans but during this time Chachan was not referred to all Chechens, especially not highlanders. Chachan itself is technically only a region in central Chechnya.

I have a proposition on how we can solve this problem, we can copy paste the Russian version of the Durdzuk page onto this page (and the English version of Durdzuk page which you already edited on). If you post Vakhushti's map and source and claim the things you claim then that is original research which isn't allowed on Wikipedia, however you can post the sources that claim Durdzuks were Ingush (like Volkova who claimed Durdzuk were referred to all Vainakhs but later on only located in Ingushetia). Then i can post the sources which call both of us Durdzuks and the sources that claim Ingush were only Gligvi while Chechens were Durdzuks. This is how the Russian wikipedia version looks:

"Dzurdzuki or Durdzuki ( Georgian დურძუკები ) is a medieval ethnonym used mainly in Georgian and Arabic sources in the 9th-18th centuries. Some researchers localize the Dzurdzuks in mountainous Ingushetia and identify them with the Ingush [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] , others believe that during the Middle Ages the population of Chechnya was known to the South Caucasian peoples under the name "Durdzuks", or "Dzurdzuks" [6] [7] [8] , and the population of Ingushetia under the names "Gligvi", "giligii" [9] [10] . Other researchers identify them in general with the ancestors of both the Ingush and Chechens [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] . The Georgian historian V. N. Gamrekeli claims that “Durdzuk” is definitely and, with all its references, uniformly localized between Didoet-Dagestan in the east and the gorge of the Terek River in the west [18]"

You can also post the map but without text since again this is original research on a map that claimed nothing close to what you described. What do you think? Goddard2000 (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't care if the photo of the Ingush is higher than the photo of the Chechens or vice versa, I don't care at all.

As for the isting photo, I didn’t quite understand, I didn’t add a photo of the Ingush isting, you probably made a mistake.

Much is obvious about Vakhushti, he specifically noted in his work that the ethnonym Dzurdzuks belonged to the Kists (as the Georgians used to call the Ingush), this is a fact, one way or another. But still, I do not deny that there are also sources saying that the dzurdzuks are the ancestors of the Chechens. Apparently I was in too much of a hurry, here I made a mistake.

Regarding your proposal: I agree with you! your version of the Russian Wikipedia suits me very much. I think this is how we will solve this problem.

Thanks for the good discussion. Niyskho (talk) 16:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niyskho I meant the Ingush version of Isting above the Chechen istangs, not image. Either way let's ignore that, if i over-analyzed it then Kxinter val. Regarding Georgians using Kist for Ingush only) this is also something that is very much up for debate but either way, I will use the Russian version in this article and the Durdzuk article, i think it is neutral to both of us. I am glad we managed to come to an understanding without involving the admins. Also regarding an admin removing my "insult": it wasn't meant as an insult, you can check the edits if you want to see what i said.

Goddard2000 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am also glad that everything went pretty well, you behaved very worthy, I did not observe any insults from you. Niyskho (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the ethnonym «Ghalghaï»

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi colleague Muqale, could you consider creating a section on the self-name of the Ingush in this article? I think this is quite important information for this article. Targimhoï (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muqale Targimhoï I undid your edit because you are removing a large chunk of the text without at least contacting other editors like me. We have talked in talk page many times with others about edits on this page and come to consensus. Do not edit war and vandalize, Targimhoï making multiple edits in 1 day on 1 page is not permissible i believe. It is better to make 1 edit, both of you have edited out a large chunks of the article and changed it with dozens of edits in 1 day. Start a discussion in here before you edit to reach a consensus, otherwise it might result in an edit war. Goddard2000 (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, okay, I will not edit this article, let experienced participants decide this issue Targimhoï (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goddard2000 You have removed a chunk of my edits and said that you don't agree. Please make a separate section and let's discuss the speicific edits you don't agree with. Because I've mainly expanded a quote of the same author (Laudaev). Muqale (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that Laudaev's work seem to have came up on this talk page before.

If you do not agree with Laudaev's words, then why is another quote of his book perfectly fine for you? Muqale (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's a bit dishonest to claim i removed a "chunk" of your edit when the edit i undid was you removing a chunk of text from my edit (the part where "Nakhchi" was used until 20th century), adding a quote from Laudaev while implying that the oldest mention of Nakhchi term was Pallas and that it agreed with Laudaev's hypothesis that Nakhchi came from cheese. I don't understand what Pallas source has to do with Laudaev since Pallas never claimed Nakhchi comes from "Cheese", how can he "perpetuate" what Laudaev said? Goddard2000 (talk) 05:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected phrases and removed a statement that was already used in the article, also expanded the exact same source (Laudaev). You are interpreting things your way, while I clearly stated one of the oldest mentions of the ethnonym was made by Pallas, and the last phrase of the Laudaev quote that I provided was that the Nazrans called chechens Nakhchoy, and this indeed is perpetuated in Pallas' work who likewise said that the Ingush or Galgai call Chechens Natschkha and not themselves (the quote you removed for no apparent reason). And you still have not given a valid reason for the removal of Laudaev's quote I added. He is referenced in this article by you and other users, or are you cherry picking quotes from his work? Muqale (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which statement was already used? You removed this text: "The term "Nakhchi" was still used by historians and ethnographers for Chechens, Ingush and Batsbi up until the 20th century before it was replaced by the Vainakh/Nakh term in the 1960s.

After this you removed a text from the Ghligvi section. Then you added a Laudaev quote along with a Pallas quote about Ingush calling Chechens "Natschkha" and claimed "Perpetuity". If you did so to say that Ingush called Chechens Natschkha and themselves Lamur/Galgai then i understand but if you add the quote and claim perpetuity right after Laudaev gives a hypothesis on the origin of the term "Nakhchi" then it implies Pallas agrees with the cheese hypothesis. I don't mind the Laudaev quote but it's a hypothesis on the origin of the etymology and should be under the "Etymology" section. Pallas quote can stay in "History" section.

This is why you should contact previous editors on the talk page, if you try to change the whole article and remove chunk of texts and place around texts everywhere then it makes no sense for the readers. Goddard2000 (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you removed other texts in the article and claimed "Batsbi were never referred to as Nakhchi", again if you did this in talk page BEFORE removing chunk of texts here and there this would be much easier. I already provided a source in the article, Uslar referred to the Batsbi as Nakhchi: "P.K. Uslar. Ancient legends about the Caucasus (1881, page 182) “It is true that the Tushin also belong to the Nakhche tribe, which is proved by the grammatical structure of their language, but, having submitted to the Georgian influence, they completely degenerated and lost their Chechen character.”"

Tushin here being the Tsova-Tush who are in Chechen more commonly referred to as "Batsbi". Goddard2000 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Batsbi (Tsova-Tushins) were almost never mentioned as Nakhchi, and were to a larger extend mentioned to be as descendants of the Ingush (Galgai)

Tsiskarov who himself was Bats (Tsova-Tushin) said that they descend from the Ingush. It is not correct to use exceptions when the vast majority considers the Bats people to be of Galgai origin. Muqale (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laudaev's quote I added after the other quote, which is appropriate, hence the one that is there now implies that the Ingush "rejected" this enthnonym, while Laudaev also states that the Nazrans (Ingush) called Chechens Nakhchoy. Pallas' quote confirms this. I didn't even add other others, because the emphasis was on the Ingush calling neigbouring Chechens by this enthnonym. So I don't see what the problem is. But since you don't mind Laudaev's work, then there should be no problem.
The phrase about the Gligvi being mentioned first in 1745 is not accurate, the country of Durdzuki-Gligvi is mentioned during the reign of Kvirike III in 11th century. I simply removed the word first and also the part about them splitting of from Durdzuketi, which is a falsified statement.

Muqale (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. What does this have to do with anything? many have also said they have Chechen ancestry like Veidenbaum, Brockhaus & Efron and even Tsiskarov classified the Tsova-Tush language as Chechen. If we use your reasoning then i can still claim Batsbi are Nakhchi because Veidenbaum and Brockhaus & Efron referred to Chechens as "Nakhchi". Uslar who studied the Chechen-Ingush language very much and was a very respected linguist of his time referred to the Batsbi as Nakhchi. He isn't just some small source that you can cast away.

2. You seem more fixated on someone having a "problem" with Laudaev than having a discussion about Laudaev, i don't have any problem with him or his quote but his quote should be in the etymology section since he talks about his hypothesis of the etymology of "Nakhchi". I don't understand why you have a problem with adding this text to the etymology section, you yourself headlined that text with "U. Laudaev also provided the origin of the ethnonym". It seems to me that you are just trying to add the text right after mine just to douse out some imaginary flame.

3. I agree that "first" shouldn't be in that text but Gligvi being split off is heavily implied by Vakhushti Batonshvili when he says "to the east of Kisto-Dzurdzukia lies Gligvetia, called either by the name of Gligo (Ghligho), the grandson of Dzurdzuk," and then "All these the gorges that we have described were originally Dzurdzuketia.". You again removed the text without coming to a consensus here, i don't want to edit war and bring an admin here so i'm telling you again that you should have a discussion here first. I propose we add in the Gligvi section that "According to the Georgian noble Vakhtushi Bagrationi the ancestor of Gligvi (Gligos) was the grandson of Durdzuk and their lands used to be referred to as only Durdzuk". I assume the "splitting off" part doesn't sit well with you so we don't need to imply that Gligvi split off even though it is implied by Vakhtushi. Also i disagree with "Durdzuki-Gligvi" being mentioned during the reign of Kvirke III, Vakhtushi only says that Kvirike was the king of Durdzuks and Gligvi in 1745. There is no contemporary source from Kvirike that mentions Gligvi. Goddard2000 (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. It has to do with the fact that twice in the article it is claimed that 'historically' the term Nakhchi applied to the Ingush as well as Batsbi (Tsova-Tushins). You seem to often use selective sources, to convey a one-sided message. The migration of the Batsbi specifically from mountainous Ingushetia to Tusheti is documented by almost every researcher. Also I've looked into Uslar's work and in the intro of his book (Чеченский язык) he said he was staying in the Grozny when he studied the Chechen language, and he was sent 25 local Chechens to aid him in his work, and provided the names of the 2 main ones who worked with him. In the 19th century there were no Ingush living in Grozny, which implies that he didn't gain insight from the Ingush, he just mentions them briefly. Regarding the Chechen and Batsbi (Tsova-Tushins) language Uslar says on pp. 2-3 (second paragraph):

"Не имея покуда достоверных данных, я не решаюсь обозначить точным образом географических границ чеченского языка" - translation: "Without yet reliable data, I do not dare to designate in an exact way the geographical boundaries of the Chechen language"
"Нет надобности говорить, что столько же странно было бы считать тушский (бацбийский) язык за испорченный язык нахчий, как считать язык нахчий за испорчений тушский. Это то же что считать французкий язык за испорченный итальянский или наоборот. Таким образом, все сказанное выше о наречиях чеченского языка и о возможности свести их в один общий письменный язык, нисколько не распостраняется на тушский язык (бацбийский)." - translation: “There is no need to say that it would be just as strange to consider the Tush (Batsbi) language as a corrupted Nakhchi (Chechen) language, as to consider the Nakhchi language as a corrupted Tush language. This is the same as considering French as a corrupted Italian or vice versa. Thus, everything said above about dialects of the Chechen language and the possibility of bringing them into one common written language, does not at all extend to the Tush language (Batsbi)."

2. I don't know why you are so sensitive about me expanding on Laudaev since he is already sourced. Otherwise he should not be sourced in the first place. The last phrase was key (about the Nazrans calling Chechens Nakhchoy). Everything leading up to that phrase explains the reason behind it. But I have no problem putting this exact full you removed quote in the etymology section.

3. Nowhere does it specifically say that it was the the Gligvi that split of. Please refrain from diverting from the original statements made in the book. Laying east of Kist-Dzurdzukia does not at all imply that the Gligvi split off. Vakhushti clearly stated in the beginning that Durdzuketi consists of Kists (Kisteti), Durdzuks and Gligvi. Regarding Kvirike III - Vakhushti sourced old Georgian works. I can provide many historians who say that he refers to 11-th century material that did not survive up to this day (I can proved sources). Otherwise same can be said about the first mention of 'Nakhche (Nakhchta)', since Dzhanashvili was the first to bring this up in 1897. He references a 14th century source, that did not survive to this day. By your logic it would then be first mentioned in 1897. So my edit on the Gligvi is not inaccurate. I agree on the rest of your statement.

To summarize, I agree on putting Laudaev's quote in etymology section. But will not agree with several statements classifing Ingush as Nakhchi tribe or language. If you insist to leave these statements, then I should add that prof. of linguistics Yakovlev considered the Chechen language to me a more modern version of the older Ingush. And to be frank, I see no reason why this should not be on this article. Your thoughts? Muqale (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. The origins of Batsbi don't matter in this context, we don't need to talk about it and unnecessarily lengthen this conversation. I have already posted sources that claim they have Chechen origin too but again this doesn't matter. We are talking about the Nakhchi term which Uslar used for Batsbi. I am aware that Uslar talked about the difference of Chechen and Batsbi languages but in this article it only states that the term was used historically for an ethnic grouping.

I can agree to change the text into: "Historically this term would include neighbouring peoples such as Ingush and sometimes (notably by Uslar) Batsbi".

Uslar was a very respected linguist and one of the first to recreate the Chechen alphabet so his statement is important. It is not a random source. As for your theory about there being no Ingush in Grozny that helped him, it's only a theory from you and it again doesn't matter in this context. It doesn't invalidate that Uslar referred to Batsbi as "Nakhchi".

2. I don't know if there is a language barrier here but i think most would agree that the headline "origin of the ethnonym" and the text of Laudaev theorizing about the etymology of the term "Nakhchi" should be in the etymology section. If you have no problem with putting the quote in the etymology section then why are you arguing about it? It's just a waste of time.

3. I didn't say that "laying east of Kist-Dzurdzukia" means it split off, i said that Vakhushti implies they split off or descended from Durdzuks when he theorizes that:

- Gligvi got their name from "Ghligo" who was the grandson of Durdzuk

- When he says that all of these mountains were originally called Durdzuketia

We don't need to write split off, we can write what i wrote earlier: "According to the Georgian noble Vakhtushi Bagrationi the ancestor of Gligvi (Gligos) was the grandson of Durdzuk and their lands used to be referred to as only Durdzuk". I don't even mind just keeping the "Gligvi was the grandson of Durdzuk" and not including the rest. Also the Kvirike writing by Vakhushti and the "Nakhchta" mention by Dzhanashvili are not comparable at all because:

- Vakhushti mentions no letter or document from the 11th century that mentions Gligvi, he only writes down a chronicle of the Georgian kings and mentions that Kvirike who ruled from (1014-1028) was the king of Gligvis and Durdzuks.

- Dzhanashvili collects letters from the Georgian archibishop and writes down the exact letter and its dating of 1310 when mentioning Nakhchta.

If we used your logic then we can claim Durdzuks were mentioned in 300 BC because Kartlis Tskhoverba (11th century source) mentions them during the time of Alexander. Another example is if we start claiming all of the letters in North Caucasus from the 16th century on-wards were from the 1990's because they were first released in collection books in that time period. If you have a source that specifically mentions an 11th century document or letter that mentions Gligvi then i'll change my mind.

I disagree with removing the Nakhchi term being used for Ingush, it was used prominently in the 19th century and shouldn't be ignored. I don't know what Yakovlev's claim that Ingush language is older than Chechen has anything to do with the term "Nakhchi" or even this article. Nakhchi language has over 9 dialects among which is Cheberloy which is unanimously today and before considered the most archaic dialect of all Nakh languages (alongside Batsbi) so what would be the purpose of adding Yakovlev's quote? If you want to add quotes about languages then we can do this in "Nakh languages", i can in turn also add the studies of Cheberloy dialect and it's archaic nature in that article. Goddard2000 (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am aware that some authors wrongfully attributed the term Nakhchi to the Ingush as well. But usually it were authors who referred to Bergé. So it is mostly is one source that was re-used. Especially conisdering that modern researchers have long debunked the claim that the Ingush are Chechens or called themselves Nakhchi. The stamement I can agree on is: Some 19th century authors would include neighbouring peoples such as Ingush and sometimes Batsbi".

2. The one who was arguing was you. I said I agreed to put in the etymology section, even though the other Laudaev quote is not labeled 'a theory'. Anyway, I will put the quote there.

3. I believe you are the one that is implying this. If anything, he implied that Durdzuketi was split in 3: Kisti, Durdzuki and Gligvi., who made up the country Durdzuketi, so not simply the Ghlighvi splitting of from anyone. Per Vakhushti, Glighos is Dzurdzuk(os)' grandson, why should this imply any split, it is about ancestry. But this all comes from the theory of the Noah-Thargamos-Caucasos-Dzurdzukos lineage, which is open to critique in general.

Regarding Kvirike III and the mention of Gligvii in 11th century: I'm anything but interested in convincing you, for me it is sufficient that historians states that Vakhushti sourced 11th century source material when he wrote this, just like you have no real proof linking Nakhchta (that was a part of the territory of the Kurmukh eparkhy which geographically locates in and border of Leketi-Dagestan-Azerbadjan) to Nakhchi other than the statements of Dzhanashvili and Genko who assumed this is connected to Nakhchi. This is why this is not disputed because historians made the claim, which makes this sufficient for you. But this is besides the point, because I did not add this at all. I simply removed the 'first' claim and splitting of part (Gligvi), which is more correct.

You do realize that Uslar studied the Chechen language, this is why I brought up Yakovlev. Why is Uslar here then if you believe it is more appropriate for the Nakh languages article? Cheberloy theory is not validaded by anyone other than one or two Chechen researchers, this is not enough to make this claim, but you may add this theory if you want to that article, it is besides the point of discussion. We are here because you disagreed on my edits, but it seems your main point was Laudaev's quote, which I agreed to put in another section.

Are there other points to be discussed? Muqale (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I can agree with "Some 19th century authors would include neighbouring peoples such as Ingush and sometimes Batsbi".

2. If you scroll up then you will see that i said we should put it in the etymology section days before you continued on the "why do you have a problem with laudaev quote hmm??" angle.

3. I already said that this was my opinion and that we don't need to specify that Vakhushti implied any split off. I proposed earlier that we can just keep the "grandson of durdzuk" part the same way "kavkasos" is referred to as the grandfather of all Nakh. Do you agree?

What source did Vakhushti source? which letter? which document? every single source that refers to an 11 century relation to gligvi uses Vakhushti's 1745 "history of Georgia" book. This book writes the history of Georgian kings briefly, he nowhere writes down a letter or document.

Dzhanashvili meanwhile uses an actual letter and talks about a source from the eparkhy of Kurmukh (in modern Azerbaijan), your "Leketi-Dagestan-Azerbaidjan" border location is a bit odd when the letter specifically says "and to the churches of the peoples of Khunzta, Nakhchta and Tushta". Why would Genko and Dzhanashvili assume its Nakhchi? because Khunzta are Avars that border Chechens in the east and Tushta is Tusheti that border Chechens in the south. It is obvious then that this eparkhy included Chechnya and parts of northeast Georgia.

I didn't have a problem with you bringing up Yakovlev, i was wondering why you brought up the Yakovlev quote about him allegedly thinking Ingush is older than Chechen language, what does this have to do with the term "Nakhchi"? Goddard2000 (talk) 10:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 & 2 are irrelevant at this point.

3. I do not see any problem with the current statement in the article about Glighvi (as it is right now).

Like I said before, your conviction on what Vakhushti did or did not source is of no importance to me, because historians state that he sourced 11th century Georgian scriptures, just like it is that historians linked the Nakhchta mentioned in that letter to the ethnonym Nakhchi that would not be mentioned again by anyone for 4 centuries. Your refusal to accept this, is none of my concern and this is beside the point. I brought up Yakovlev because no other version is added on the classification of the languages other than the Nakhchi version.

Anyways, this is dragging on. I will add Laudaev in the eymology section as agreed on and Pallas will be left in the same section. Will also add the phrase of 1 point which was also agreed on. The article still has some issues, but for now this will do. Muqale (talk) 07:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. I don't see a problem with it either but i don't see a problem with adding that Vakhushti theorized that "Gligvi" came from their ancestor Ghligo who was the grandson of Durdzuk. Vakhushti is mentioned in the text after all.

Which historian mentions that Vakhushti used a historical document for the Gligvi mention? It is ridiculous to compare Vakhushti's writing and Dzhanashvili since Vakhushti doesn't mention a document, his work is his own chronicle, him using sources to write his chronicle doesn't mean that suddenly everything he wrote down dates back to the 11th century. That's not how it works. But we can agree to disagree on this part since we aren't including a mention of 11th century Gligvis. Goddard2000 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiEditor1234567123 Before there is a chance for edit war i will tag you in here, why do you have a problem with me pointing out that these sources are from modern writings and 18th century? the whole text already mentions other dates such as the 1st century Strabo and 16th century Russian sources. I have added the date for every single major Nakhchi writing as well so i don't understand the problem with pointing out the dates of the mentions of Gligvi.Goddard2000 (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goddard2000 the source mentioning Gligvi during Mirian's reign can be debated, because they are also named Durdzuks in other sources. But the one about Gligvi being mentioned in 11th century is confirmed by a legitimate historian E. Krupnov who stated on page 30 of "Medieval Ingushetia" (1971) - "Впервые имена «дзурдзуки» и «глигви» упоминаются в грузинских хрониках XI в. (Леонтий Мровели) и сохраняются, особенно этноним «дзурдзук», вплоть до XVIII в.". It is well known that Vakhushti sourced Leonti Mroveli's materials who wrote about Kvirike III, and also why would Vakhushti not only mention Dzurdzuks or Dzurdzuketi if there was no mention of Gligvi? He clearly mentioned the road going through the country of Dzurdzuks and Gligvs. If he put it in his own words he would have also mentioned Kists. Makalatia in his work "Khevsureti" in 1940 wrote about the Pkhovi being mentioned in the 11the century during Kvirike's reign as well. (see also their mention below)

And the part about being under the reign of Kvirike III is suggested but not verified as Krupnov continues on the same page: "Описывая состав второго «эристави» (Кветерского княжества), якобы простиравшегося и на северные склоны Кавказского хребта, летописец писал: Это есть эрцотионетцы, пховцы, дзурдзуки и глигвы» Но из этого отрывка не ясно, существовала ли в начале XI в. зависимость северокавказских горцев от феодальной Грузии." Muqale (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Krupnov claims they were mentioned in Kartlis Tskhoverba by Leonti Mroveli yet there is not a single version of Mroveli's writing that refers to "Gligvi", his source on this text is A.I Shavkhelishvili who wrote down in his book letters, chronicles, writings etc in the Georgian archives. The text Krupnov refers to by Shavkhelishvili is the Kvirike text and he mentions "Kartlis Tskhoverba" as a source. The confusion here is that Krupnov assumes this is Mroveli's writing when Shavkhelishvili uses the source of Vakhushti Bagrationi's 1745 "History of Georgia" (Kartlis Tskhoverba) not the 11th century Mroveli Kartlis Tskhoverba.

Vakhushti Bagrationi never in even 1 letter or writing talks about a document or letter mentioning Gligvi from the 11th century, all he does is mention Gligvi as being under Kvirike III (11th century king) in a chronicle where Kvirike is killed by an Ossetian slave. This is why we should specify that these sources are modern and from 18th century since every single source that refers to Gligvi = 11th century uses Vakhushti Bagrationis 1745 Kartlis Tskhoverba, if Vakhushti wrote down a document claiming its from 11th century then that would be a different thing.

You can't deny that Krupnov is factually incorrect with his "mentioned in Leonti Mroveli" writing, if Krupnov claims something then you have to check his source. Kartlis Tskhoverba is a general chronicle of all Georgian history, it's authors were not only Mroveli but also Juansher (part where King Vakhtang reigns), allegedly Queen Tamara (the section where Durdzuks aid her in converting Pkhovi-Didoy), Sumbat Davididze (section where King Lasha-George is mentioend), etc. This is explained in one of the newest "Kartlis Tskhoverba" editions in 2012 on page 5-7, here it is explained that Mroveli, Juansher, Tamar etc is called "the ancient cycle" but the part with Vakhushti Bagrationi is called the "new cycle" i.e new history added to the whole chronicle of Georgian history (Kartlis Tskhoverba) and as the 2012 edition explains it was ordered by king Vakhtang (1716-1724) and one of its writers was Vakhushti Bagrationi from 1745. Hence the Gligvi mentioning is NOT 11th century Mroveli (an obvious error by Krupnov) but by Vakhushti Bagrationi in 18th century.

Vakhushti (1745 Gligvi mention in his Chronicle) > Shavkhelisvhili (1897 mention of Vakhushti's chronicle while sourcing him) > Krupnov (1971 mentions Gligvi in Kartlis Tskhoverba while using Shavkhelishvili as a source).

This is why i am specifying that people who name Gligvi under the reign of Mirian and Kvirike use modern (Krupnov etc) or 18th century (Vakhushti) sources. So i just saw your newest edit, so you agree that modern sources should be mentioned (at least for Mirian), but see my explanation for why it should not be "11th century" for Kvirike, Kartlis Tskhoverba is not only written by Mroveli and it wasn't all written down in 11th century.

Goddard2000 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Mirian I source can be mentioned in that way in the article, but the Kvirike III one I disagree with, I've read in several sources that it stems from Leonti Mroveli. I know that Kartlis Tskhovreba is not only Mroveli's work, that's besides the point. It would not make sense that Vakhushti doesn't mention Kisti in that list, because the road trough Dzurdzuki and Gligvi to Tianeti and Kakheti is mentioned in that quote, so from west to east, so why would he leave out the Kisti? Also there is no way you can prove that Vakhushti altered this specific chapter.

ELMİ İŞ beynəlxalq elmi jurnal 1.518 Yüksək İmpakt Faktorlu Cild: 15 Sayı: 4 SCIENTIFIC WORK International scientific journal With High Impact Factor 1.518 Volume: 15 Issue: 4 provides the following information on page 38:

"Впрочем нахи продолжали играть некоторую роль в истории Грузии. Леонти Мровели отмечал, что мтавар Кахетии Квирикэ III назначил своих наместников в Тианетии, Тушетии, Дурдзукетии, Глигви, Хундзахе, Дидоэтии. Против него восстал царь овсов Урдуре.' Он прошел 'через Дурдзукети и Глигви в Тианетию и опустошил Кахетию. Квирикэ III разбил Урдуре. Muqale (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start with the fact that your newest source doesn't mention Mroveli at all in the reference list, it does however mention Vakhushti Bagrationi. Also there are hundreds of editions of Mroveli's work, you can find them very easily online and i'm sure you have looked through them. Does any of them mention Gligvi or the Kvirike-Gligvi relations? Forget authors like Krupnov, and others who claimed Mroveli mentioned them (while using Vakhushti's source), look at the Kartlis Tskhoverba written by Mroveli himself, it is obvious that it wasn't Mroveli that wrote this, if you want to hypothesize that this text by Vakhushti was influenced by some 11th century document then fine but Vakhushti made no mention of it. If we go by that methodology then we can make estimates for Durdzuks being mentioned in the time of Alexander the Great since Mroveli himself wrote about them during that time.

As for Kists not being mentioned, well why didn't Mroveli mention them in his original text? they were known by the Armenians since 8th century AD and we know that Armenians influenced Mroveli a lot. Why did he not mention the Kisti and Gligvi being involved in the wars against "Khazars"? or the war for the Iberian throne? why did he only mention Durdzuks? in fact the only Nakh peoples that he mentioned were Durdzuks and Chartalians. Goddard2000 (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dalgat

Muqale I suggest you read the foreword of the 2008 edition of Dalgat's book and ignore the conspiracies you wrote previously. The 2008 edition is heavily edited by Uzdiyat (Daughter of Dalgat) who includes letters of correspondence between Malsagov and Dalgat where Malsagov talks about editing his text. We both know that the scientific term "Vainakh" was not used at all before Malsagov created it in the early 20th century, certainly not in the 19th century when Dalgat wrote his text. The 2008 edition as i said was edited and supervised by Uzdiyat Dalgatova who has the original writings of her father and his letters. If you want to claim there is a conspiracy by Chechen authors to include Nakhchoy in Dalgat's text then bring unbiased sources instead of nationalistic Ingush blogs who ignore important details and context. Also it is important to note that Uzdiyat Dalgat is a respected historian and has written a lot about North Caucasus history. Her students include famous Ingush historians like Ibragim Dakhkilgov. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goddard2000 There is no valid to claim that the 2008 edition which was published by a Chechen fund (unbiased), is more valid than the 1934 edition. Dalgat was alve in 1934. Unless you can provide actual source material from before the 1934 edition (and older source that can prove your claim), then there is no reason at all why statements from the 2008 version should be more acceptable. The source provided shows the pages from the 2 editions and the changes made in 2008 edition. Also you have no grounds to claim the 1934 to be false. Muqale (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I reject your statement that the term Vainakh was "created" in the 20th century. Yes, it was first used in literature in the 1920's, BECAUSE it was used by people. Muqale (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of your questions and doubts can be settled if you actually read the 2008 edition and its foreword (page 6-31) https://rusneb.ru/catalog/000199_000009_004158493/. I never claimed any of the editions was "false", the question here is which one is more accurate. First of all, your "biased" accusations of the 2008 edition are extremely hypocritical when the 1934 edition is 1. Edited by an Ingush and 2. published in an Ingush journal called "Serdalo". So we can ignore the conspiracies like i said. Your blog source is nothing but a biased blog who completely ignores the context. In the 2008 edition the editor is Uzdiyat Dalgat, the daughter of Bashir Dalgat who not only criticizes the 1934 edition but also brings evidence of letters of correspondence between Malsagov and Dalgat. Look at page 10 of the 2008 edition, this letter is provided by Uzdiyat, Dalgat is against Malsagov's edits (note Dalgat died before his work was published in 1934 by Malsagov as Uzdiyat points out on page 8 "posmertno") and Uzdiyat correctly points out that he means pages 1-6 among others. Uzdiyat is a respected historian and i have yet to see an unbiased historian criticize her or the 2008 edition (which she was behind). Meanwhile the 1934 is criticized by Uzdiyat and technically even her father (page 10) who directly tells Malsagov in a letter that his work would be diminished if he made his edits.

The Vainakh scientific term was created in the 20th century, not the term Vainakh "our people" itself. Goddard2000 (talk) 14:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muqale I think we can both agree that Uzdiyat Dalgat (honored historian and daughter of Bashir Dalgat) is a better source than Khamarz Kostoev (some blogger who diminishes Bashir Dalgat's work by implying that Bashir didn't know anything and only wanted money). There should be no debate here, 2008 edition is the only edition approved by Dalgat's family and has no criticism (in historical sciences) unlike 1934. Also your blogger seems to agree with me on the scientific term "Vainakh" being introduced only in the early 20th century. Here he has a post about it under the "Garbage" section: https://ghalghay.com/2023/04/02/%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bc%d0%bd%d0%be%d0%b3%d0%be-%d0%be-%d0%b2%d0%b0%d0%b9%d0%bd%d0%b0%d1%85%d0%b8%d0%b7%d0%bc%d0%b5-%d0%b7%d0%b0%d1%83%d1%80%d0%b1%d0%b5%d0%ba%d0%b0-%d0%bc%d0%b0%d0%bb%d1%8c%d1%81%d0%b0/#more-9381 Goddard2000 (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goddard2000 Instead of personally attacking the person who showed the pages of 1934 edition, or me for supposedly “vandalizing” the article (which is against Wikipedia guidelines, if you dont have proper cause), you should focus on the actual text in the book on page 6 of the 1934 edition, which clearly shows that the Ingush did not refer to themselves as Nakhchoy, but Ghalghai, which is in line with the vast majority of researchers of the 18-19-20-21 centuries who researched the Ingush people. Also the statement that the term “Nakh or Veynakh” was used — is more realististic than the 2008 “Nakhchoy” version, since it is a fact that the last couple generations of Ingush confirmed to have no recollection of ever using the term Nakhchoy for themselves, you can ask any Ingush if their father-grandfather, or greatgrandfather ever called themselves Nakhchoy, and they will say that none of them ever did. And you know this to be true.

You talk about Dalgat's daughter instead of Dalgat's work itself, which actually has been criticized. I have read the introduction several times, and it does say that Dalgat himself sent his work to Malsagov. And the work was initially about only the Ingush people, as Dalgat’s daughter says, so it being published by Ingush after the author himself sent it to them is not that biased. Even if you stick to the 2008 version, the main point is that you have not actually provided any real evidence that proves that this exact quote about the Ingush using the term Nakhchoy was altered by Malsagov in 1934. We can only establish that the 2008 edition varies in many parts, and was funded by Chechen politician Aslanbek Aslakhanov as stated on page 7. And Chechens historians do have a history of republishing older works in the 2000's and altering original text regarding the Ingush, like the case with Ahmed Suleyman's "Topononmy editions". To return to the issue; what we have is two different statements from 2 editions. Once again, you have no actual evidence that shows that the earlier quote one from 1934 is was never there originally, and you yourself said you don’t claim it to be false. Therefore, you should either 1) show that before 1934 the mentioned quote was different; 2) accept the first statement from 1934; 3) accept that there are 2 versions and both mention them in the article without claiming that one is more reliable, or 4) remove this source from article alltoghether, if consensus cannot be reached on this topic. Muqale (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muqale Only one attacking anyone is your blogger source (Khamarz Kostoev) who says that Bashir Dalgat knew nothing and only wanted money. That alone should be enough to not use your source. The rest of your response is completely irrelevant, i don't want to waste my time by talking about your conspiracy theories. The 2008 edition is edited and verified by Dalgat's daughter (who is an unbiased respected historian) who also criticizes the 1934 edition and brings letters of Dalgat himself telling the editor (Malsagov) to not remove anything from his work (which Dalgat's daughter says he did). Bashir Dalgat died before Malsagov posted his work, Bashir's daughter who is a respected historian criticized Malsagov and his 1934 edition. She never criticized the 2008 edition which she took part in editing. I am not going to delete this source all because of your nationalistic biased blogger source who insults Bashir Dalgat the very source i am using. Goddard2000 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1934 edition is notoriously abbreviated as well meaning the full thing wasn't even published until Uzdiyat Dalgat published it in 2008 edition:

"In 1934, in the “News of the Ingush Research Institute of Local Lore” (Issue 2. Vol. IV), the work of B. Dalgat “The tribal life of the Chechens and Ingush in the past” was published in an abbreviated form. In full, the book was prepared for publication by Bashir's daughter Uzdiyat Dalgat and published in 2008".

https://welcomedagestan.ru/dagestan/sergokalinskij/urahi/bashir-dalgat-i-ingushevedenie/ Goddard2000 (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blogger is not the topic of discussion, but the actual quotes in the book that are shown in the source material. I am not interested in your personal judgement, but on the objective reality, which is that the oldest version that we have of the book (1934), does not say that the Ingush called themselves Nakhchoy. And this is in line with the vast majority of sources and more factual than the 2008 altered and expanded edition. You have not proven that this perticular quote was falsified in 1934, and since you are using one singular source, instead of dozens others to perpetuate that the Ingush once called themselves Nakhchoy, means that you knowingly choose to convey a propagandic message which is no agreed upon by vast majority of historians. You do not have the authority to decide, based of one dubious source, that a whole nation referred to itself as Nakhchoy, instead of Ghalghaï, which is the general consensus. Muqale (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Muqale If the blogger (your previous source) is not the topic of discussion then why are you deleting text from the article? who is your source? who uses the 1934 edition (abridged + heavily criticized by Dalgat's family) to speak against the 2008 edition? do you have any qualified historians or authors that criticize the 2008 edition? There is plenty of criticism on the 1934 edition so much that it qualifies as a WP:PUS on Wikipedia. Or are we deleting just because Muqale felt like it? because you suspect evil Chechens are behind the revisions? so now you have thrown away your previous source (the blogger) and you are going into this without a source from an unbiased qualified historian that speaks against the 2008 edition. This is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia. You seem to have an obsession with older sources while ignoring important context. The rest of your text is irrelevant. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goddard2000 The reason you are heavily against my edits, is because you yourself are the one who added this selective source (see diff). All I did was add the previous edition, where the squote is more in line with reality. As the Ingush and Chechens to this day use the term Vainakh. There is no evidence that this exact quote was falsified in 1934. And it seems you believe that you have authority over this article. To be frank, this section partly needs to be rewritten, since it is written quite shallow and obviously from a Chechen standpoint, without any mention of earlier ethnonyms used by researchers like Kisti or Mitzdhegi, since only from the second half of the 19 century the term Nakchi was used by some authors. This statement from the 2008 edition is contradicting by itself, because there would not have been a need for a unifying term in literature if the Ingush actually did used the term Nakhchoy in regards to themselves. Scholars Yakovlev and Malsagov would not have needed to establish a unifying term like Vaynakh in literature, which in itself proves that in actuality the term Nakhchoy definitely was not used by the Ingush. Muqale (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MuqaleThe reason i am against your edit is because you are deleting my edits for no reason. You are not the one to decide which quote is in line with reality, this article is about Vainakh terms in general, all heavily used etymologies are allowed to be in this article just as "Ghalghai" is included. The Kist and Midzhegi etymologies can be used too but you are vandalizing and deleting my text while throwing accusations at me and my sources.

Again, i never said 1934 edition is false or any statement from the text is falsified. What i said was that the 2008 edition has no criticism from qualified historians (which you can use against it) and that its approved by the authors family. Also it is the full thing unlike the 1934 edition. I don't understand why you're deleting Dalgat's comment on Chechens-Ingush being named Nakhchoi. Even your source that you are using didn't include his text (which is on page 47 on 2008 edition), so what is your basis? you have none. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who decided that your version (edits) are not to be touched or altered. This is not how Wikipedia works. I am all for reaching consensus, but this perticular quote and your phrasing of it gives a false notion to readers, and you are aware of this. So this is why I have the right to dispute this.

1) Initially, you specifically said you didn't like the source where the pages are shown. I have no problem removing the link, and just citing the book and page. For the oirignal quote: See cliffnotes on page 6 of the 1934 edition: 2) I have more than enough evidence from various source material to prove that majority of historians established that the Ingush called themselves Ghalghai and not Nakhchoy. That is the general consensus. Your paragraph in the article gives readers a false notion based on a singular source. I have no problem acknowleding that there were some authors who classified the Ingush as Chechen (more so in the 19th century), which in those cases would autimatically include the term Nakhchi, used by Chechens. This is why I did not remove those parts. But Dalgat's quote about the Ingush using it as a unifying term was different in the 1934 edition, and that same quote is more valid than the 2008 Nakhchoy one, since our fathers and grandfathers have only ever used the term Vay Nakh as a generalizing term for our people. This is my basis. And it is a valid one. Muqale (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with objective editing, i do have a problem with removing my edits and throwing inflammatory accusations against it while using a nationalistic blog as a source. Note that it was you that deleted my text and did not even mention me in the talk page. You already know that i edited that text and we have had several discussions here. You should have mentioned me and try to reach a consensus instead of just deleting it. So are we dropping the blogger source or what? because you have it listed still in the article, so i ask again what source are you using to claim the 2008 edition is bad and cannot be used? As for the 1934 edition i have told you many times that it is abridged, here i will provide an Ingush source this time so you don't accuse Chechens of foul play again: https://gazetaingush.ru/kultura/bashir-kerimovich-dalgat-prosvetitel-etnograf-antropolog-uchenyy-obshchestvennyy-deyatel

Quote: "In 1934, in the “News of the Ingush Research Institute of Local Lore” (Issue 2. Vol. IV), the work of B. Dalgat “The tribal life of the Chechens and Ingush in the past” was published in an abbreviated form. The book was prepared in full for publication by Bashir's daughter, Uzdiyat Dalgat, and published in 2008."

What about page 6? 1934 (abbreviated version) is different from the 2008 edition (original and full version)? what about page 47?

Quote: "Было бы поэтому

наиболее правильным, оставив название чеченцев и ингушей для

отдельных частей этого племени, назвать всех их нахчуйцами."

Translation: "That would be why

most correct, leaving the name of the Chechens and Ingush for

separate parts of this tribe, call all of them Nakhchuis."

The main focus here is that you are denying any mention of 2008 edition, you remove everything related to it and you do it because you feel like it, not because you have qualified sources that criticize the 2008 edition. This isn't how its done on Wikipedia, you can't just delete a source and throw accusations. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Full quote on page 47: "Прибавлю ко всему сказанному выше, что сами чеченцы и ингуши, хотя и враждовали между собой, называют друг друга братьями, считая себя одного происхождения, одним народом. «Как искра сыпется от булата, так мы все посыпались от богатыря Нахчуо», - говорит чеченская народная песня 3. Было бы поэтому наиболее правильным, оставив название чеченцев и ингушей для отдельных частей этого племени, назвать всех их нахчуйцами." = this is based on a Chechen song (legend or tale) about Turpala Nakhchuo, this tale is anything but factual, and has many versions. If anything, you could say that Dalgat mereley suggested to use the ethnonym Nakhchuy. But I do not agree on the Ingush calling themselves Nakhchoy, since on page 6 (1934 edition) and even in the 2008 edition says that the Ingush call themselves "Lamur" (loamaroi) and Galgai. => "Ингуши сами себя называют галгай" или ламур" (горцы); в горах было даже Галгаевское общество, переименованное позднее в Хамхинское. Кумыки и чеченцы также называют ингушей галгаями, а осетины дают им название "макаллон" (от речки Макал-дон). Теперь, таким образом, преобладают над прочими русские названия - чеченцы и ингуши, - и народные - нахчой и галгай." Muqale (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way i see it we have 2 options to reach a consensus on this matter, either we can go to RfC (request for comment) like it was suggested on the ANI report for neutral parties to decide the 1934-2008 topic or we can settle on changing the text to "He proposed to use the term "Nakhchuy for both Chechens and Ingush" instead of "Nakhchuy was already a unifiying term". We could leave it at that until you at least find a qualified source that criticizes the 2008 edition like Rossguill said in the ANI report. Goddard2000 (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree on the phrase "He (Dalgat) proposed to use the term "Nakhchuy" for both Chechens and Ingush", with the addition "...but this eventually did not came into use, due to the fact that the Ingush did not refer to themselves as Nakhchuy" => since Dalgat does clearly state that the Ingush call themselves 'Lamur (Loamaro) and Ghalghaï in both editions of the book, as is the general consensus among the majority historians and ethnographers. Muqale (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first phrase is good but the second phrase implies that Dalgat went back on his proposition which he didn't in any of the editions. How about we change the text to this > "The famous 19th century historian B.K. Dalgat who worked extensively in Ingushetia, wrote a lot about Chechen and Ingush ethnography. He proposed to use "Nakhchuy" as a term for both Chechens and Ingush. Dalgat also noted that Chechens called themselves "Nakhchoy" and Ingush called themselves "Ghalghai/Lamur(Loamaro)". Goddard2000 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The addition I proposed refers to the further use of the term in ethnography regarding the Ingush. It is a factual clarification. After your phrase, your reference will be put with your souce, before the addition (continuation). It does not apply Dalgat going back or anything of the sort, it is separate from the first line. The whole phrase is not a literal quote. Also we can leave out the word 'famous', don't really see why he should be regarded as more famous than other historian quoted in the article who are not called famous. This is what I propose:

The 19th century historian B.K. Dalgat published several works about Chechen and Ingush ethnography. He proposed to use the term "Nakhchuy" for both Chechens and Ingush, but this attempt had no fruition, mainly due to the fact that the Ingush did not refer to themselves as Nakhchuy. Dalgat noted that Chechens called themselves "Nakhchoy" and Ingush called themselves "Ghalghai/Lamur (Loamaro)". Muqale (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can get rid of "famous" i don't mind that, but i don't think we should include "but this attempt had no fruition". It paints Dalgat in a negative light when this term was applied to Vainakh by many Generals and authors including Uslar. Dalgat merely suggested it (although he did refer to both as Nakhchuy in 2008 edition but we can leave that for now), i don't think he had any plans to make it happen. In my opinion we can include that Ingush did not and do not refer to themselves as Nakhchoy according to most sources, it is already in the text even if its not sourced (although i prefer if we could add sources to this statement later, i'm sure you have some). So here is my proposition:

"The 19th century historian B.K. Dalgat published several works about Chechen and Ingush ethnography. He proposed to use the term "Nakhchuy" for both Chechens and Ingush. Dalgat also noted that Chechens called themselves "Nakhchoy" and Ingush called themselves "Ghalghai/Lamur (Loamaro)"

Then we remove the "This is not the case today, as most, if not all, Ingush would reject the Nakhchi ethnonym and consider it foreign" text from Laudaev quote and just keep the rest of the text above Laudaev quote.

Under this before the Pallas quote we can add that "The Nakhchuy/Nakhchoi term was not used for Ingush before the 19th century (sources of Pallas, Klaproth etc) and most modern researchers believe that this term didn't apply to the Ingush (preferable if you posts sources of modern authors here) as is evident from the 18th century sources like Pallas who made a clear distinction (then Pallas Quote)".

We can take the below text "Russian historian Adolf Berge used this term for both Chechens and Ingush in 1859. The famous Russian linguist Peter von Uslar, who studied the North Caucasian languages, also referred to both nations in 1888 as "Nakhche". This term was also used by Potto, Veidenbaum, Gan, Dubrovin and many others during the 19th century." and push it up above to before or after the text about Dalgat.

What do you think? Goddard2000 (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that were reverts and edits made by you and @WikiEditor1234567123. So perhaps the lay out of the paragraphs needs to be discussed and agreed upon in the section below. The term Nakhchi was first used in the second half of the 19th century in this matter in 1859 by Bergé, only after this work several other generals and authors used this (mostly based on Bergé's work) (including the names you mentioned). If you wanna make the section chronological then that looks like what WikiEditor1234567123's last edits were.

Right now I would resolve the Dalgat quote. I don't see why the statement I proposed paints Dalgat in a bad way, he proposed this term, but it did not have fruition in literature, so the statement is factual. I can add sources, there's more than enough material with the statement that the Ingush called themselves Ghalghai, and Chechens - Nakhchi or Nakhchoy. Even Yakovlev in 1925 wrote that the Ingush said that they are a separate nation from the Chechens. So my proposition is appopriate, because there is no insignuation that Ingush called themselves Nakhchoy in my parapgraph. I tweaked the paragraph slightly. This version can be better fitted: "The 19th century historian B.K. Dalgat published several works about Chechen and Ingush ethnography. He proposed to use the term "Nakhchuy" for both Chechens and Ingush, but this had no fruition in Caucasology, mainly due to the fact that the Ingush commonly referred to themselves as Ghalghaï, whilst Chechens called themselves Nakhchoy." (with reference) Muqale (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot that i disagree with on Wikieditors edits, especially the based on Berge part (which Wikieditor claims was the first one) when generals in the 1840's such as Olshevskiy and Stahl used "Nokhchee" and "Nakhche" for all Vainakh. I will mention it later to Wikieditor down below.

I disagree with you on the Dalgat part but to speed this whole process i can agree to include your text. I will add it to the article, i would appreciate it if you could add sources at the end (Yakovlev etc) and please notify me in here if you want to make anymore major changes or restructure the article, not because i own this article or anything but so there aren't any edit wars all the time. Remember i often tagged you in articles such as Kistin and proposed changes in talk page before changing anything. Despite our arguments and differences we managed to come to a normal consensus in that article. We can do that here too. Goddard2000 (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we've somewhat reached consensus on the Dalgat part. But you have now changed the order of the paragraphs. There is no clear chronology. Also, why have you removed my edits regarding the use of earlier unifying terms Kisti and Mitzdjegi? and it is true that only from the second half of the 19the century the term Nakhchi was introduced/used as a unifying term by several authors." the words Before the 1920's..., imply that it was always such, which is not the case for all sources before the 19th century. So this needs to be corrected. Muqale (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have also changed the order, I've corrected some points and expanded earlier history of terms used, which is appropriate in the "History" section Muqale (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with adding Kisti amd Mitzdjegi, i restored to the original version before. I don't have a problem with your recent edits either but i am going to make a separate section for "Nakhchi" and "Vainakh/Nakh" so it makes more sense. If you want you can make one for Kisti and Mitzdjegi too. Goddard2000 (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or nevermind, the current "Vainakh, Nakh and Nakhchi" section is okay. Goddard2000 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Goddard2000. I wasn't planning on having another dispute over a article but alright, I will try to not get dragged too deep into the discussion. Could you show me here which parts of my edits you disagree with? Hopefully this will be a constructive discussion. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waaleykum Salam, i'll give you a detailed answer soon, i'm trying to resolve a different dispute above this one and i'm a little busy with work right now. I'll be with you soon. Goddard2000 (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright i checked your edits again, i have some problems with them, the biggest ones are:

1. "The term Nakhchiy (in the form of Natschkha, Nakhchui and Nacha) in end of 18th- first half of 19th centuries was mentioned as the name that Ingush give to the Chechens and not as the self-name of Ingush. However, in 1859, Russian historian Adolf Berge was the first one to use this term for both Chechens and Ingush."

Adolf Berge wasn't the first one that used it for all Vainakh peoples, for example Olshevsky recorded it in the form of "Nokhchee" in his travels in 1844-1845 [1]and Baron Stahl recorded it in 1849 as "Nakhche" in 1849 [2]. The rest of your text i have no problem with but we can change it to:

"The term Nakhchiy (in the form of Natschkha, Nakhchui and Nacha) in end of 18th- first half of 19th centuries was mentioned as the name that Ingush give to the Chechens and not as the self-name of Ingush. Starting in the 1840's, the term was used by some Russian officers, historians and linguists for both the Ingush and Chechen nation (and sometimes for Batsbi)."

What do you think?

2. Your second point was that we should remove Laudaev's source because he's Chechen and supposedly biased. I disagree, Laudaev was very far from biased. He is also used in the etymology section. If he was the sole source for "Nakhche = Ingush" then maybe we could've ignored him but his usage of it was common as we can see from authors like Uslar, Dalgat, Veidenbaum, Berge and others.

3. Why did you remove Chechnya from the tags and replace it with an non-existing tag (Chechens) while putting "Ingush people" before this non-existent tag? This is unnecessary, keep the Chechnya tag and include Ingush tag if you want. Goddard2000 (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Olshevsky didn't use this ethnonym for both Chechens and Ingush. He simply recorded a Chechen legend about turpal (bogatyr or hero) Nokhche (a.k.a. Nakhcho/Nokhcho, Nakhchi/Nokhchi), who is sometimes (like in this particular legend) viewed as the forefather of all Vainakhs, in other legends viewed as the descendant of Ingush, thus Chechens being considered descendants of the Ingush. That being said, this text fits better:

"The term Nakhchiy (in the form of Natschkha, Nakhchui and Nacha) in end of 18th - first half of 19th centuries was mentioned as the name that Ingush give to the Chechens and not as the self-name of Ingush. Starting in the second half of 19th century,^{[note 1]} the term was used by some Russian officers, historians and linguists for both the Chechen and Ingush nations (and sometimes for Batsbi, notably by Peter von Uslar)."

I provided you a similar scenario: if Chakh Akhriev claimed that Chechens called themselves Ghalghai, I wouldn't use that as a source as it's not neutral (Chakh Akhriev is ethnic Ingush thus there would be bias in this matter). Umalat Laudaev claimed Nazranians (an Ingush society) as Chechen so that wouldn't stop him from attributing the ethnonym Nakhchi to Nazranians as well.

My apologies for the categories (if you mean them), I thought there was category Chechens but there wasn't. Maybe there's category Chechen people, I have to check.

You forgot to explain why you reverted my edits about terms Nakh peoples and Vainakh peoples in the lead-section and also my edits correcting some typos. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Olshevskiy recorded it as a unifying name for all Vainakhs but sure we can assume he himself didn't consider the name for all Vainakhs since its not stated in the text and i haven't read his entire writings. Otherwise i agree with your proposed text.

2. Laudaev made it clear that both are different, he only pointed out that they use it sometimes. If Chakh Akhriev noted that a Chechen called himself "Ghalghai" then it would've been acceptable but even then the term Ghalghai wasn't used for all Nakh peoples unlike the term Nakhchiy. A Chechen officer repeating what other officers (Berge, Stahl etc) have written about before him and what others have written after him doesn't mean he should be ignored just because of his ethnicity.

3. I don't recall other edits of yours, these three were the most notable for me i just restored the article to the previous version when i undid your edits. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Olshevsky simply mentioned a Chechen legend about turpal Nokhche, nothing more. But for now I will leave Umalat Laudaev, we can return to this sometime later. I will then return my other edits because it's clear that you didn't notice you reverting them and also have no issues with them. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the categories to Chechen people and Ingush people as that fits better. I wanted to know if you have any issues with that? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, i agree with you on Olshevsky now that i read it some more. He only refers to a folktale and doesn't refer to all Nakh peoples as Nokhche, my bad. But sure, i have no issues with your current edits. Although you removed Chechnya from the categories when i told you to leave it, i don't see why we should remove it so i'll add it back. I can also add Ingushetia. Goddard2000 (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiEditor1234567123 Also, Javakhshvilli proposed to name the languages as "Ghligur", better to not include it in the section for "ethnonyms" as this wasn't meant as an ethnonym. Also the "to be used as a more appropriate/accurate general" sentence, where did you get the impression that this is the appropriate or accurate name? a name which is hardly used by anyone for Nakh peoples in historical research except Javakhsvhili proposing it. Goddard2000 (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vainakh name was used befor the soviets

The proclamation that the soviets created the name Vainakh is totally wrong, Chechens have used this name even before they were called Chechen, the Vainakh name was used to describe the 4 main branches of the Nakh people, Nokhtchi(lived in the current Chechen Republic) Aqui(lived in the eastern part of Chechnya all the way to Caspian Sea) lngush(lived in current Ingushetia) Lamrkhoy(are the Batsoy and Kist in Georgia), the proof that Vainakh was used from the old time is that all the Chechens who migrated to Turkey Syria Jordan Iraq in the 18 hundreds and beginning of 19 hundreds before the Bolsheviks even existed used the name Vainakh to describe themselves. Smurad 2000 (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🫡 2001:4BB8:18A:6D56:5C9D:2707:8EDB:A535 (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this discussion, it seems you are new to Wikipedia based on your edit history so i just want to give you a heads up that you need to have references for the things you are trying to add. You can't write whatever you want, also i want to clarify that this article doesn't state the word "Vainakh" is created by the Soviets, it is only referring to the scientific term. I think you're confusing the scientific term with the word "Wainakh" (our people). Goddard2000 (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Nakhshai"

Assalamu aleykum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh @Goddard2000. Could you show me which document/source mentions "Nakhshai" in 1756 exactly? I checked this source, which is in the article: "Баширов, Саламбек (2018). Этническая история Терско-Сулакского междуречья (на примере семьи Башир-шейха Аксайского). Grozny". However, to my surprise, I couldn't find mention of Nakhshai anywhere. Perhaps, you're referring to this document dating back to 1756, which does mention certain Chechen uzdens (princes), though no mention of Nakhshai again. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waaleykum Salam, i added the source almost 3 years ago so i'll have to look for it. It wasn't an article, it was a book by Саламбек Баширов and no it's not referring to the document you posted. The one mentioned is from the archives of the Bashirov family which were Kumyk Uzdens of Chechen descent (clan Dishni). I'll tag you in here when i find it. Goddard2000 (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the full source with the ISBN, i had the link for it before but i'll have to do some digging online to find it.

Баширов, Саламбек (2018). Этническая история Терско-Сулакского междуречья (на примере Башир-шейха Аксайского) . Чечня, Российская Федерация: АО «ИПК« Грозненский рабочий ». п. 22. ISBN 978-5-4314-0294-4. Goddard2000 (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assalamu alaykum wa rahmattulahi wa barakatuh. Now that I look, isn't Nakhshai a disortion of the name of Chechen teip Nashkhoy instead of Nakhchiy? Also, did you find the link? WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waaleykum Salam, no i doubt Nakhshai is related to Nashkhoy since there are hardly any Nashkhoy in Aukh and they wouldn't be mentioned as a nation which the original text did. The text went something like "Greetings and blessings to the nation of Nakhshai both small and great", i can't find the book at all now, i had it before and even the picture of the manuscript (in Arabic) was uploaded on here but oh well. You can remove the 1756 mention until the original text is found again. Goddard2000 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

[note 1]