Talk:Chechnya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

Contents 1 Just to make it clear 1.1 Re: Just to make this clear 2 Motivations for the War 2.1 Why not grant Independence? 3 FSB agents? true or rumor? 4 One revertion, two and more edits, to be correct, Dear gene S and Dr Bug 5 Dear Disputants 6 Why the heck no country recognised Chechnya independence ? 7 Order of names. 8 Request for older history 9 Bug in population report 10 History Updated 11 1956-1991 12 1956-1991 13 POV 14 English 15 Chechnya Veterans' Association 16 Political Status 17 Surprising omission 18 Ethnic cleanising 19 1991-1994 Reprisals against russian Minority 20 Citations in Introduction? 21 1944 deportation 22 Just to make it clear II 23 Using Maternity patients as shields 24 Russian Subject? 25 Helicopter photo 26 Chechnya Free.ru 27 Currency 28 Samashki 29 The girl's photo 30 Nokhchiyn and naming of Chechnya 31 Elections and democracy 32 POV Nonesense 33 THERE IS A FUCKING DICK ON THIS PAGE!

[edit] Just to make it clear

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

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

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

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

[edit] Re: Just to make this clear

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

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

[edit] Motivations for the War

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

RudolfRadna 00:05 October 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why not grant Independence?

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

[edit] FSB agents? true or rumor?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Dear Disputants

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

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

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

Well, instead of violating the WP:3RR, you may want to appeal to the arbitration committee. So far, you are not proving any evidence which supports your views. --Gene s 13:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear BIR, could you please get more deep knowledge on the topic first? Just three facts to mention: 1. Dudaev declared independence before the USSR dissolved. 2. Chechen-Ingush ASSR was not a republic of Soviet Union, but a republic of Russian SFSR. 3. There were at least two powers in Chechnya in 1991, and most Chechen leaders didn't declare independence. I don't oppose to academic facts sounding anti-Russian. But, sorry, I definitely oppose what I consider ignorance, including anti-Russian one. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 14:01, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for details.

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

Looks like you are trying to write your own version of the history of the USSR. You may want to visit the page History of Russia instead.

Hi again ! I think you mean the history of the SU, or however you like to call it.--BIR 14:21, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You seem to believe that there was a difference between the Soviet Union and the USSR. Please do explain the difference.

It's not "however I like to call it". It's the official country name.

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

It seems exceptionally difficult for you to stay focused on the topic. Please do try. This is the Chechnya talk page. The Georgia talk page is at Talk:Georgia (country).

I am focused. The cricis underway are inherited from the SU structures.--BIR 14:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, if you are focused, then why are you talking about Georgia (country) on Chechnya talk page? Also, please translate the word cricis for me. Thank you.

Well, crisis is, crises are. Excuse me my un(der)qualified s, but stay rather qualified or unqualified as you wish.--BIR 07:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BTW., Georgia is included occasionally in the crisis (thank you again for your kind one s) in the form of Pankisi refugees, as you surely know.--BIR 07:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

granted de-facto is an oxymoron. It's either granted, or de facto. Not both.

As far I remember, it was you who admitted that the ChRI was de-facto independent, but ok. she was de-jure independet. Anyway, she was independet before the status was dissolved somehow, someway de-facto as I am told by you.--BIR 14:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please try to read and comprehend. It is not difficult. The statement "was de fact independent" is correct. The statement "granted de facto independence" is an oxymoron. I used the correct wording. You used the oxymoron. And no, Ichkeria was never de jure independent.

Maybe not. It's an aerial term, but the ChRI was and she never gave up that status.--BIR 07:13, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Why the heck no country recognised Chechnya independence ?

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

[edit] Order of names.

Dear TimWiki,

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

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

[edit] Request for older history

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

[edit] Bug in population report

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

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

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

[edit] History Updated

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

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

[edit] 1956-1991

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

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

[edit] 1956-1991

Is the deportation of Chechens mentioned?

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

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

[edit] POV

Removing POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whether 2,000 people was a small force or not is an academic discussion. "Small" could stay there, or "small" could go, whatever. But "Arab and Dagestani extremists which were not affiliated with the Chechen government" - that's just ridiculous, of course they were, they were led by the "defense minister". If the point is that they were not acting under Maskhadov's direct orders, then it sould be stated exactly this way.

"Soon conspiracy theory developed what suspected FSB agents rather than Chechens were behind the attatcks" - this can be simlply rewritten that "It has been alleged that..." without any "conspiracy theory"... I have my problems with this article: it does not sound like encyclopedia, it is not writen very well stylistically.Gaidash 4 July 2005 07:45 (UTC)

[edit] English

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

[edit] Chechnya Veterans' Association

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

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

[edit] Political Status

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

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

[edit] Surprising omission

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

[edit] Ethnic cleanising

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

[edit] 1991-1994 Reprisals against russian Minority

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

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

Could you do two things to help me understand what you are saying.

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

[edit] Citations in Introduction?

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

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

Stefan2 07:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1944 deportation

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

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

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

[edit] Just to make it clear II

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

[edit] Using Maternity patients as shields

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

Please confirm the source, or put an advisory at the top of the page as having a slight lean against the Chechens. Not that I feel that they are a great bunch of chaps, but I'd like to get the facts straight.

[edit] Russian Subject?

The page says that Chechnya is a subject of Russia.

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

---

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

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

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

[edit] Helicopter photo

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

[edit] Chechnya Free.ru

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

Korenyuk

• See nothing wrong with the presentation of both sides of the story. Maybe we should put some notices like Pro-Kadyrov site abakharev 22:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Currency

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

Stefan2 07:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Samashki

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] The girl's photo

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

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

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

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

[edit] Nokhchiyn and naming of Chechnya

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

[edit] Elections and democracy

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

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

[edit] POV Nonesense

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

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

Jacob Peters

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

[edit] THERE IS A FUCKING DICK ON THIS PAGE!

Yeah, we got a vandal, but one thing else is for certain, I feel better about my penis size! I looked around and 68.127.37.123 is the IP of the user vandalizing this page and the Great Purge.. posting his small little penis for the world to see lol. JokersAce0 10:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)JokersAce0