Talk:History of Chechnya

Old talk

This part of the article on the Chechen history lacks info on the pre-Tsarist and Tsarist times. I'll try and add more info, but it'll take time. I want people to see the big picture about Chechnya, not just the 1990s. KNewman 15:41, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

The second war didn't expire yet

Reportedly, the war continues behind and in spite the Russian news block. See news services--BIR 07:27, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Large-scale military operations ended in 2000. --Gene s 08:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reportedly, due to the overwhelming superior numbers in Russian troops the Chechen resistance changed tactics and since then it has conducted a partisan-styled warfare. True, the war of corps and keen fronts has ceased so far to be in practice. Since the plain demolition of Grozny there haven't been similar operations but abundantly smaller ones, thus often bloodier than before...--BIR 11:19, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not aware of any large scale military operations ("bloodier operations" by your definition) by separatists in Chechnya since downing of a helicopter in August 2002. Separatists conduct only terrorist acts against civilians and minor harrasment of Russian troops. Thus, the war itself has eded. The hostilities continue, but they cannot be called war due to limited scale and number of casualties. --Gene s 11:58, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well...Let's give a parallel example (although I guess you won't agree on the scale or on the possibly equal scenarios in the future but just for a joy and to keep you hot). During the Napoleonic wars, Moscow become conquered and burned down as well as Grozny did a little while ago. Then, the invaders we

re in a position to say that the war has ended and the Kutuzov-led Russian army and 'minutemen' could "conduct only terrorist acts against civilians and minor harrasment of Napoleonic troops". --BIR 08:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your example is completely unrelated. It describes a completely different history - a war between sovereign nations, as opposed to a war against a separatist movement; Napoleon stayed in Moscow for about 5 weeks, as opposed to 5 years; Russia retained regular army, while separatists did not; there is no evidence Kutuzov conducted raids against Frech or Russian civilians, while separatists conduct such raids. The list of differences would be a few pages long. --Gene s 09:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very likely they did say so then, or most surely they thought so. And if there were the kinds of the modern mass medias in Napoleon's use, no doubt the litles would have been similar to your view on the war in Chechnya. Now, back to Chechnya. The flow of war is pretty well-documented in the Yahoo's Chechen LIST and worldwide readable.

Your writing is unrelated to the subject of this discussion. Keep focused on the topic.

You are refering to the "list" again and yet another public message board. I assume you are doing it out of malice just to draw the discussion off topic. --Gene s 09:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From here, it just looks like the resistance could hold the fight well, and the military initiative is more or less in their hands in spite of the overwhelmingly superior invaders in numbers (occasionally, the resistance has even overtaken large areas just lately but withdrew according to classical ambush and disappear tactics. In this year, practically whole Ingushetia was overtaken thus Putin made some generals redundant etc.)Reportedly, the Russian weekly losses have been approximately 50-150 troops quite permanently for years. Of course, given that there are some 80 000 or more Russian troops in Chechnya, this amount is quite unsufficient to make Russia to change her politics on the Chechen issue.--BIR 08:21, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please keep focus on the topic. List the military operations of separatists since 2002. Prove they are "bloodier" as you said. Refer only to mainstream sources of information. Do not post links to the "list" and other public message boards. --Gene s 09:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But, by no means, don't read my lips but the news clips I mentioned.

You mentioned nothing of use. --Gene s 09:39, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Napoleonic parallels and comparisons

I am sorry to find your knowledge of the Napoleonic 'second Polish war' quite poor, so please read ahead. Napoleon really called the patriotic war as a second Polish war. Just compare how Putin called the second Chechen war as an 'antiterrotist operation' in the beginning.

See [1] especially The Capture of Moscow and Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812

The invaders faced scorched soil ahead, and partisans in the rear. Especially, pay attention to the scorched soil tactics that Kutuzov deployed and what it must have ment to the ordinary Russian civilians.

In this regards, it's tempting to compare Kutuzov with Maskhadov further. The former was contemporary to the greatest military genius of all times, Suvorov, and therefore his quick-to-learn pupil in Rimmik (unfortunately Suvorov himself died already in 1800 beeing in shadow), and Maskhadov is a product of the Suvorovian traditions of the military adademies who hasn't yet lost a principal battle either given the premises he has had. From the Russian side the battle of Grozny was a plain militarily unprofessional demolition, say, a war crime, from where the Chechen main force withdrew relatively successfully in the way Kutuzov did in Moscow. In his way, the later has appeared even more skilled than Suvorov. He could establish a true profesionally fighting army out of the scattered Caucasian hotheads that nobody could govern up to this extent before. I doubt that not even Suvorov could have done this.

[2] In Kutuzov's words 'the war had just begun'.

1. You started a new section again insted of answering the previous section
2. You accused me of ignorance while yourself failed to note that wordiq.com is just a copy of corresponding article in this wiki.
3. I will not discuss your comparison of 1812 war with the second Chechen war further unless you prove every item in the list:
   1. Napoleon stayed in Moscow for 5 year, instead of 5 weeks.
   2. Kutuzov purposefully attacked Russian civilians in September 1812 in order to get political settlement with Napoleon
   3. Kutuzov purposefully attacked French civilians in September 1812 in order to get political settlement with Napoleon
   4. Napoleon successfully enthroned a new Russian tsar
   5. Russia was a subdivision of France before the invasion

--Gene s 06:33, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The military operations of the Chechen resistance since 2002

The most easily you could get info from the "other side of war" while surfing the LIST. If you put there "A review of the 265th week of war", "A review of the 264th...", "A review of the 263th ..." etc. in the search archive box.

If you're patient enough you may easily draw weekly statistics of losses in troops, vehicles, planes, helicopters etc. if you just mind. If you then compared these with the Russian official and unofficial periodic announcement of military losses you'll realise an approximate truth of war.

And to see some traces of the invaders' abuses on the civilians see photos here.--BIR 14:26, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You failed to provide a list of military operations conducted by separatists in 2003 and 2004. You failed to provide supporting evidence in the form of URLs of reputable sources of infrmation. Thus there is nothing to discuss further. --Gene s 06:25, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Achievements of the Chechen resistance, October - June 2004

Tool: Google, Search text: A review of the 267 th week of war, A review of the 265th week of war etc.

[3] A review of the 267 th week of war (16 - 22 October 2004 ), KIAs, 73, injured 88, vehicles, 14

[4] A review of the 265th week of war (2 - 8 October 2004), KIAs, 103, injured 136, vehiles 21

[5] A review of the 264th week of war (25 September ? 1 October 2004), KIAs, 118, injured 149, vehicles 24, one MI-8

[6] A review of the 263rd week of war (19 ? 26 September 2004), KIAs 109, injured 133, vehicles 19

You failed to provide evidence in the form of URLs to reputable sources of information. Chechenpress is a separatist propaganda outlet. --Gene s 11:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The CP is the official ChRI news agency

Exactly. It's their propaganda news agency.

and what you stated is just your private biased opinion.

And you just repeat separatist propaganda.

Further, you failed to provide any consistent evidence to dispute the details of the articles above.--BIR 11:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's impossible to prove that something did NOT happen. If it did not happen, noone writes about it, right? If no one writes, then there is no link to nothing. Thus, the burden of proof is yours. Chechenpress is NOT a neutral source of information. --Gene s

Quite unbelievable !

Yes, it is quite unbelievable that you insist on using propaganda in place of news. --Gene s 12:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then the non-existent people die in a non-existent war

People die in terrorist attacks too. Not every death is due to war. --Gene s 12:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

and all this fuss about it is in vain:=) You've red your Orwell all too well.--BIR 11:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If what you are saing is correct, then you should have no difficulty providing links to reputable and desirably neutral sources of information in support of your views. So far you failed to provide a single such link. All your references are either separatist propaganda web site or public message forum. Find BBC or CNN or WSJ or NYT links. --Gene s 12:00, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

259th week, KIAs 175, Injured 200, Units of vehicles 8+12+20. 258th week, KIAs 106, Injured 115, Pows 2, Units of vehicles 8+2+11. 256th week, KIAs 134, Injured 203, Units of vehicles 11+10+10 (Trotsev reportedly admitted 50 000 KIAs of the war before he was removed). 255th week, KIAs 88, Injured 103, Units of vehicles 3+1+5+8 (The Chechen takerover of Ingushetia, two generals removed). 252nd week, KIAs 79, Injured 60, Units of vehicles 1+4+4+1. 251st week, KIAs 108, Injured 163, Units of vehicles 3+2+2+1+6. 250th week, KIAs 140, Injured 180, POWs 10, Units of vehicles 3+10+1+1. Etc.

True numbers vs. officially forgered ones

Do you actually read what you post? Are you completely irresponsible? Or you want to promote your view by any means necessary?

• Prague Watchdog Article from December 2000. NOT 2003 or 2004
• Johnson's article Russian casualties in Chechnya in 2002. In 2002. NOT 2003 or 2004
• Jamestown's article Russian casualties in Chechnya in 2002. Do you actually read what you post?
• [7] April 2002. Do you understand difference between different years?
• [8] February 2001.
• [9] Use of land mines in Chechnya in 1996-2002
• [10] Use of land mines by separatists in Chechnya, killing 13 y.o.

You still have not posted A SINGLE useful link. You post nothing but propaganda and irrelevant links. --Gene s 13:34, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you finally agree?

Do you mean that you admit the war exists or not ?

Have you provided the evidence? Look at the section above. Do you see any relevant links there? I don't. So far you seem to be consumed with Chewbacca Defence --Gene s 10:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If I put the info on the second Chechen war article, do you promise not to revise anymore ?

You have to keep in mind:

1. The content you write should be factual and impartial. It should not contain loaded language, it should just report facts without judgement
2. You should be able to provide supporting evidence in the form of URLs to reputable and desirably neutral sources or information (NOT "list" or separatist media)
3. The content should be topical, i.e. it should correspond to the article
4. There are no external links in the article body, unless absolutely necessary
5. The posted material is not copyrighed

If you satisfy these requirements, I will not touch your writing. --Gene s 10:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Otherwise, I am afraid that I tend to continue in my way--BIR 10:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK. So will I. --Gene s 10:47, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All the nit-pickers of the world, unite yourselves!

In my knowlegde, for example, (one) a thousand years, but (many) thousands of ..., like thousands of refugees, thousands of times etc.--BIR 14:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please consult your English teacher. Alternatively enter "forty thousand" and "forty thousands" in google and compare the number of results. --Gene s 14:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok. I will. But this case depends on what one wants to say. Indefinitely, about "forty thousands of Chechens...", or definitely, exactly "forty thousand Chechens...". In fact, they were a few less than forty thousands, but this 40 thousands is a handy amount to understand and remember.

In addition, ...sh+s can hardly be pronounced in English. E in between is quite definitely needed in these constructions. So, I think you have to put E there like an Ingush but many Ingushes.--BIR 14:41, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your spelling can be used. If you insist on it, please correct it everywhere in the article, not just in one spot. --Gene s 14:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well. It's the same with all similar ...sh+es in English, like ash-es, bush-es, crash-es, dash-es, flash-es, wash-es etc.

Nothing on earth is perfect, for only God, say, Allah is eternally perfect, neither my English, nor a language is in a steady state. --BIR 12:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is it a mistake?

There could be a mistake in the text. Someone wrote that the town of Tarki was founded by Ivan the Terrible. Well, my sources say that, first, Tarki is in Dagestan, second, it was founded some time in the 13th or 14th century, because Timur Khan passed through it in 1396. KNewman 14:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Religion in Chechnya

I thought that the Chechens never converted to Christianity en masse. It is true that archaeologists have found evidence that Christianity had been practised in present-day Chechnya not long after the faith's evolution. However, the Chechens remained largely animist until the introduction of Islam in the 16th century.

Some Taips converted in Christianity untill the Tamerlane invasion. Moslty Akkhi Teip lived in Galainchoj. During invasion they all converted to old Pagan religion. Nakh 10:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Zavgayev?

There is no mention of Doku Zavgayev anywhere in this article, or in Wikipedia as a whole for that matter. I feel he warrants at least a passing mention. Have I missed a discussion on this topic? PTav

Formation of OKChN

According to Robert Seely the OKChN was formed in November 1990, not the 1st of September 1991. Is there a cited surce for the date of it's formation?

What is Chechnya?

This article needs at least a defining sentence on what Chechnya is, or was, before discussing its history. Personally, I've never even heard of the place. Emmett5 23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

What's your problem exactly?

-According to every historican the Caucasian War was an occupation, that's universal. Replacing it with "the long and brutal war" doesn't look very professional.

-The war didn't end in 2002.

-Insurgency hasn't "died down" that's only what the Russian media says. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see what Occupation is by definition: Belligerent military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory belonging to a state passes to a hostile army. 1. By the end of the Caucasus War there were more Chechens and Avars fighting for Russia than againist them. 2. The Mountanous peoples never had an internationally recognised state. 3. The Russian Army was not hostile to them, only to those who opposed Russia. After the War the Caucasus was an integral part of Russia, and internationally recognised. And every historian is also not true, for example Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game. Sorry there is no universal that you claim. Insurgency has not died down? That's a new one. In 2001 Russia lost more than a thousand men, in 2007 only 54. All of the commanders are dead (and burning in Hell!) none of the large scale battles have been anywhere. Most of the administration has now become more and more beuracratic rather than military.

Next the order for the expulsion of the Chechens was not signed by Stalin but by Beria, and they were not deported to Siberia but to Kazakhstan. Please stop pushing the pro-Terrorist POV into the articles, remember Don't use wikipedia to make a point --Kuban Cossack 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Burning in hell? Terrorists? Please keep your POV away from wikipedia.

It was an occupation. 1. That there were more mountaineer rebels fighting for the Russians is speculation. 2. In those times many states were unrecognised. 3. Haha.

Insurgency has become less in Chechnya, yet increased in it's neighbouring regions. 54 men is obviously a lie, you didn't even include the police officers and spetsnaz units. In 2007 they lost up to 200 men in Chechnya alone. Large scale raids have happened, yet large scale battles aren't a requirement for it to be considered an ongoing conflict. It's called a guerrilla war for a reason. According to human rights groups the administration is still military. The northern part of Kazakhstan is also Siberia, Maskhadov himself said they were deported to Siberia. The only one who should stop using wikipedia to make a point is a nationalist like you. - PietervHuis (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if that's the tone you are taking, I will ask the admin to have a third opinion here, and to also lock the article. Again read Peter Hopkirk's the Great Game, or any other cridible source on the topic (Kavkaz Center is not such one), the mountaneers fully agreed to take Russian citizenship, even Shamil himself after his surrender encouraged them to lay down his arms. Yermolov's formed the first units solely composed of Avars and Chechens that fought alongside Russians. Lie or no lie, who are you to decide what is a lie? Makhadov is dead... and independent western sources paint a different picture, besides it is not the northern part of Kazakhstan that they were exiled to. --Kuban Cossack 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just noting here: let's make sure that is clear that Shamil is Dagestani and NOT Chechen, and even more critically, there were plenty of Chechens who resisted his highly controversial rule as well as that of the Russians. Shamil can't speak for the Chechens, and Avars like himself nowadays haven't had nearly the same experience of suffering at the hand of Moscow that the Chechens have. Even Russians admit that no legitimate Chechen leader has ever surrendered to the Russians: for example, Boris Lvin and Andrei Illarionov made note of this in their piece in the Moscow News, issue Feb 24- Mar 2, 1995. Perhaps I should add this to the main article if this needs clarification...--Yalens (talk) 23:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no need for an admin right away nobody else has even commented on this. As far as I know Shamil surrendered after they were defeated, so there wasn't much choice. I'm sure we can work something out. This seems like a sensetive article for you since youre a veteran. I'll try to make a "compromise" - PietervHuis (talk) 17:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I don't mind your present version as provisional. Well Shamil was defeated, he had no more local support, hardly any followers and what's intersting is what happened to him after he was taken captive, we he tortured? Was he humiliated? No instead he was pardoned personally by the Tsar, taken to Saint Petersburg where he was shown factories, operas, railroads, ships etc, and told him that you will have this as well if you stop fighting. All I can say say is on the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, the Second World War, and upon the Collapse of the Soviet Union, the Northern Caucasus was one a very pleasent place to visit and to live in. Shame that the Chechens never learn from their mistakes. --Kuban Cossack 18:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No need for this article to be protected. Both of you seem to have gotten over the initial revert shock and are talking and listening and beginning to being nice to each other. Keep it up! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

1929 insurgency?

The rebellion led by khassan israilov is known, but I've read some sources claiming a previous rebellion occured too, starting around 1929 and ending somewhere in the mid-30s. Read with me [11]. Does anybody have more information? - Pieter_v (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is more [12] It turns out that between 1920 and 1939 there were 12 large Chechen and Ingush rebellions each numbering between 500 and 5000 participants. During which the Soviet authorities (NKVD and military) lost 3564 men killed and 1589 wounded. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 09:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. - Pieter_v (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If 1940-1944 Chechnya insurgency occured a year right after, then it must be a continuation or not? - Pieter_v (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Could be, who knows? --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 16:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like it, because Israilov was quoted as saying in 1940 "For 20 years now, the Soviet authorities have been fighting my people, aiming to destroy them group by group. The real object of this war [against us] is the annihilation of our nation as a whole".

Number of dead during the transfer to Central Asia

The question is about this edit. The book given as a source for the new number (the old was from the Islamnews article) only writes about the number of those who arrived to their destinations. Where did you get the initial number of them (478 479)? Alæxis_¿question? 10:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Alaexis, first I want to thank you for your help imroving articles related Chechenya and 23.02.1944 Genocide. The number 478 479 is on the page 67 Russia confronts Chechnya: roots of a separatist conflict. there is also written that 40%-50% of them were Children. I hope you help writing about the lose of 35 thousand people from 1937 to 1939. Sincerely Nakh 11:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. I've modified slightly the paragraph to make it fully consistent with Dunlop's book. Alæxis_¿question? 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

About Recognition of genocide

I don’t want to sound hostile, but I’ve checked the references on the “Recognition of Genocide” section and I find them unsatisfactory to say the least. First of all reference 9 and 11 are the same Russian article. Which is a non-scientific source but just a description of the author’s experiences. Reference 10 only once mentions the word Genocide in connection with Soviet atrocities on Caucasian population. In particular Stalin’s deportations. But it’s not about Chechen people in particular but about many Caucasian populations. And it’s not a proper source and does not contain further references to the original proper source. Also none of these sources report anything about IV Hague Convention or UN General Assembly. And both of these wiki entries do not even contain the word deportation. I urge someone to find proper sources or rephrase the section. User:Zangiev —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.241.30 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yalens (talk • contribs)

exodus - Sakwa page number

[13]

Could you pls provide page number for this reference? Alæxis_¿question? 11:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I am looking for it again in the book. However, the problem is I am having to read the whole thing over again, because the stupid thing has no index (ugh...). Personally, I will be looking for a separate source to replace this one, not only on the grounds of it being annoying to look up, but also because I feel the book is biased on many points: A near-majority of the authors are either Russian or non-Russians who nonetheless have worked for the Russian government (as is the case with Emil Pain), or worse, Russians who have worked for Kremlin. Furthermore, except for two remaining authors, the rest are composed of a number of Westerners who have devoted their life to studying Russia, and many of those are explicitly Russophilic. The remaining two comprise of a heavily Russified Chechen (Gakaev, who I count as "moderate", if even somewhat pro-Russian as he lives among Russians and though I haven't confirmed this, is Orthodox), and the one author who is likely to have a bias towards the other side, a British lawyer who defended Zakaev in the case for Russia to "reclaim" him.

I do, however, have other sources of info on the exodus I can post right now, here. In Sakwa's book again, in Mikhailov's chapter "Chechnya and Tatarstan", the figure of at 1990, for every 1 Russian entering Chechnya, 26 left. While this figure seems absurdly high, its not that ridiculous, notably, figures in other non-Russian republics (like the Baltics) are even higher by some estimates.

On the other hand is my other source on this topic: in their 1995 article to Moscow News, Russian economists Andrei Illarinov and Boris Lvin state the following:

The Chechen authorities are regularly accused of crimes against the population, especially the Russian-speaking people. However, before the current war the emigration of the Russian-speaking population from Chechnya was no more intense than that from Kalmykia, Tuva and Sakha-Yakutia. In Grozny itself there remained a 200,000 strong Russian-speaking population which did not hasten to leave it.

May I add that that population did leave it, however, after the war, after this article was written, as they seem to no longer be there (at least, according to Russia's own census, which, on this point, no one disputes). The article I fetched was from Wood's book, page 187 to be exact on the quote, though Wood's book cited the Moscow News entry somewhere... I'll get that later--Yalens (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

World War II section

It's now not really consistent, in the beginning it's written that 40,000 Chechen and Ingush fought in the Red Army and later that 17241 served there. As Chechens are much more numerous this looks quite strange. I don't want to insert fact tags all over the section, so could you please rewrite it so that it's consistent and includes all the references.

Also, I think that the argument "and, coincidentally, also much less than the number of Russians and Cossacks fighting for the Nazis" doesn't hold much water and should be removed. As there were like 100 times more Russians than Chechens it was quite natural that the number of collaborators was also higher. Shares would be more helpful, if someone did calculate them. Alæxis_¿question? 13:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed 40,000, at least for now, and replaced it with "tens of thousands". Until we can find a number for combined Chechen and Ingush fighters in the Red Army (does this count deserters xD? Because there were a number of those too, who joined partisan bands), its staying that way- I suggest John Dunlop's book perhaps, and I myself will look into it.

But the issue is complicated because, as I noted above, there were Chechens who literally fought both in the Red Army and in Israilov's insurrection, which was not (as the Soviet gov't claimed) pro-Berlin, but was simply anti-Moscow. Most Chechens were intensely resentful of Soviet rule (causing the uprising), but that doesn't mean that they were allied to Germany, and the leadership of the insurrection was widely distrustful of Germany for a number of reasons (see the page for 1940-44 insurrection or for Hassan Israilov)- I will add this to the page eventually (I keep having other issues to deal with, right now I am in an annoying conflict where the other side doesn't seem to want to negotiate and I'm still trying to decide what to do, because I am not interested in bringing in a moderator... it just would feel wrong, I've never had to do that before... but anyways...). So some Chechens would go in the Red Army if they felt Germany was more of a threat at the time (there were others who would never contemplate fighting on the same side as the Russians though no doubt), and then actually deserted once the German threat receded and it was only Russia that they were fighting once again. That's why the issue is really complicated, of how many were fighting the Germans total.

And as for numbers of Russians and Cossacks. Yes, there are much more Russians. But I think we can both agree that for a Russian living in the Altai Krai or in Tyumen or whatnot, the opportunities for collaboration were little. Of course, yes, there are still many more European Russians than Chechens (a factor not of 100 but still huge... I'd have to look again, but 80-90 ish, right?). However, I was not only referring to Russians living in Russia but also to Denikin's old Whites, who fought on the German side. Furthermore, there was the Cossacks. I don't need to elaborate there. The presence of these was quite important, as it greatly decreased Chechen trust of the Germans (which was already doubtful, due to Germany's ideological conflict with the Chechens' attachment to pure self-determination). I will mention this on the page (I already have in other articles). --Yalens (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I scanned over this section and found the World War 2 section riddled with facts and other unorganized points-of-view. (In an apparent attempt to make the facts more politically pleasing from my perspective?) The World War 2 section likely needs better organization. The interpretation of the ideology during that time into words, seems to be similar to a game of hot potato. (However in my opinion, it's quite obvious where there's smoke there's fire.) Based on my readings and research of World War 2 (Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution) alongside many Wikipedia articles, etc, it would appear a great majority of Hiwis were taken from this region during (and likely prior) to the World War 2 era and utilized within Poland for mass rural executions? Can we assume the front lines were within Poland's territory? Hence when the Hiwis were found within Poland and maybe consisting of Chechnya origin, their Chechnya relatives were assumed to be just as bad. (Granted, it still noway justifies assuming guilt of somebody as being a righteous act, by simply citing a person's remote related family members as co-conspirators.) It would also appear the Czechs also did something during post World War 2 something very similar, where the Czechs briefly slaughtered supporters of the Germans (or Hiwis) just immediately prior to Soviet/Russian occupation? Supposedly, this was a very brief (likely a one time) Czech related incident as Soviet over taking was quick, while the Chechnya incidents were on going as the Soviets didn't immediately overtake this region?

Some Grammar Corrections:

"After the German invasion in the USSR in June 1941, ..." should likely read, "After the German invasion into the USSR in June 1941, ...", replace "in" with "into".

"That the Chechens actually were allied to the Germans..." should likely read, "Whether the Chechens actually were allied to the Germans...", replacing "That" with "Whether".

Matter of fact, I think I'm starting to see three subsections under the World War 2 section! A little more editing, and I can see a forth detailing a more important section concerning post World War 2 activity for which there doesn't appear to be any, except for being under a major heading themed "Soviet Union". An idea for subsections under the World War 2 section; "Pre World War 2 Activity", "(The supposed) German Invasion & Insurgency into Chechnya" (or did the Germans walk right into Chechyna?), "Possible Alliance with Germans", and then "Post World War 2 Activity.",

All in all, with such a dramatic time period, not much seems to be written within this section! And what is, is something like a game of he-said she-said. But again, my opinion. "Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it," George Santayana. --roger (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Over and over as I have read about the initiators of most of the World Wars and wars in general, the main influencing factor seems to be the act or the blaming of the act of; a deportation or exile of a populace based on their religious belief or freedom of speech, or their apparent fallacies and/or historical faults. The mass deportations or mass imprisonments, due to being overwhelming of a government's resources, are not immune to mass loss of life. Another failure, the Government's failure to keep it's citizens peaceful, and maintaining it's natural resources. I think as we shall see in Chechnya, a successful outcome will either be West Chechnya being in control of it's citizens, and promoting a peaceful resolution with Russian forces. Or the remainder of Chechnya to become further disorganized and break-out into civil war. Really gets down to being a self-educated, productive and a peaceful citizen versus a vigilante. The main Chechnya Wikipedia page provides a very good brief descriptive historical era of conflicts, "1239 AD Destruction of Magas", "1500 AD Russian conquest", ... and the split of using a religion (Islam) for the basis of a revolt. Really gets down to those that want to work (peacefully), and those that want to do nothing? --roger (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Zygii

“ The Zygii, generally thought ... to be ancestors of the modern North Caucasian Nakh peoples ”

This is simply not true. Afaik, the current scholarly consensus is that Zygii are ancestors of North-Western Caucasian people (Adyghe). Here are several sources that don't have much doublts about it: Brian G. Hewitt, The typology of subordination in Georgian and Abkhaz; Louis J. Luzbetak, Marriage and the family in Caucasia:a contribution to the study of north Caucasian ethnology and customary law; Е. П Алексеева, Древняя и средневековая история Карачаево-Черкесии; Леонид Иванович Лавров, Историко-этнографические очерки Кавказа (disclosure - this is the sample from google books). There's also a known testimony from XVI c. Italian traveller Giorgio interiano: "Zichi, in lingua vulgare, greca e latina così chiamati e da' Tartari e Turchi dimandati Ciarcassi, in loro proprio linguaggio appellati Adiga".

I think that Zygii section should be removed or trimmed and labelled as fringe view. Alæxis_¿question? 13:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard both. The problem is that the use of Zygii varies (both in time and by the usage by Greeks or by Romans). Earlier, it was used by the Greeks for a Central Caucasian people (or alliance of peoples, more likely), but later it came to be used (primarily by the Romans) for peoples in Circassia. So in a sense, Greek Zygii and Latin Zichi are not really the same thing, even the though the latter is derived from the former (though the usage by time varies as well).

Nonetheless, I acknowledge that Zygii=Nakh is not universally -or even widely- noted/accepted and I agree that we should make note of this. --Yalens (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

...argh. Jaimoukha's book is no longer available for viewing online, that is a pain...--Yalens (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, in material I have copied from the Zygii page, it notes that they inhabited Zyx, east of Elbrus and that their Eastern neighbors were the Avars. In the very least, it confirms that Chechnya was part of it. --Yalens (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

sources

Re this edit, while it's quite possible that Yermolov said so, the source used to prove it is of dubious quality. Aminat Saieva was a representative of Ichkeria in Vilnius, and is not a historian, it seems. Also, as an Ichkerian official, she clearly has a bias. Could you please replace this source with another one. Alæxis_¿question? 20:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Serious neutrality problems

This article has very severe neutrality and synthesis problems. It is written almost entirely from the Chechen secessionist POV. I may write a more thorough analysis later, but here are just a couple of examples:

• "The Russian government, frustrated and humiliated with their failure to remove Dudayev, decided to crush Ichkeria once and for all, to wipe it off the map" - is it even possible to find a more biased wording than this?

First, that sentence will definitely be edited (in fact I have done so before posting this on the talk page.

• The article gives the impression that post-1991, everyone in Chechnya supported secession. This was not the case. Even the election of Dudaev itself was deeply flawed. For example, many anti-secessionist regions were not allowed to vote and anti-secessionist voters were harassed by the authorities.

To be correct, it was much more important that the pro-Russian side (mainly made up of Russians, with a small percentage of representatives of other nationalities) of politics in Checheno-Ingushetia advocated boycotting the referendum, which they did. That there was really no opposition in Chechen politics (i.e. excluding the Russians of Chechnya and a small minority of Chechens, Ingush, etc loyal to Moscow) to independence was the case, and was reported so at the time. There are perhaps legitimate criticisms of the way the election was done: if they are cited and by an international observer (hopefully made at the time of the election), you are more than welcome to add them. --Yalens (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• There is no mention of the substantial repressions that the Dudaev regime performed, nor any mention of Dudaev's dictatorial tendencies.

Dudayev's dictatorial tendencies- characteristic the leaders of all the other states in the region- may be added, with the . The reason that Chechnya's internal politics during those years are not there is not because of some plot to undermine neutrality, but because of the lack of work on that period (here on Wikipedia). It is also notable that the Russian blockade has, at the time of speaking, gone unmentioned. --Yalens (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overreliance on Tody Wood's book "Chechnya: the Case for Independence." This is hardly a neutral book. Its official description says "A passionate and eloquent case for Chechen statehood." There are much better books available, which aim for a balanced representation and do not have an agenda (like "Chechnya: From Past to Future", edited by Sakwa and written by 16 American, English, Russian and Chechen academics - in contrast, Tony Wood is not an academic but an American journalist). Nanobear (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Wood is actually British. In any case, it is often cited beside other sources. Since it is so important that he not be used, I have removed them, though it doesn't make any difference. And I also dispute "Chechnya: From Past to Future" as a neutral source considering that the overwhelming majority (with only a couple of exceptions if any) are either Russians or worse, have worked for the Russian government (presently or in the past). Places where only Wood is cited, for example Khasbulatov's opposition to the referendum that he was involved in organizing, are there not because there is any pretension of Wood's neutrality, but because he was a journalist reporting then. Other cases where Wood is cited alone include citing the opinion itself of Kadyrov's critics, for which a non-neutral source with an anti-Kadyrov POV (like Wood) is necessary. When looking at citation, one should look at the way it is used, not just the frequency... --Yalens (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

At present, there are 7 citations of Wood out of a total of 165 citations. You can hardly call that "over-reliance", though the number can still be reduced.--Yalens (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

In general, anyhow, we should refrain from using sources that are from nationalities involved in the conflict- that being Chechen or Russian.--Yalens (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for making these changes to the article. Good work. I will probably work on this article myself in the next few days or weeks (I'll try to identify and fix the remaining neutrality issues and add material about the inter-war period) - is it ok for you that we keep the npov-tag at least until then? There are still a lot of issues with this article. Nanobear (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Your welcome. I, also, will get hold of Dunlop's book again (it is very good, well-sourced, etc.). And yes, its fine if we keep the NPOV tag until then. Also I wanted to add, now that this page is getting attention, that there are some sections which are just lacking, and not even from an NPOV standpoint, but just from a raw info standpoint as they don't have enough. I have been working on the tsarist rule (mainly from Dunlop and Jaimoukha for now) and on the World War I and post-world war I era (both in my userpages right now, for placement here when finished, or possibly to make into separate pages). I also hope to work on the pre-World War II Soviet era as it is the most underrepresented part of the page...--Yalens (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

non-Vainakh exodus and Sakwa

The article currently reads:

“ In the later stages of the First Chechen War, a large exodus of non-Vainakhs occurred. In the case of the originally 200000 strong Russian minority, this is usually cited as a result of growing anti-ethnic-Russian sentiment among the Vainakh populace, which had been suppressed during the rule of Dudayev (who, despite appealing to Chechen nationalism and secession, was a native speaker of Russian, and most importantly was married to a Russian), who in some cases actively collaborated with the Russian troops.<ref>Sakwa, Richard. ''Chechnya: From Past to Future''</ref> ”

Pls add a page number to the reference. Also, is this book used as a source for every statement in this passage? Alæxis_¿question? 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the citation was mainly to do with the departure of the Russian minority and/or that they collaborated, but not with Dudayev being married to a Russian (though it may say that elsewhere in the book, maybe?). The problem (for me, unless someone else wants to do it) is that that book has no index, and I don't have the time right now to read through it. If we don't want to use Sakwa, maybe when I get a chance, it won't be hard for someone to find a separate source for people fleeing a warzone. As for collaboration, there are probably also less obvious sources to find. There is also reference to Russian collaboration in the article for Terek Cossacks:

“ many Terek Cossacks jumped at the opportunity to show their loyalty, and formed volunteer units that operated with the Russian Army. These were created to fight in the Sunzha and Terek stanitsas against Chechens. ”

The person who added it is now mainly unactive... however, that does show that at the very least, we can search common sources on Cossack activity...--Yalens (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then I will re-write it. The fact that Dudayev was married on ethnic Russian, for example, is not directly relevant to the exodus of non-Vainakhs (unless some respectable book makes this connection). Also, collaboration is a bit loaded word ([14]) and in this case it should probably we replaced with a more neutral one. Alæxis_¿question? 12:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dudayev's marriage, aside from showing that he lacked any sort of racist hatred, is relevant as it discounts the claim that the policy of the Ichkerian government was to reduce the number of ethnic Russians artificially via forcing them to leave- if that was really the case, then would he "ethnically cleanse" his own wife out of the republic? It seems rather far-fetched. Dudayev was guilty of many failures in leadership, but ethnic cleansing was not one of them. As for collaboration... surely that is much less loaded then "terrorist" (exactly how many times is this used on the Second Chechen War, for example? Regardless of whether or not it is "terrorism", that is certainly much more inflammatory in the English language then "collaboration...), the boldfacing of the "Islamic Republic of Ichkeria" (originally done by a Russian user I presume- and a name that I have never seen used outside wikipedia...), and so on... yet there is no rush to delete these either. And anyways, what else do we call it besides collaboration? Assistance? It's pretty rare to use "assistance" in this context... --Yalens (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Having a Russian wife is not something exceptional for a Chechen, I'd only be surprised if he had a daughter married to Russian. Anyways, let's not discuss these matters here and stick to the rules of Wikipedia: if there's a mention in the sources of the ethnicity of Dudayev's wife in connection with his attitude towards minorities in Chechnya, then we can include this information in the article, otherwise it would be an example of wp:synth. Alæxis_¿question? 16:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Usage of the 'terrorists' here or elsewhere is irrelevant to this discussion; you are free to propose to remove or replace these words.

What I mean by loaded word is that the word 'collaboration' has negative connotations, meaning people who work together with enemy in an occupied country, aka traitors ([15]). No matter who you think were right in this conflict, this description doesn't fit ethnic Russians (inhabitants of north Chechen lowlands for several generations, usually) who fought against Chechens. Alæxis_¿question? 16:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there is not really much harm in changing it to assistance (I honestly was not seeing it that way; the French who helped the Nazis were collaborators, yet so were the Germans who helped the invading forces in WWII, so its not necessarily negative... but whatever). --Yalens (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (edit: I guess supported works too, though it's less vague than "assisted")

The Turlovs - Avar Lords of Chechenia

"...In the first half of the 17th centuy the Chechen Plain was settled by the Turlovs, feudal lords who had moved from Avaria (the Daghestan Upland). Being in the forefront of the struggle waged by the Chechens against the Kabardian and Kulmyik feudal lords, they united part of Chechen communities. In several historical documents the Turlovs are referred as the owners of the "land of the Chachan". The feudal relations of the Vainakhs however did not have a subsequent development. Thus, having made themselves free from the rule of the Kabardian and Kumyik lords, the Chechens banished their own feudal lords as well and began to live again united in free communities (societies). The Vainakhs have a saying:"When one is voted a prince (ela) the others become their slaves", which apparently dates back to that time..." from a chechen website : http://www.eng.kavkaz-uzel.ru/articles/1894/?print=true

You are an Avar, are you not? That's good- wikipedia needs more info on Avars and Avaria-related issues. You need to sign your posts though: just use --~~~~.

I have actually seen this page (the Caucasian Knot article- that's not really a Chechen website though!), I hope to incorporate it into the article soon. Yes, it is true that Avars ruled parts of Chechnya during that time- the Kabardins and Kumiks also took chunks of Chechen territory for their feudal purposes, plus there were some Chechen lords in some areas and then invasions by nomadic Nogai. The Chechens rose up and fought off all of these rulers and established what was pretty much a democratic system with representation based on teips (clans- rather than regions as in modern democracies, although teips were often regional). --Yalens (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And a little about İmam Shamil. All Chechens were leave him at Dargo war 1859 ! All of them were leave , they ran away , only one Chechen warrior did not , he came with Avars to İchichali aol and after 400 Avar and Andi warriors came with İmam Shamil to the Gunib fortress. Shameless Cossacks ( who learned Chechen language ) are speaking about Shamil in this website. Shamil never surrender , but after 40 days war in Gunib castle , 300 and more men died. There were no water , no food for children , old people and women who were in the castle. Shamil made peace talks with Russian general for these people. But Russian general arrested him. Shamil's life like Vercingetorix.

(you might want to brush up on your English a little, just saying). Imam Shamil is one of those historical figures that people either love or hate, and there's many different views of him. The Avars often view him as a national hero; Islamists in the Caucasus view him as a precursor to their own struggles; many Chechens often admire his temporarily successful defiance of Russia, yet many others distrusted him at the time for his percieved attempts to subjugate the Chechens to his own people; some scholars who researched Shamil saw in him a cynical politician who decieved people for his own gain (not unlike many politicians we see nowadays...); the Russians view him as another rebellious Caucasian and so on. It is true, according to reliable scholarly citation, however, that Shamil died in Kaluga, where he had written himself that he was enjoying himself (I'll give you that the Russians could have forced him to write that, but that's the citation). The best we can do is go with what reliable sources say. If you have another source that contradicts what it says on wiki, you're welcome to add it and we can discuss on the talk page of an article. --Yalens (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• Artzol batz - Avarian Khunz khanate's wolf
  Artzol batz - Avarian Khunz khanate's wolf

And a little about the "Chechen wolf". Avar Khanate's flag was with silver wolf , wolf with mountain symbols under his paws. This warrior wolf's name is Artsol batz. The silver wolf. Batz in Avarian. Borz in Chechenian. And when we look wolf myth in Chechenia - we see the Turlow Avar war lords foot prints there. Chechens learned wolf from Avars. Avars united weak Chechen tribes against to the Kumyks and Kabardian circassians. So then Chechens respects the "leader wolf" , but today they dont respect Shamil , Avars , Dagestan. Only cossacks are hate from Shamil. Wikipedia has many Cossacks from Chechenia.

Chechens and Avars aren't the only nations that revered the wolf (though you have to admit that the WAY that Chechens and Avars revered it was different). It's actually not that uncommon as a national animal. But you need to have citations for what you put (in general, that Avars "united Chechens against the Kumyks and Kabardians" is viewing it in a tinted spectacle-Chechens rose up against Avar lords too)... in general, I'd say the historical relations between Chechens and Avars is typical of that of neighbors. Sometimes roses, sometimes thorns, but having a lot in common nonetheless. --Yalens (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Turlovs aren't avars, they are kumyks, and they were expelled after frequent attacks by the Chechen mountainers ("tavlins"). And Avar wolf is borrowed from the Turks, who ruled the Avars. ethnonym "avar" was received from the Turks. Avars always expelled from Chechnya, as well as all other foreigners. Cossacks don't know Chechen language, don't say crazy things. Shamil was delivered by Imam primarily Chechens in Vedeno region, what is it an ethnic Avar not say anything Nitzalavar (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Siberia

From Urfinze's talkpage: Honestly, I'm amazed that you didn't see Siberia all over the sources (you read them right?), but hey everyone's clumsy sometimes. I'll give you one of the many quotes from one attesting as much:

“ On 23 February 1944, the Soviet authorities started to implement a plan to deport Chechens and Ingush en masse to Central Asia and Siberia. ”

That's from page 60 of Amjad Jaimoukha's The Chechens: A Handbook. I could give you so many more. This is actually a very basic piece of information. I hope this issue is resolved now. --Yalens (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The link you posted to Dunlop's book doesn't even include the section on the deportation... later on, he says (repeatedly) that they were sent to Siberia, but that section isn't in your link. --Yalens (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Siberia controversies

I think the most accurate is to say "Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and western Siberia, as well as scattered through the rest of the Soviet Union". But mostly Kazakhstan. Right now it's only Siberia, but it's just absolutely misleading. In Siberia, precisely at Krasnoyarsk, "about 4,000 Chechens were incarcerated in forced labor concentration camps". (Russia Confronts Chechnya: Roots of a Separatist Conflict, page 69) But it was not a place of exile. --Niemti (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

And to give figures and other details: "A great majority of the Vainakh resettlers were delivered to Kazakhstan (239,768 Chechens and 78,470 Ingushetians) and Kyrgyzstan (70,097 Chechens and 2,278 Ingushetians). In Kazakhstan, Chechens concentrated primarily in the Akmolinsk, Pavlodar, North Kazakhstan, Karaganda, East Kazakhstan, Semipalatinsk and Alma-Ata Oblasts, and in Kyrgyzstan in the Frunze and Osh Oblasts." (Against Their Will, page 148) --Niemti (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikifiy October

as per October list added wiki links through whole doc. Some links have been a few time been done twice, as the context and time since first linked would be useful to person with less knowledge on history of regions & sovereign states than the authors or enthusiasts. Same time not over linked. Hope that is alright. --Andys'edtits 15:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs) Checked toady - Sorry for disambiguations, and thanks who ever fixed them. --Andys'edtits 09:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andys'edtits (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of Chechnya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100801165952/http://www.chechnyafree.ru:80/en/article.php?IBLOCK_ID=364 to http://www.chechnyafree.ru/en/article.php?IBLOCK_ID=364&SECTION_ID=0&ELEMENT_ID=60853
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101116145625/http://www.history.neu.edu/fac/burds/Burds-FifthColumnists.pdf to http://www.history.neu.edu/fac/burds/Burds-FifthColumnists.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on History of Chechnya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130118063027/http://gzt.ru:80/politics/2004/02/27/050000.html to http://www.gzt.ru/politics/2004/02/27/050000.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041121235259/http://web.amnesty.org:80/library/Index/ENGEUR460251997?open&of=ENG-373 to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR460251997?open&of=ENG-373
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070630181656/http://www.pub.umich.edu:80/daily/1998/oct/10-26-98/news/news8.html to http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/oct/10-26-98/news/news8.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121104023805/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101018/lf_nm_life/us_russia_chechnya_brides_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101018/lf_nm_life/us_russia_chechnya_brides_1

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

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of Chechnya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527103905/http://www.hro.org:80/editions/karta/nr9/avt1.htm to http://www.hro.org/editions/karta/nr9/avt1.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9812/08/chechnya.01/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080312184427/http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15848/pub_detail.asp to http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.15848/pub_detail.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930160142/http://www.nupi.no/cgi-win/Russland/krono.exe?2487 to http://www.nupi.no/cgi-win/Russland/krono.exe?2487
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080408194614/http://www.ridgway.pitt.edu/docs/working_papers/BeslanFINALreport12-3-07.pdf to http://www.ridgway.pitt.edu/docs/working_papers/BeslanFINALreport12-3-07.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on History of Chechnya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080311090332/http://ingush.berkeley.edu:7012/ingush_people.html to http://ingush.berkeley.edu:7012/ingush_people.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227164034/http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~bsp/caucasus/newsletter/2003-04ccan.pdf to http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~bsp/caucasus/newsletter/2003-04ccan.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101220174728/http://semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=479 to http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=479
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101116145625/http://www.history.neu.edu/fac/burds/Burds-FifthColumnists.pdf to http://www.history.neu.edu/fac/burds/Burds-FifthColumnists.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613005952/http://cacianalyst.org/files/20060308Analyst.pdf to http://www.cacianalyst.org/files/20060308Analyst.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911094730/http://www.iai.it/pdf/articles/brownfeld.pdf to http://www.iai.it/pdf/articles/brownfeld.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112062315/http://www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php?id=688&PHPSESSID=460043a9ad74cade2aa4777e6c4c5248 to http://www.gfbv.de/pressemit.php?id=688&PHPSESSID=460043a9ad74cade2aa4777e6c4c5248
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080214231526/http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=21&issue_id=1353&article_id=13685 to http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=21&issue_id=1353&article_id=13685
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090215210042/http://topnews.ru/news_id_12951.html to http://www.topnews.ru/news_id_12951.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010022751/http://www.jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2373419 to http://www.jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2373419

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) 02:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131021163232/http://www.asor.org/pubs/nea/back-issues/ba/zimansky.html to http://www.asor.org/pubs/nea/back-issues/ba/zimansky.html

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) 08:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Georgian empire with tributaries.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Useful Johanna Nichols paper

[16] For her views on Chechen (and Ingush) archaeohistory. --Calthinus (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)